When we take on responsibility for teacher professional development, we’re not just committing to organising a few training sessions. Planning sessions may be our immediate concern. But our underlying task is to create a programme which offers every teacher the learning and support they need in order to improve.
We can see why this matters by contrasting scattered training activities with a coherent programme.
An unfocused approach
If a school’s approach is unfocused, lots of professional development may take place, but sessions jump from one topic to another. One example is the approach many schools used to take to supporting newly-qualified teachers. Each week, a different member of staff presents on their area of expertise: week one, Mehal on modelling; week two, Maria on using technology; week three, Michael on autism.
This approach has advantages: it covers a range of topics, draws on a breadth of expertise, and it’s easy for those presenting. But it’s not a programme: it’s a series of isolated sessions. It lacks coherence: each presenter shares their approach – but Mehal’s vision of great teaching contrasts almost entirely with Maria’s. Teachers are left to make sense of these conflicting messages. Moreover, there’s no underlying plan to help teachers connect ideas, revisit the most important ones, and build a meaningful model of teaching.
This example is a convenient illustration; it’s something readers may have experienced. It also reflects the way many schools approach professional development as a whole. For example, we may see:
- Training jumping between topics: literacy one term, questioning the next, emotional climate the one after;
- Different elements pulling in different directions: whole-school training on behaviour, coaching focused on feedback, inquiry groups studying what interests them;
- Three different leaders responsible for coaching, initial teacher training and whole-school professional development – each pursuing slightly different goals.
Some elements may be effective. Every element could be effective, in its own terms. But we make it hard for teachers to improve if each new session brings a new topic, a new goal, and perhaps even a new way of looking at effective teaching. Changing teaching practice requires sustained, focused effort and support. An unfocused approach undermines this.
A coherent programme
With a coherent professional development programme, two differences stand out.
First, decisions about teaching and learning are guided, not by individual preferences, but by an agreed core of principles and practices. These principles might include modelling, giving usable feedback, and supporting students to meet the highest expectations. This agreed core is used everywhere. We find it in lesson planning and observation feedback, idle discussion and leadership team meetings. Teachers are encouraged to innovate and experiment, sticking to the principles, but adapting the practices to suit their needs.
Second, professional development isn’t an assortment of scattered efforts – it’s a coherent programme. Different elements align to pursue common goals (goals drawn from the agreed core). Let’s say the current goal is better modelling. We might see whole-school training introduce the principles, departments adapt the practices to fit their subjects, and coaches offer individual feedback on the results.
These two features – a shared view of good teaching and a coherent programme – make improving teaching much easier. Teachers still enjoy a range of influences, with training and feedback from different colleagues, each with their own slant and style. But these influences sit within a common framework: they no longer pull in different directions. This makes goals and expectations clearer. Professional development sessions echo and reinforce each other, rather than sitting in isolation (or contradicting one another). This means teachers get many chances to make sense of, test, adapt and adopt new ideas.
We can picture the effect this coherent programme has. Faced with multiple, conflicting, half-remembered improvement suggestions, most teachers will let them slide, and get on with their job. By offering clear goals and focused, ongoing support instead, we should increase teachers’ motivation and their ability to change.
Yet while a coherent programme makes teacher improvement far more likely, this coherence seems elusive. Teacher Tapp has found that a third of teachers believe their school lacks a shared language to describe teaching and learning.
Building a coherent programme
There are three steps to building a coherent programme:
- We begin – individually or as a group – by establishing what we do and don’t know. Then we deepen our knowledge and articulate what we have learned, developing an agreed core of teaching principles and practices (or adopting one from elsewhere).
- We shape these ideas into something teachers can easily grasp and use. We formulate our ideas into a memorable structure, organising them succinctly and memorably, and collating a range of examples.
- We use these principles to guide thinking about teaching and learning and professional development, seeking to achieve a shared language and understanding of effective teaching. The principles should be applied in planning and policies, lesson feedback and discussion – and used to shape the professional development programme.
Conclusion
Developing a coherent programme is crucial. It’s important for busy teachers, who may respond positively to a structured set of support pulling in a clear direction – but will rightly reject sessions and advice pulling in contradictory directions. It also matters for those leading professional development, and schools, bringing organisation to their efforts. The first step towards improving teacher professional development is bringing coherence to the school’s approach.
This is an adapted excerpt from my new book, Improving Teaching, which you can order now.
