BFTP: Responsibility for effective staff development
Saturday, September 8, 2012 at 06:59AM 
A weekend Blue Skunk "feature" will be a revision of an old post. I'm calling this BFTP: Blast from the Past. Original post, September 16, 2007.
One of my major tasks over the next couple weekends is to put together a two-day workshop for a school in the Philippines. It looks like nearly 60 educators will be giving up an entire weekend to come a learn about how to use technology to improve teaching and learning. I don't want to disappoint.
Effective staff development in the technology area has long been of interest to me. (I even wrote a book about it a long time ago.) I am not sure that we as a profession have yet figured out a way of helping all teachers acquire the skills they need to use technology effectively - anymore than we as a profession have figured out a way to teach every child the skills needed to thrive. But I hope we can keep getting better
A few thoughts regarding staff development...
1. Professional development should be considered the responsibility of the professional, not the organization. Seems like I remember someplace in the dark recesses of what passed for my formal education that I was told that in order to be considered a "professional" one had to take responsibility for one's own learning. Some educators complain that "teachers must get their training on their own time and often using their own money." And the problem here is....?
I will bet dollars to doughnuts that you, dear reader, consider perusing this blog some sick form of "professional development" and that you aren't reading it during school time. Dedicated professionals have always learned both in formal and informal ways, have done most learning outside the school day, have paid their own costs, and have made it a priority.
This is called being professional. Teachers need to act like professionals if they wish to be regarded as such. Sorry, but it's the truth. The logical consequence of professionals not taking their learning seriously is that they are so ineffectual they will no longer be employable. Well, that's the theory.
2. Organizations should facilitate individual/individualized staff development. I have advocated for an IEP for every teacher, especially in the area of technology. In articles from 2000/2001 issues of Leading & Learning, I described our district efforts to create "professional growth targets" as a means of organizing technology staff development initiatives.
To meet a professional growth target for a year, we expect teachers to take about 30 non-school hours to learn enough to move at least one level on one of the Rubrics for Restructuring. The teacher, principal and other specialists jointly plan how those 30 hours are spent, and how the gain in knowledge and skills can be demonstrated and documented.
Tools to help make this happen are in the articles.
This worked pretty good for a couple years in our district, Here is what teachers told us about the approach:
At the district level, we have assessed the viability of such an individualized staff development approach. By using a survey tool, we found of the 38 respondents that:
70% felt they had successfully completed the PGT
70% thought the plan was clear
81% found the work they did meaningful
55% found the work they did learning about technology also helped them in other educational areas
78% found there were sufficient PGT options from which to choose
44% found these PGTs more rigorous than those in the past; 33% found them as rigorous
And then it fell apart, and I am not quite sure why. Mostly, I think, it was a lack of monitoring on the part of administrators as to whether any work was actually done. It's easier to just count heads in a formal staff development session. Our staff development folks, including our computer coordinator, didn't really buy into it. There was a general lack of trust that teachers would do the right thing. It was ahead of its time. i did not have the personal charisma to keep selling the project. Who knows?
Interestingly enough, our current Professional Learning Communities have some of these same elements, except now it is small groups rather than individuals who are planning and being held accountable for professional learning. A step in the right direction.
And I've not yet given up the fight about IEPs/PGTs for teacher technology competencies. We just need to somehow thread them into the work the PLCs are doing to improve teacher competencies in general.
And I would argue that more than ever, there is no one "right" set of technology skills needed by all teachers K-12 today.
3. "Sit and git" has its place within the larger plan. First a disclaimer: I make pretty good beer money by going to conferences and giving one-time workshops and breakout sessions. I also enjoy attending these (sometimes). Sit and Git, Spray and Pray, Drive-by Staff Development (whatever the clever derogatory appellation du jour for short sessions offered during professional development days or conference is), learning opportunities ought not to be simply dismissed as ineffective and drop kicked from the educational ball field. Like classroom lectures, good short sessions can be effective in meeting specific purposes. Those include:
- Introducing participants to a new concept, theory or practice with the expectation of self-directed follow-up. (What is meant by authentic assessment.)
- Teaching specific, useful skills, especially if practiced within the time allotted. (How to design a good rubric. How to create a class wiki.)
- Bending a mindset or encouraging an action. (Assessments can be used not just for ranking students, but to actually improve the learning process.)
Concrete, even discrete, learning opportunities have a place in professional development, provided they are part of a larger profession growth plan or teacher IEP.
Since I have written this, the whole notion of technology-enabled Professional Learning Networks has been touted as a means of helping teachers stay informed and involved in their own PD. I know it's my main source of learning opportunities. I also believe there is a growing realization among many educators that relevance is a critical element of education. And in order to understand what is relevant to an individual, you need to know that individual.
I'm going to be experimenting with Edmodo for the workshop in the PI - both as a means of getting to know the participants in the workshop beforehand and as a means to continue the conversation after the event. I'll let you know how that works out.
Reader Comments (3)
Very relevant post to what I want to do in my new district - job embedded learning. I'm trying to figure out how I pitch it. I've intro'd it to a few from our leadership team...it's just kind of nebulous for some. People are used to "event learning." Don't think they like it much, but that's what they are used to. It will be challenging, but fun to empower folks to take charge and find ways to grow on their own terms (kinda...) Just worried about the falling apart possibility. It is a lot of work to individualize learning, follow-up and track it. It's a lot easier to pay a speaker for a day and count heads at 8 am and after lunch. But that way doesn't get us anywhere....
Hi Nathan,
Yup - it's changing a mindset. I also think "technology" training is best embedded in other professional development goals. This takes a high level of communication between tech and the teaching and learning folks in a district.
Take a look at my blog post on embedding tech competencies in the Danielson model too.
Good luck,
Doug
Oh, some of us make some beer money on the "drive-by" workshops. Don't do away them altogether!
Thanks for the link Doug. Looks like something worth stealing (and giving credit of course). We are just starting to kick the tires on online learning. I'm starting by putting my educational tech group on Edmodo to extend our discussions. I figure that's a good place to start...now Google has a course builder too I want to check out. So many options!