Barely 1% of training [CUREE] looked at was effectively transforming classroom practice.”
Teacher Development Trust
It’s not often I lay claim to membership of ‘The 1%.’ On CPD, however, I’m optimistic – I believe our school’s programme of teacher development has overcome some of the flaws found in many schools and is helping teachers to transform their practice.
What’s wrong with CPD?
Doug Lemov has argued persuasively there are three main ways schools can better the standard of teaching: labour market strategies to attract and retain good teachers; incentives and performance management to reward good practice (or punish bad); and helping existing teachers improve. He notes that most schools concentrate on the first two, yet the first is a zero-sum game – one school’s gain is another’s loss – while the second achieves little unless teachers’ improvement is supported. As for the third:
Endeavors in the development category are often especially challenging, which may explain why they are less prevalent in the current conversation about improving schools. Development strategies must overcome an established historical precedent of low-quality professional development offerings and resulting teacher skepticism. They must win over teachers who are often suspicious when asked or required to attend development sessions. (“I must be here because people question my work.”)
“Plus there’s the plain fact that we continue to have limited insight into what works — either in the classroom or in the training sessions — and how to support teachers in applying what they’ve learned in the training sessions to their classrooms. As a result, professional development often becomes an afterthought, with insufficient investment or consideration resulting in ineffective approaches. Thus, the most powerful management tools go unused and remain underleveraged.”
This goes some way to explain the phenomenon of teacher improvement plateauing, surprisingly early in most teachers’ careers (elegantly summarised by Alex Quigley). Continuing Professional Development could, and should, help us to overcome this effect, but, as Professor Robert Coe observes:
We do not know a lot about the impact of teachers’ CPD on students’ learning outcomes, but what we do know suggests two important things: that the right kinds of CPD can produce big benefits for learners, and that most of the CPD undertaken by teachers is not of this kind.”
This post’s epigraph comes from the Teacher Development Trust and derives from a CUREE study examining CPD provision. The majority was described as ‘informing, influencing or embedding’ ideas – rather than transforming practice, for which providers had to offer tools to support and sustain collaborative implementation of improvements.*
I suspect every teacher has endured Inset of dubious utility (and validity) and that most have had weeks in which they felt they lacked even a moment for professional development. Likewise, many will have endured meetings or briefings whose hallowed forms obscure their irrelevance to teacher improvement. This is too well-known to be worth much discussion; more interesting, I hope, is my optimism about CPD at my own school.
Why am I optimistic about CPD?
I would say this, wouldn’t I: I’m responsible for CPD. I hope to offer evidence suggesting this is more than just wishful thinking, but this is only our second year and the programme remains a work in progress; I hope that describing our approach may offer others useful ideas, while eliciting criticism from which we can learn.
What we do:
Our school day runs until 5.30; on Mondays, the last hour and a half is devote to ‘staff enrichment,’ following a monthly cycle:
1) Whole school Inset – sessions dedicated to matters of importance to everyone; this year this has included: differentiation, working with TAs and stretch and challenge – many of which topics are likely to be covered each year.
2) Departmental CPD – time planned and executed by heads of department (and sometimes collaboratively between departments).
3) Teacher Learning Communities – implementing Assessment for Learning based on Dylan Wiliam’s model. We have renamed the five strategies thus (to be sung to the tune of ‘London Bridge is Falling Down:’)
Tasks to find out what they know
Help each other
Help themselves
Feedback to help them grow
Share intentions”
Otherwise, we are pretty faithful to the structure Wiliam advocates, mindful of his point that it derives from extensive experimentation. We reflect on peer-observations and attempted changes since the last session, examine new ideas, plan how they can be used and schedule observations to see this happen.
4) Menu – a choice of sessions allowing staff to pursue their interests and needs. This year, there have been two choices each month, such as leadership, behaviour management, difficult conversations, literacy and cloud computing; as we grow, more options will be viable.
How we do it:
We focus on teaching and learning
If it doesn’t help improve teaching, I try to ensure it doesn’t happen. As the only time all staff are together, there are an impressive number of calls on this time; many have merit, not all are developmental. I haven’t won every battle (a dismal afternoon on fire safety was my worst loss), but collegial recalcitrance has helped ensure I’m doing fairly well in the war to focus on what matters.
We distribute leadership
Running sessions
Almost all CPD is run by classroom teachers and heads of department: by the end of this year, every teacher will have led at least part of a session. We aren’t particularly hierarchical and our SLT is small and busy, but it’s more than expediency: this ensures teachers hear a range of perspectives and everyone has the chance to undergo the transformative experience of synthesising their practice – (a challenge which often helps catalyse their own improvement).
