It doesn’t make sense. Teachers think about their own students’ learning day in and day out. They offer learning opportunities every second of every day for their students. They are, or should be, preoccupied with learning and all its contours. So why would they show such disdain for their own opportunities to learn? The research literature–and many teachers–tell us that educators are indeed interested in learning how to enhance their instruction, but that in most cases the TPD is passive, disconnected from their contexts, uncollaborative, boring, focused on what teachers are perceived to be doing wrong or insufficiently, and lacking in follow-through. Why? Perhaps the common TPD model is culpable.

 

The traditional model goes something like this: School or school district leaders call in a so-called expert/consultant who appears to have the answer to a problem that they themselves have identified (e.g., low academic achievement of ML). The expert then travels many miles to the sites (after all, who can be a prophet in their own land?), arrives at the school, deposits “expertise,” and leaves. In this scenario, no one has asked the teachers what they believe the problem is or even if they think there is one. Furthermore, in this model, no one is accountable—not the expert, not the administration, not the teachers. After the so-called TPD, the expert leaves, the administrators go on administrating, and the teachers continue teaching, just as they have before. What might remain is a canned curriculum, sold by the expert’s company, which promises to raise student achievement as measured by test scores. Claims that the curriculum is research-based are never questioned, but purchases are made regardless. The ever-present binder, and everything else purchased, gathers dust. It is particularly sad that much of the wasted TPD time and money is spent by schools that can ill-afford to waste anything (i.e., Title 1 schools).

 

But the “expert” model is not the only category of failure in TPD. Another is the “motivational” speaker, who has no content expertise but who someone believes will inspire teachers to work harder. This never works and here’s why: The vast majority of teachers are working as hard as they can, or at least as hard as their lives will allow them to. The other teachers, a small minority, who are genuinely unmotivated and don’t care, will certainly not be motivated by a speech, even if they are listening. Thus, the motivational speech serves no one. However, we shouldn’t discount interesting writers and thinkers who come up with ideas that inspire teachers. If a particular writer has penned something motivational and worthwhile, buy the book or send the video link around for review by a few teachers, give them time or extra duty pay for review, then ask them if it’s worth spending money on the book for others. If so, buy copies of the book and share. In most cases, you don’t need to pay the writer to make a speech, unless teachers themselves show an interest in meeting the author.

1. The myth that school-wide PD is necessary. In the 1990s, many writers and researchers made the argument that effective PD must be school-wide. I think many educators at the time questioned this claim. At the secondary school level, where teachers are highly specialized, school wide TPD had no chance of working, and it’s becoming clear that TPD at the elementary school level is also untenable. With the initiation of TK classes, the range of ages served in the elementary school has widened. Fifth grade teachers and TK teachers have very different needs and interests. And with the advent of the CCSS, the curriculum has become more specialized; therefore, teachers have become more specialized, their work more contextualized. In addition, most elementary schools have only 2-3 teachers at a grade level, which is not quite enough for a club. Eight to 10 teachers in the same predicament should form a club, working across schools, districts, or even state lines. There are other reasons to avoid school level PD (see next entry).
2. In addition to the growing teacher specialization described above, an increasing number of schools have an instructional theme (e.g., STEAM, Technology, Arts).  For teachers at these schools, where the recruitment of students/families may also play a functioning role, they need to connect with teachers working in a similar context at the same or similar grade level. Because most districts will have but one elementary with a specific theme, cross district TPD is required. In particular, this allows teachers at the same grade level to work together on their professional growth across schools.
3. We assume that school leaders (e.g., building principals) must be fully “on board” with any TPD at their school site. This is generally not the case. Teachers can choose to engage in TPD without administrative support or knowledge. In fact, teachers may be more motivated to participate if administrators are not.
4. The assumption that all teachers are ready for the same TPD. Any school will have a wide range of teacher experience, which determines what TPD they are prepared for, if at all. For example, including beginning teachers in TPD is likely to stress them out. They are forming their instruction and aren’t ready to reform it. Like students, teacher professional growth varies by experience, but the “sweet spot” for successful TPD probably comes when teachers are in their 5th-15th year. Teachers nearing retirement might be given a pass on TPD if they choose. Finally, a portion of the teachers in any school will deride and look cynically on ANY TPD. It’s depressing and counterproductive to include them. School-wide TPD, in which every teacher is forced to participate.
5. A curious avoidance of technology. Although no one liked the COVID-19 remote world for the instruction of children and youth, we did learn that educators can save time and money by utilizing video conference applications. In addition, today’s mid-level smart phone/tablet can record video in resolutions high enough (720P) to capture classroom activity with ease. Cloud storage (e.g., Google Drive) is now ubiquitous, nearly limitless, and allows for large file sharing regardless of physical location.
6. A pervasive myth that some so-called expert knows how to raise test scores, but we just haven’t found them yet, so we need to keep looking. If any so-called expert genuinely knew how to raise achievement test scores, especially among low-income students, we would all know about it. The only way to raise student achievement is high quality teaching from high quality teachers, and then more high-quality teaching. And even then, the link between growth in teaching skills and student performance takes time and is not easily documented. The debacle of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) demonstrates how unscrupulous “researchers” borrow others’ ideas without offering credit and then fake research data to sell materials. You hadn’t heard? Take a look.
7. No substitute teachers available, meaning that the TPD fails before it starts. Various reports show that substitutes are nowhere to be found, especially in more disadvantaged schools. TPD that relies on releasing teachers during the school day has little chance of succeeding in today’s environment.

In spite of all the evidence provided above, school leaders still may rely on the old ways. LSVC might not feel as though teachers are “learning” or altering their instruction. Some may say that the teachers, who may not know what they are doing in the first place, are talking only to each other. Fair concern, but little if any learning was gained using the traditional TPD methods. Furthermore, we have research evidence that teachers learn and change their instruction (for the better) as a result of LSVC (see our article). Will student achievement increase as a consequence? We don’t yet have direct research evidence, but neither do any of the “experts.” It might be enough for teachers to believe that they are improving their instruction. And our data suggest that they genuinely enjoy LSVC. How many TPD opportunities can say that?