If you are totally happy with the state of professional development and teacher training, then you don’t need to read this post. Otherwise, allow me to step onto my soap box for a controversial post…
Recently I was watering my plants and was thinking about how each of them needs a different amount of water. You wouldn’t expect that every plant needs exactly the same amount. Some need so little water that the extra water is essentially wasted. Conversely, some plants would flourish if given a little more water. This is probably not surprising to you.
But it reminded me about how we dole out professional development.
I’ll say it bluntly : sometimes professional development resources are spent on educators who don’t want any part of it. I’ve seen many trainings where educators actively show that they don’t want to participate. Sometimes they’re grading papers, playing games on their phones, or taking extended breaks outside. Sometimes they don’t even show up to the training at all, even when their fees have already been paid for! It makes me feel like water is being wasted on these plants. Conversely, I have seen teachers who love to learn and crave additional opportunities. If we watered them even a little more, I believe that the fruits of their labor would be fantastic.
It makes me wonder how we ended up with this model.
Consider the image below that was created by Angus Maguire:
Certainly there are many issues with this image, but I think it is still useful for our conversation. The image’s basic message is that while we often think of equal distribution (equality) as being the fairest method, sometimes allocating resources based on need (equity) may be fairer.
Generally speaking, I believe that in education we subscribe to an equality model for professional development: everyone gets the same amount regardless of what they need. So, I wonder what taking an equity approach might do.
Before I dive into that, I want to give you something else to consider. What do these three things have in common:
- Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) brutality
- Medical expenses for homeless people
- Car pollution
Ready for the answer according to Malcom Gladwell? It’s that a disproportionate amount of the problem comes from a very small part of the population. Here’s more info from Gladwell’s article…
Between 1986 and 1990, allegations of excessive force or improper tactics were made against eighteen hundred of the eighty-five hundred officers in the L.A.P.D… A hundred and eighty-three officers, however, had four or more complaints against them, forty-four officers had six or more complaints, sixteen had eight or more, and one had sixteen complaints. If you were to graph the troubles of the L.A.P.D., it wouldn’t look like a bell curve. It would look more like a hockey stick. It would follow what statisticians call a “power law” distribution—where all the activity is not in the middle but at one extreme.
Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program, a leading service group for the homeless in Boston, recently tracked the medical expenses of a hundred and nineteen chronically homeless people. In the course of five years, thirty-three people died and seven more were sent to nursing homes, and the group still accounted for 18,834 emergency-room visits—at a minimum cost of a thousand dollars a visit. The University of California, San Diego Medical Center followed fifteen chronically homeless inebriates and found that over eighteen months those fifteen people were treated at the hospital’s emergency room four hundred and seventeen times, and ran up bills that averaged a hundred thousand dollars each. One person—San Diego’s counterpart to Murray Barr—came to the emergency room eighty-seven times.
Most cars, especially new ones, are extraordinarily clean. A 2004 Subaru in good working order has an exhaust stream that’s just .06 per cent carbon monoxide, which is negligible. But on almost any highway, for whatever reason—age, ill repair, deliberate tampering by the owner—a small number of cars can have carbon-monoxide levels in excess of ten per cent, which is almost two hundred times higher. In Denver, five per cent of the vehicles on the road produce fifty-five per cent of the automobile pollution.
The takeaway here is that these issues are not equally distributed. A small amount of police officers, homeless people, and cars produce a huge and disproportionate amount of the problem. The conclusion then is that rather than giving the same equal remedy to all police officers, homeless people, and cars, we would be much better off with an equitable solution that dealt with the most violent police officers, chronically homeless individuals, and most polluting cars. If we focused the resources we give to all (because it is equal) on the ones that really need it (because it was equitable), then we would be much more likely to get the results we really want.
I wonder though what the results of a more equitable (not equal) solution could be. How amazing might teachers be if they got all the training they wanted by taking it from the teachers who want none? Certainly this isn’t without its problems… but it makes me wonder…
What do you think? What do you agree or disagree with? What am I not considering? Please let me know in the comments.
One factor not considered is the math phobia of some teachers. As a math coach, I was told a story by one of my teachers. It seems that all of the math teachers were enrolled in a master’s program given by a reputable college. One teacher bullied another for answers on the final. The teacher passed, received a master’s degree and a sizable salary increase. A few years later, the same teacher did everything possible to avoid credible coaching. She did not consider her students, only dollars and cents. We have a long way to go before the issues swirling around effective pd are resolved.
Yikes. That’s far from ideal. I think the path that leads from where we are now as a professional to the destination of educators having a healthy relationship with professional development will be long and complex.
I am frustrated when PD’s teach conflicting strategies. My district received a grant to improve math instruction. I’m one of few from my school site who chose to participate in this PD, which was a three-year program. The CGI and Math Talk strategies I learned have been valuable. Across my district, this was a successsful PD. My school site chose a PD stressing common strategies in math instruction. Unfortunately, teachers who did not participate in the district grant, and the facilitator we brought in, chose strategies which conflicted with what I learned. Our key strategy from the conflicting PD for my grade level was to have students circle all the numbers and underline key terms in a math word problem. I protested because the strategy does not address context, but I was outnumbered. My solution has been to ignore the conflicting PD.