Choosing topics
Our choice of sessions is partly informed by the SDP and SLT’s perception of key areas for development, but the staff wish list is an equally important influence in our planning.
Doing it ourselves
My colleagues can usually do a more useful job of sharing best practice, tailored to our needs, than external providers; I’m determined, wherever possible, to base our CPD on our own teachers’ learning.
We seek to learn what is best practice
Some sessions are based on research – I often return to the studies on which AfL is based in preparing TLCs, for example, while the Assistant Head shared what he’d learned on NPQSL. Equally, we synthesise what we learn about from great teachers: I based a behaviour session on Doug Lemov while the head of maths introduced us to DIRT time based on the blogs of David Didau and Alex Quigley.
How do we know it works?
The most powerful evidence has been seeing ideas pass through the conduit of CPD sessions and flourish around the school. To give three examples:
– almost every teacher has tried hinge questions
– many departments have adopted process sheets and preflight checklists
– all departments employ SCWEAC time (Scholarly Contemplation With Extension and Consolidation – like DIRT but better!)
Seeing this happen is hugely satisfying – but I’m always wary of deluding myself through positive anecdotes. I take feedback on individual sessions, but our most grounded source of evidence is an end-of-term survey, which provides information as to what teachers have actually implemented (not just the ideas they liked); and goes some way to overcoming the weaknesses of self-report by asking line managers about the improvements they have seen in those they manage. From last Christmas, some headlines include:
- All teachers agreed ‘CPD has helped me become a better teacher this term’
- Everyone was able to provide examples of changes they made – to share three: putting exit tickets and hinge questions into action; changing marking to create a more effective dialogue and improving students’ understanding through DIRT time.
- All line managers agreed ‘CPD has helped those I manage become better teachers this term’
- All heads of department provided examples; one said he had seen members of his department implement and lead on marking strategies, had shared best practice on hinge questions and worked together to create new ideas.
Naturally, there were criticisms too – as Kev Bartle has noted, your first good CPD sessions will receive glowing feedback from teachers unused to useful development work – as they become accustomed to it, their demands rightly grow; none, however, suggested massive flaws in the programme.
What still needs improving?
Measuring, supporting, monitoring
We recruit strongly; my colleagues are brilliant at what they do; I want teachers to retain considerable autonomy over their development. So I have sought to avoid extensive monitoring for its own sake (or for Ofsted’s) particularly that tailored to the lowest common denominator: teachers unwilling to improve. I’m still struggling to find unintrusive, meaningful ways to know how teachers are improving: a tough call when these changes are, by their nature, individual, gradual and often hesitant.
Living CPD
The other side of this coin is how we ensure we live CPD, not just do it. In many ways this happens already – CPD ideas often crop up in conversations and lessons unbidden. However, I’m looking for more ways to keep teachers talking about improvement – creating a culture of contagious pedagogy, to steal Kev Bartle’s phrase – which will endure when our school is three times its current size.
Defending CPD time
I am still learning how to do this: I have fallen into traps and hijacks in allocating time – some predictable, others less so. Leaders wish, quite rightly, to further departmental agendas which support the school’s improvement; I have to balance these competing interests while maintaining as much teacher autonomy as possible. Assessing the likely impact on students’ learning is the lodestone in decision-making, complemented by my judgment and teachers’ feedback – but this will remain a struggle.
Cutting out the good
The CPD programme is good; it can be better. To add more great stuff, some good things will need to be cut. This term, for example, at some teachers’ request, I reduced the amount covered in sessions to leave more time for teachers and departments to work on implementing what they learn. I would like to see more practice in sessions and a closer, clearer visible link between teachers’ learning and their actions. Moreover, we are still introducing new ideas: staff book club this term, piloting lesson study, I hope, next term. Both of these require cuts elsewhere… I’m still not clear where.
Conclusion
Professional development is critical to teachers’ success and satisfaction. Some schools are wisely cutting a little teaching time to provide scope for more CPD. I think this is an inescapable first step to improving teacher development, but it is only a beginning. The challenge remains how we then use that time to design programmes which are not only interesting and well-evidenced, but help teachers transform their practice.
Further reading
Doug Lemov’s paper on professional development and practice
Robert Coe’s address on CPD
The CUREE report on CPD provision
My quoting Kev Bartle, from Canons High, twice in the post above, may serve to demonstrate how helpful and influential I have found his ideas – these two posts, on cultivating contagious pedagogy and surplus models of teaching, may help to show why.
* It could be argued that this is an unfair condemnation of current CPD: many courses do not aim to achieve this goal. On the other hand, I do believe sustained change in teacher practice should be the aim of professional development.
