Context is one of the largest downfalls of professional development as schools continue the tradition of the “drive-by” structure. Teachers are pulled into a room, usually on a day that they see as “off” from their normal duty, to receive one or many PowerPoint presentations. On top of that, the overall one-shot development structure focuses on hitting as many as those that are not seen as “effective” in the current eyes of administration. As Hirsh states, “Just because the trainer explains and may even model a new reading method, classroom instruction may look very different from that model when teachers return to their classrooms” (2006, p.67). By doing this collectively, many experienced teachers become segregated by the often mundane task of doing activities, such as on the topic of questioning, when those teachers are earning the highest status for questioning on their evaluations. After time, this becomes a catalyst for negative associations between teachers that need more advancement individually and those that need more help with other aspects of teaching. This process of negativity continues to boil and in my opinion, fuels the apathetic and lack of growth by once mastery teachers. This context of auditorium style PD implies that the only professional development is that which only the middle of the road and struggling teachers need; however, experienced teachers can zone out because they don’t need to improve on those topics. This complacency might become empowered and reduce the likelihood of progressive changes later in the teaching career cycle.
In order to maintain the growth of all educators on different levels, a more developed and robust professional development system must be implemented and maintained. I think of it as painting the roads and suggesting a route, but the drivers must choose their path. By outlining goals and using data, the context can shift to be more individual in nature. As teachers grow, their version of professional development might change from the previous and traditional views. District and school leaders paint the lines and act as Google Maps, suggesting a route, but the professional educator must be a large piece of choosing the final destination and route to get there. While many administrators believe this may overload them in structuring a complex system, schools should look to best practices and sequences already in use and producing results.
Looking into Learning Forward, prerequisite 3 from their opening guide to the standards addresses the needed modernization of professional development: “Because there are disparate experience levels and use of practice among educators, professional learning can foster collaborative inquiry and learning that enhances individual and collective performance” (n.d., p. 3). The context must match the understanding that teachers engage in professional development at different levels in different ways. Differentiation in PD must catch up to differentiation in the classroom. This should look like a general pathway of showing levels of teaching mastery and include an evaluation of current skills. As teachers cycle through, they can then shift paths to become instructional leaders and lead PLCs in discussions and changes directly impacting that group’s needs. At the next level, teachers can choose to perform book studies or complete action-research. Primarily, the context must be authentic and impact the teacher directly which in turn impact student outcomes. Professional development closest to the teacher's classroom and placing educators in charge may produce the most effective professional development structure.
References
Hirsh, S. (2006). IC maps help educators find their way in implementing standards. Journal of Staff Development, 27(1), 67-68.
Retrieved from the ProQuest Central database.
Learning Forward. (n.d.). Standards for professional learning: quick reference guide. Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/standardsreferenceguide.pdf
In order to maintain the growth of all educators on different levels, a more developed and robust professional development system must be implemented and maintained. I think of it as painting the roads and suggesting a route, but the drivers must choose their path. By outlining goals and using data, the context can shift to be more individual in nature. As teachers grow, their version of professional development might change from the previous and traditional views. District and school leaders paint the lines and act as Google Maps, suggesting a route, but the professional educator must be a large piece of choosing the final destination and route to get there. While many administrators believe this may overload them in structuring a complex system, schools should look to best practices and sequences already in use and producing results.
Looking into Learning Forward, prerequisite 3 from their opening guide to the standards addresses the needed modernization of professional development: “Because there are disparate experience levels and use of practice among educators, professional learning can foster collaborative inquiry and learning that enhances individual and collective performance” (n.d., p. 3). The context must match the understanding that teachers engage in professional development at different levels in different ways. Differentiation in PD must catch up to differentiation in the classroom. This should look like a general pathway of showing levels of teaching mastery and include an evaluation of current skills. As teachers cycle through, they can then shift paths to become instructional leaders and lead PLCs in discussions and changes directly impacting that group’s needs. At the next level, teachers can choose to perform book studies or complete action-research. Primarily, the context must be authentic and impact the teacher directly which in turn impact student outcomes. Professional development closest to the teacher's classroom and placing educators in charge may produce the most effective professional development structure.
References
Hirsh, S. (2006). IC maps help educators find their way in implementing standards. Journal of Staff Development, 27(1), 67-68.
Retrieved from the ProQuest Central database.
Learning Forward. (n.d.). Standards for professional learning: quick reference guide. Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/standardsreferenceguide.pdf