Sit and Get - Almost Nothing

         Recently I was present for a required conference for a grant we have at the school. I could say “attended” but that implies that I gave the conference sessions a degree of mental space. Much like the current accountability system, the conference, required under the grant conditions, was one-size-fits all. Judging by the constant chatter across the room, the size fit none. As easy as it was to take the annoyance we felt out on the presenters, other than the ones giving factually incorrect information, I felt for them because they carried out the requirements of the grant. They did not establish the topics or expectations.

Our goals. Our progress. Our needs. Nothing in the conference presentation considered these factors despite each of them being written into the grant and the regular reports we submit. Despite the structural failure of the conference, my team successfully accomplished our goals because we took the relatively uninterrupted time to do the required work. Had the conference been 2 ½ days working with our grant overseer, we could have completed even more work.

Just as we were frustrated by spending 2 ½ days in a hotel ballroom with an agenda that did not support our work, the same argument runs rampant with educators at all levels who attend professional development session after professional development session that does not meet the needs of their position. Most educators I know dread professional development days more than the most challenging day in the classroom. The structures we (school and district administrators) have in place constrain us as much as the conference presenters were constrained by the requirements of the grant. We still rely on “presenters” to deliver the instruction for staff at all levels. Under this structure, there are only so many presenters available, thus the topics are limited. Educators then are either assigned to a session that may or may not “develop” them or they choose the least objectionable topic.

The structure continues to be the barrier.

We (administrators) demand teachers use technology for primary instruction and to differentiate instruction for students who excel or struggle. We purchase these technology based tools to support student learning.

Why do we not do the same thing for teachers and other professionals? MIT, Yale and other universities through the MOOCs (Massively Open Online Courses) have demonstrated that high quality courses can be delivered online for low cost (currently these courses are free). Over 160,000 students signed up for one of the courses. The courses offered from the universities may not meet the needs of our teachers, but the success of the courses has shown that effective instruction can be delivered to masses of people at the same time. It also shows that the professors (professional developers) can be much more productive – they do not have to be present to teach.

Changing the professional development structure also changes the expertise required of the administrators through the entire chain of leadership. Those charged with delivering professional development for educators will have to become experts in the various sources. No longer would they be bound by the skills of a limited group who deliver the training locally but by the range of skills found in educators globally. In addition to understanding the various resources, the administrator will need an understanding of developing a truly personalized professional development plan in collaboration with the teacher (educator).

Much of the process is already in place through teacher appraisal systems. The required change comes in what we do with the information gained in those appraisals - the process by which we connect professionals with resources that measurably increase their skills. Implementing that process requires training of those at the top. It is not a bottom up change, but in this case the success begins with implementation at the top.

The conference this week only cemented my belief that the professional development structure is just one of many traditional structures in education that can (should) be changed to make best use of the human capital. New resources provide the opportunity to profoundly change our practice. Tradition has value, but that when it undermines effectiveness and progress, it becomes history. Professional development organizations have established frameworks for new delivery. Now it is time for administrators to develop our understanding of these frameworks to give those we oversee the best resources available. One size does not fit all. Rather than sell prêt-à-porter, we must become tailors.