In my 12 years of experience, PD is a check box for admins who want to say, “We are doing our job by providing teachers PD.” It’s become a joke, literally, in my school.
That is immensely disappointing on so many levels. I really wonder if those administrators realize that is the way it is perceived or if they’d be shocked to know that.
Hey Robert,
I just became part of the Master Teacher Program in New York State. Here is a link for more information:
https://www.suny.edu/masterteacher/
Essentially, the program, which has an extremely rigorous application process and is very competitive to get into, pays accepted teachers $15,000 per year to spend a minimum of 50 hours creating professional development for and partaking in professional development with EACH OTHER. In other words, New York State is finding the most passionate teachers and paying them to engage in more professional development than other teachers.
That sounds awesome Harry! I’m trying to think of a more perfect example of an equitable approach to professional development than that. To me it seems like a win/win/win. The participating teachers win. The students win. Even the non-participating teachers win from what those teachers bring back. I also wonder if the growing gap between their skill sets turns out to be a good thing? For example, rather than it being a “Why are they making me apply for this?” situation, it could potentially become a “Why do they get to do this PD? Why can’t I do it too?” situation.
P.S. Does this PD include making music videos? Just sayin’.
When I offer PD on a new topic or idea, I typically go after the “lunatic fringe” who are eager and will implement. Their excitement creates interest for others not in attendance.
I also think there is room to make accessing it a little invitational to make the more hesitant folks ask just what you said “why don’t I get to to do this?” Being included instead of expected makes more folks want to join.
Thanks Gina. I’m glad this resonated with you.
I LOVE this idea!!! I wish my state/district would do it. I could use the money and I sure would rather earn it spending my time learning how to be a better teacher, trahter than putting in hours at some part time job unrelated to teaching and depleting my energy for my teaching job…..
That sounds great for the teachers who want pd. The problem is I think the teachers who aren’t interested probably need it the most.
Lots of thoughts…
– I used to think that the more I received professional development, the closer I would get towards “knowing it all.” The reality is far from that. While I do know more, I am also vastly more aware of the many, many things I didn’t even know I didn’t know. So, the “it all” has grown enormously.
– To that end, I think that in a way, all teachers “need it the most”. For example, I can make a long list of things I need major help with. For example, I need major training on conceptual understanding of high school statistics, logarithms, and most of 11th and 12th grade math. I am still learning how students learn about fractions as every time I think I’ve seen it all, I develop deeper understandings.
– The teachers who aren’t interested, probably have complex reasons why. For example, some may be scared to be vulnerable. After all, “I’ve been teaching ______ for ___ years. I should know this by now and don’t.” Or, maybe they don’t believe that there is a problem with the way they are teaching. (a la: https://robertkaplinsky.com/febreze-can-teach-us-observeme/)
So, so very true!!! A particular teacher comes to mind here; the one who believes that after 20 years of teaching, s/he should not have to spend “that much” time planning lessons. This happened in my district after we implemented IM and we all had to learn “new” ways of approaching the standards. This entitled attitude is infuriating to me. It reminds me of the old teacher who has been 30+ years in 3rd grade and reaches into the file cabinet to pull out an old, discolored Manila folder of mimeograph worksheets to use with students every year. ♀️
Robert,
Big fan. We quote your febreeze post daily and our math teachers love all your resources.
In this case I think you missed the mark.
I’ve been putting together PD for years and have found that those that reject the notion of PD are the ones that need it the most. With that said most PD opportunities are meaningless. PD should be built in-house by teacher leaders that pour over student and teacher data to deter needs. Teachers should have a voice in the direction of PD and be given ample support after PD sessions.
If you walked into a classroom and saw students on their phones who would you blame? Would you let those students out because the lesson was meaningless to them? Or would you work with the teacher to identify how to improve their instruction?
Teacher PD should be a model of best practices in which all teachers have an opportunity to grow. Equity in PD should mirror equity in the classroom by differentiating learning outcomes for teachers based on need and ability of both the teacher and their students.
When this is done well it helps to break down the walls between classrooms and give common purpose across the building.
One of Hattie’s top are of student success is the overall competencies of teachers in a building. Second only to self-reported grades. We need to create PD that inspires, motivates and supports teachers of all levels.
I will now climb down off of my soapbox.
Thanks for the push back Ryan. I genuinely appreciate it. We’re actually more in agreement than disagreement. To be clear, I am NOT saying that teachers who don’t want PD also don’t need it. What I am saying is that we need to take a tough look at the way PD takes place, because just equally doling out resources is not working.
We need to have honest and vulnerable conversations about where the breakdowns are happening? Is it that teachers don’t want to be out of their classrooms? Is it that they don’t feel that the PD is valuable? Is it that they don’t think that there is anything that needs improving with the way they are currently teaching (a la Febreze)?
I just can’t stand watching us squander resources without looking more deeply at the complexities of professional learning. The differences between how we approach student learning and how we approach professional learning are often staggering.
So many thoughts on this. I’m glad you brought it up.
