(Part one in a two-part series)
When searching for information on professional development and what works for teachers, an inquiry will surface titles such as “effective professional development in 5 easy steps…” or “strategies for effective professional development…” These beg the question, “Would I want to offer ineffective professional development to teachers?” Yet, those of us who have worked in education recognize the challenge of finding professional development opportunities that meet the needs of the myriad of professionals working in schools with a broad range of expertise, knowledge and skills. Coupling this goal of meeting the professional learning needs of the many differently skilled faculty members with an equal desire to have all PD have a direct impact on student learning adds to the challenge.
One of the sources I recently discovered that provided well researched insight into this topic came from the Research Partnership for Professional Learning (PL) in October of 2022. The report, titled Building Better PL: How to Strengthen Teacher Learning, attracted me to it as the introduction notes the recent advancements in PL that are focused on improving teacher practice and student learning. According to their research, the two key components to PL are the “how” and the “what.” This information aligns well with my experience of working with 50+ schools and hearing from teachers as to what works and what doesn’t work and seeing firsthand the direct correlation between good PL and improved student outcomes. A school administrative team can offer the best content but, if not delivered in a manner that resonates with best practice, the PL can fall flat. Similarly, the best process without good content has the potential to be viewed as a waste of precious time. In this two-part series, part one will focus on the “how” and part two will focus on the “what.”
The research done by Heather Hill and John Papay identifies well-structured collaboration as a key component to good PL. The key to this lies in the phrase “well-structured,” as loosely formed PLCs and teacher-to-teacher partnerships don’t always equate with improved teaching and learning opportunities. Late start school days meant to provide time each week to faculty professional learning are only effective if the time spent is focused on an identified common purpose. Collaborative practices, like most change oriented opportunities, must be directly linked to shared specific goals.
The other “how” identified by Hill and Papay is the 1:1 coaching model focused on improving instructional practice. While many schools employ instructional coaches, it appears as if this is money well spent particularly if the role of coach isn’t a split duty administrative role and allows the coach to do the necessary pre-work, locate essential resources, and support the instruction that will directly impact student learning. In this time of teacher shortages, the role of coach becomes even more essential as the research on strategic staffing suggests schools need to find more innovative ways to support teachers in doing the work of educating students. Lastly, we must not forget the follow up meetings that accompany successful professional learning opportunities. Providing teachers with set aside time to ask follow up questions, share feedback, improve practice, or challenge assumptions is critical to success. And, as Hill and Papay note, “follow up sessions may serve as a powerful accountability level…” (p. 8).
While there is no one size fits all professional learning program for schools on the market today, we can work to improve our offerings to teachers so they in turn can continue to do the difficult yet rewarding work of educating young people for our future.
We were treating faith as a set of building blocks (which we had, and most of the faculty and staff didn’t). If we just gave each of them the building blocks of our course offerings, then the pieces would add up to faith.
Around that same time, I was reading Our Hearts Were Burning Within Us, and reflecting on passages like this: “Faith is living and active, sharing many of the qualities of living things: it grows and develops over time; it learns from experience. … Adults need to question, probe, and critically reflect on the meaning of God's revelation in their unique lives in order to grow closer to God.”
One way we can imagine them is like a photo collage. They all fit together, they are all shown at the same time. Some are a little larger, and you look at them first. Others are a little smaller, and get less of your attention. This might be how a school’s value proposition messages are communicated on the website or in the school’s printed materials. The first message is about faith, the second message is about academics, the third message is about community, the fourth message is about athletics, and so on. It’s an efficient way to communicate, but it’s not always completely effective. If a parent’s top priority is a connected community where their child will fit in and make friends, and the first and largest message is about religious instruction and the school’s authentic Catholic identity – or vice versa – then parents may not yet be convinced that this school is the right fit for them.
A second way of thinking of the school’s value proposition messages is like the cards you hold in your hand when you are playing a game. You have six or seven cards, but each time it is your turn to play, you can pick the card that will be the best fit for that situation. This is how you can approach your value proposition messages when you have an interview and school tour. You have an assortment of authentic messages about your school to draw from, and you can pick the right two or three messages that are the most appropriate fit for that particular family. The key is to know what drives the decision-making of prospective parents, and the best way to find out is simply to ask them.