Reblogged this on The Echo Chamber: http://educationechochamber.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/being-the-1-what-does-it-take-to-make-cpd-effective/
Really useful reflections, Harry – thank you.
I’ve also found this year that to really allows staff a feeling of investment in CPD you do have to ‘cut the good’ sometimes.
I’ve tried to say, though some/many are unused to this, that I can’t (and won’t) tell other people how to teach. I think it’s vitally important for those delivering CPD to give staff and departments time to discuss, implement and reflect on new ideas and challenges. I thus usually start with something like, ‘This is what x is; here is how I’ve used it; here are my results – now how can that work for you in geography/maths/biology…?’
I’ve wanted to start a reading club but really can’t see staff going for it until that culture of ‘contagious pedagogy’ is more rife. But then I also recognise how well-chosen reading will help create this! I think a self-regulating staff who take responsibility for their own development must be the goal. If you’ve any ideas then please let me know.
Toby @MrHistoire
Thanks for the insightful comment Toby.
I think the staff I’m working with are pretty independent – one or two people even commented in my survey that they felt they were being told what to do and this was unhelpful (to my surprise as I’ve tried to avoid this).
Giving departments as much time as possible – after a stimulus/piece of research/set of examples – is absolutely critical – I ask a very similar question as to how they can apply it and then take time to go and discuss what departments are doing during the session so I can help them refine their ideas.
I’ve read tweets from teachers starting voluntary reading clubs – might this be a good start? I bit the bullet and made ours compulsory but asked staff to suggest books & gave them a choice of three (Willingham, Berger and a book about leadership among the All Blacks) in mitigation. The book club is at the end of this term, so I’ll let you know how it goes!
I think you’re right in what you describe as the key… that’s why I’ve tried to maintain teacher autonomy – and I think the TLC structure is ideal in this, allowing staff choice while ensuring they act through writing up a plan and booking observations.
Good luck and do let us know how your plans develop!
My previous school had a ‘T&L bulletin’ which was interesting in itself but put into practice by very few of us. If they’d forced us to use it sparks would have undoubtedly flown, but then there was a lack of trust in SLT.
It sounds as if you have the balance right – or are at least trying to be fair! If staff trust in those who deliver CPD, and thus have some form of autonomy and purchase in the arrangement, then the occasional, ‘we all need to read this and discuss it’, for example, is both much easier to swallow and, I would expect, will yield greater results.
You’re absolutely right to insist on the follow-up actions. I’ve just seen a conversation you’re having on twitter about using time effectively. Teachers will always feel snowed under and so asking that CPD is acted upon can render you the devil – I think ‘biting the bullet’ is the apt phrase.
I think I’ll start voluntarily, though – changing minds is a slow and laborious process.
Toby
Who’s to say if the balance is right – I’m doing my best, but it’s very hard to know for sure! The difference in insisting on CPD follow up – to me – is that CPD is core to what we should be doing as teachers in a way that a lot of school initiatives aren’t… I also believe & try to show that CPD can make teachers’ lives better (and sometimes even easier) – and so is worth the investment. But staff have to see the need to act – and just being told to do things doesn’t help this… As you say, changing minds takes time – good luck!
Can you explain this point more? “labour market strategies to attract and retain good teachers… the first is a zero-sum game – one school’s gain is another’s loss.”
At the moment, this statement seems to be implying that a) teachers are a homogenous group who will all be attracted and/or retained by the same labour market strategies. b) that all schools will be using the same labour market strategies regardless of local conditions c) that staff are attracted to and retained by the same strategies throughout their career regardless of any changes in their personal circumstances.
I wouldn’t have thought any of these could possibly be the case? I would have thought individuals will naturally gravitate towards schools which employ specific labour market strategies which suit them. Moreover, those same strategies will not have the same effect throughout a teaching career as personal circumstances change?
The second half of the statement is also unclear to me, how can labour market strategies be a zero-sum game? This seems to imply that all teachers perform the same regardless of the environment they are in? Isn’t it the case that some people perform very well in some environments and much less effectively in a different school despite having the same job? It also ignores the role structural issues play in determining the size of the labour force available for schools to recruit from (such as the number of teachers joining the profession).
My overall point is that successful organizations (and teams of every type) tend to have great success using labour market strategies to attract and retain staff that fit a particular role in their existing teams and that these shouldn’t necessarily be dismissed so easily. Obviously, this does not detract from your overall point about the importance of an organizational learning culture. However, the kind of culture you describe will be most effective when staff who best enjoy and respond to that sort of culture (and not all will) are attracted and retained.
Thanks for the comment – I agree with your conclusion – there needs to be a degree of ‘fit’ between individuals and organisational cultures.
