We know professional development is important. We know that professional development is often perceived as a colossal waste of time. We also know that most professional development is "sit and get" and/or designed to try to introduce a general topic for all teachers, regardless of grade level or content area. And we know how those models contribute to the perception that most scheduled PD is a colossal waste of time. Why have we been so reluctant to introduce changes?
The problems of time and choice
I met with some administrators and teachers recently. We talked about administrator expectations for professional development. Post-meeting whispers were that teachers just wanted to know what they needed to do to be compliant so they could get back to teaching.
For educators, time is always an issue, whether it is enough time to plan, enough time to provide the kind of support teachers really need, or enough time for the actual professional development teachers need and want.
Peter Senge and the learning organization
The Fifth Discipline (1990) caught the attention of business leaders and managers around the world and prompted conversations about what it means to be a learning organization. Senge describes learning organizations as "organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together" (p. 3).
The five disciplines Senge elucidates are: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and team learning. You can find a more detailed overview of Senge's work here. What is interesting, however, is how erratically a school, an organization designed for learning, is so rarely a learning organization, even a learning culture. Sure, this language and this work is generally geared towards businesses, but certainly there is room for seeing and applying the parallels.
What PD isn't and could be
For any professional development to be effective, it must be targeted and cannot be implemented as a "one and done." As I've said before and as many have said before me, there is no secret sauce and no magic bullet for successful professional development.
And, furthermore, just as one-size-fits-all learning isn't ideal for students, one-size-fits-all professional development is ludicrous for teachers. Sure, there may be some workshops that can be generalized for teachers of all grade levels, content areas, and years of experience. But new/er teachers have different needs than struggling teachers who have different interests than more experienced teachers.
There are few PD providers who are surprised when some number of teachers schlep in a bag full of stuff, settle in the back, and do their own thing. Those are the folks who readily and shamelessly communicate that this PD event is a waste of their time. Every now and then we might be lucky enough to have one or two of those individuals set aside their grading, planning, or whatever else they're doing to pay attention. That's when we know we've touched on something of interest even to those who think (and often are) more skilled.
So now what?
You know how students will rise or fall to the level of expectations we have for them? The same is true for teachers. If they think the administration thinks they're mediocre, they will have no incentive to try to improve. They are likely to figure their administrators are unlikely to change their minds, so why bother? Which brings me to growth mindset.
Carol Dweck and her colleagues have brought to our educational consciousness the concept of growth mindset which posits there are individuals who "believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through
dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point" and, more importantly, that growth mindset can be taught.
Instructional leaders and administrators who accept the theory of growth mindset realize the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that keep teachers striving to improve. They also acknowledge that those teachers with a fixed mindset are the individuals to whom they need to give different support and attention. There are ways that "[l]eaders can work to cultivate a growth mindset" and, I believe, a culture of growth mindset in their schools.
But teachers don't have to wait on their leaders. They can begin to make those changes on their own each time they make an incremental change in their instructional planning and practice that makes a difference for their students. While teachers should keep communicating to their administrations when professional development is insufficient, inappropriate, and/or unsatisfactory, they cannot rely on complaining. They also have to be willing to make and take the time to build a realistic professional development plan. And they have to be willing to continue to ask for help and for support. Administrators can find ways to fund initiatives that are going to make a difference for the students and their learning.
If we want to model the importance of learning and the value of teachable moments, there is no time like the present to draft that professional development plan and start working on some goals now.
For one of many possible ways to develop a professional development plan, check out my resources here. If you see anything you like and want, send me an email and I'll get the documents to you.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Thursday, March 12, 2015
As I witness teachers and students working through the processes and the tests, I've reflected on this article by Heidi Stevens (@heidistevens13). Her words saddened and heartened me.
Teachers spending too much time assessing their students? Not possible. But I'm thinking about assessment in forms different from reading logs. I'm thinking of the dozens of formative assessments teachers do every single class period and the micro-decisions they make about instruction and classroom management as a result. Reading logs? Those are a different story. And prescriptive reading logs that document that a child "has engaged in at least 20 minutes of non-homework reading per day"? That gives me heartburn.
First, I don't know what "engaged in" means. I suppose the teacher means the child has actually read for 20 minutes, but what if the child read for 10 minutes and then had an online chat with a friend about that book for another 10 minutes? Is that engagement? In my opinion, yes, that's engagement (and not just because that kind of activity means students might demonstrate skills related to reading standards, but also to speaking and listening standards).
Second, what's the purpose of the 20-minute minimum? I'm guessing that's based on some form of research that suggests a minimum of 20 minutes of "engagement" makes some sort of difference in something. Yes, there is research that tells us that independent reading makes a difference in children's literacy development. There is no doubt about that. The more time they spend reading independently can matter, but it's the amount of time they spend reading. Period. (A study by the American Library Association (ALA) can be found here and another study in response to the National Reading Panel can be found here. Those are random selections; there are others.)
Third, distilling the possible adventures of reading to numbers of pages, minutes, and even stars seems a demoralizing and counterproductive effort. Yes, teachers need to encourage students to read and need to encourage parents to encourage their children to read, but a reading log tactic just makes everyone grumpy, including the teachers.
Heidi Stevens is a mom with a conscience, but also one who wants her children to enjoy reading. So sometimes she is forced to lie on the forms, but she makes up stories for and with her children. And sometimes, like many parents and older siblings and babysitters and aunts and other adults, her children read or has read-aloud the same book over and over and over (and over) again.
With confining and prescriptive forms to complete, reading becomes a chore rather than an opportunity for discovery, even learning.
I believe in good rubrics and I know how hard they can be to write. I can see the value of logs and checklists, as long as we don't try to become so efficient in how we measure, monitor, and otherwise quantify student work and progress that we overlook how messy and delightfully unpredictable learning can be.