Given that national pay and conditions were only very recently abolished in the UK, I think the impact of labour market strategies is likely to have been limited in my context hitherto. Although you are right to question some of what he says, I don’t think this undermines Lemov’s overall point – that labour market strategies don’t ensure serving teachers are doing their best… and that, for school systems – although, again, you’re right to say that teachers aren’t homogenous – but if all schools rely simply on hiring the best teachers, this does not help a school system to improve – in this sense, there is a zero sum game. I think you’re right to suggest that this views teacher performance as fairly unchanged – and you’re right to say the environment of a school can change this and I think the climate and culture of professional development is a key element of this school environment.
Structural factors may (and have) affected the availability of good teachers – but waiting for an upturn in this is unlikely to increase the standard of teaching overall. Lemov’s overall point – that we have neglected CPD strategies – stands, I believe.
Good to read this, Harry.
I’m optimistic about the value of CPD too. In my experience, one of the great benefits of professional and personal development is its capacity to raise awareness. But I accept it can be difficult to draw a clear line of connection between raised awareness and improved practice.
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks Jill. It’s a murky line… sometimes we may need to hear an idea several times, perhaps in different contexts, to gain sufficient awareness and familiarity to begin considering using it. I think it’s unhelpful for me to chase teachers around saying – have you implemented last Monday’s idea? That’s why a longer cycle is, I think, helpful – what have you implemented from this half term or term? This gives teachers time to choose and experiment and accepts that not every idea or good strategy will fit every teacher and subject. If at the end of a term there is no link to better practice, then it begins to raise questions about either the teacher or the CPD provision!
How’s that for half an answer?
Thanks, Harry!
This is a great post Harry! It’s really got me thinking. I have tried so many different CPD models over the years and am still struggling to evidence impact. This year we have gone for 50% department CPD time and 50% action research clusters based on 3 school priorities: stretch and challenge; acting upon feedback & classroom interventions for underperforming groups (in our case SAP & PP). However, I’m aware that there’s no real choice for individual teachers to do what interests them (we had opt in twilight sessions last year but I felt that we couldn’t measure impact with this pick and mix approach). Currently, I’m exploring whether to extend the action research clusters for another year to make the findings more significant but not sure if this is the best thing to do with competing CPD demands. Thanks for writing such an informative post – look forward to more in the future!
Debbie
I can certainly sympathise with this! Do teachers get to choose their action research cluster…? Choice can never be unbounded, after all. I don’t think there’ll ever be a perfect way to balance the competing demands for time – and measuring impact is always going to be a struggle when dealing with so many diverse individuals. Good luck & do share what you decide and how it goes.
Hi Harry,
Really interesting post. For me, one of the key principles is to have a clear learning focus for every CPD activity – i.e. which specific (ideally named) students are intended to benefit, what is the specific learning (or behaviour) issue that you are trying to address, what is the evidence-based theory of change that suggests it will make a difference, and what is the approach that will be used to assess/evaluate the impact that is being had? Once you have all of these in place then any activity is significantly more likely to impact positively on learning. It obviously helps if you can ensure that it is carried out collaboratively, over time, using a cycle of enquiry to help refine, adapt and embed the approach in to practice.
It would be great to chat further about this! Great to see some serious thinking taking place.
David
Hi David,
Thank you for the comment. I’d always looked at things more generically – barring specified sessions, such as those on students with SEN, I thought for most sessions all students should benefit – this seems particularly the case with AfL approaches.
That said, I really like the way you’ve formulated this – I think it could be incorporated very neatly within our existing frameworks and laid out as such to staff- thank you!
I’m sure we’d gain enormously from your input – I’d love to have you visit or catch up in person – let me know which you’d prefer.
Harry
Too much to respond to today here! Will come back in April … I guess, we would agree, that things worth writing properly about are worth waiting to write properly about … one of the reasons I would find it so difficult to work f/t in a mainstream school. Which is why I’m continually amazed at all you guys are managing to achieve at GFS.
Hi Harry,
I’d love to hear how this post has played out in the intervening years. Have you been able to capitalize on the early successes you found in 2014? In particular, you mention several teachers expressing concern that a focus on pedagogical strategy came across as feeling like they were being told how to teach.
It’s almost ten years since I left this school. My understanding of how to make teacher professional development work has improved a lot – there are lots of posts detailing what I’ve learned and how I’ve applied it on this site. To this particular issue of setting strategies and how directive to be, I think I’d now be much better at distinguishing between principles and techniques. You can set principles (like, include all students in the lesson) and then work with teachers to find effective ways to achieve this which suit them and fit their subject, teaching style and so on.