I’m one of those teachers who gets off-task during district PD sessions, but not because I don’t want to learn. Quite the contrary, actually. I’m the teacher who follows teacher leaders on Twitter, engages in Twitter chats, reads blogs, attends conferences like CMC-South at my own expense, participates in Global Math Department as often as I can…you get the picture. I really WANT to learn and grow, but my district is behind my pace. Significantly behind my pace. It’s not the district’s fault that I “went ahead,” but they’re not doing anything to meet my needs as a learner.
A few years ago, while I was in a TOSA role, we went to a teacher-led conference model of PD. We had teachers present to their peers on PD days, and everyone got to choose the sessions they attended. It was assumed I would present sessions as a TOSA. It was a breath of fresh air and offered us all a chance to share with each other. But after I transitioned back to the classroom, I was still presenting all day for PD. It didn’t take long for me to realize that I wasn’t /getting/ any PD myself except for what I sought for myself in my free time. I considered declining the invitation to present, but wondered what sessions I would attend if I didn’t. So I kept presenting and seeking my own PD. This year we’re back to a traditional one-size-fits-all model of PD. My engagement depends primarily on two factors, the content and the delivery. Even if the content is familiar, I happily engage when the delivery allows me to engage at my level and learn not only from the instructor but also from other learners.
The needs of teachers parallel the needs of students when it comes to PD. Well, duh…we are the students when we engage in PD. There are going to be the students who are perfectly engaged and for whom the lessons are just-right. There are also going to be the students who are off-task, but all for different reasons. There are the students who are ahead but have to take that class because it’s the only one offered (my problem). But the students I think you’re referring to in your post are the ones who are off-task and give off the “don’t care” vibe because they aren’t ready for what’s being taught. Maybe they need more time with the content (especially tech-related lessons). Maybe they have a gap in their learning. Maybe the lessons aren’t being presented in a way that connects them to the students’ real lives outside of class. And maybe the student is afraid of failing at something new, so they put on the mask of not caring. These are the students we encounter in class and adjust instruction for every day, but PD doesn’t seem to take these issues into account. It’s typically an assembly line model that is employed with teachers.
No matter the model, there has to be careful consideration to meet the needs of all learners. We can’t just “teach to the middle” if we expect to engage all teachers in meaningful learning. We either have to find ways to customize the content to meet the needs of all learners or we need to make sure that the delivery allows learners to engage at their own “Goldilocks” level…not too low, not too high, but juuuuust right.
Yes x 100000 to everything you said, Kate. You described my concern exactly. While I am more speaking towards the intentional non-learners in professional development, I do mean it more as people who don’t have the skills yet as compared to people who already have them.
Like you said, “The needs of teachers parallel the needs of students when it comes to PD. Well, duh…we are the students when we engage in PD.” In some ways, this is simultaneously a completely foreign way of thinking and completely obvious.
While I don’t claim to have the solution to this problem (and I don’t think anyone does), we need to have these conversations with our colleagues to figure out what we can do about it.
Kate, you had me at “hello”. I feel like you are inside my head. Completely agree. There is no differentiation at the PD sessions I attend. This is not how we are expected to plan our lessons. It should not be how we are taught PD.
As an instructional coach who presents PD, I do find merit in your remarks. When I deliver PD, I often observe some teachers who are apathetic toward learning something new. And it does make me feel like focusing on those who really want the PD and ignoring the rest. On the other hand, perhaps it is the model of PD that is the problem. Perhaps the problem is one size fits all PD that can’t possibly fit the needs of teachers ranging from TK-6th as well as teachers with emergency credentials to those with over 20 years of experience. No matter what we do, I’m sure there will always be teachers who choose to disengage from PD. However, maybe we could increase teacher engagement by finding a better PD model that was differentiated to address the needs of all teachers. I just wish I knew what that model was.
Thanks Ramona. I believe that you are asking the right questions. I wonder if having a conversation about this with your colleagues would take you steps closer towards figuring out what that model could be for your district.
I find this interesting… not a full proof argument though in my opinion but just to counter complaints of one size fits all… we have a teacher created PD day in our county. It just happened last week. Our instructional leaders and teachers all submitted proposals and then a schedule was created. Teachers had to register for three options. I love this day b/c it’s teachers telling teachers what’s working and what’s not. Also, at my school, we off trainings before school for whoever wants to come. Today, I did an introduction to DreamBox Webinar and only three teachers showed. We had a great conversation about their data and now I can help them even more… no one was ‘forced’ to come to meet a quota of some sorts. This PD wasn’t for all teachers, just new teachers. I would have liked at least 10 to show, but I’ll take the three that were ready, willing and excited to learn with me! So it’s not all doom and gloom PD.
I totally realize that my argument is not foolproof. Mainly I’m just trying to rattle the cage a bit and get us as educators to be more reflective on the side effects of a one-size-fits-all approach to professional development.
As a math coach and someone who gives professional development quite often, I wholeheartedly agree with your post. I have had to deal with eye rolls, loud clicking on whatever device, side conversations, questioning why, and anything else you can imagine. I am also lucky enough to experience teachers who are thirsting for more!! They take what they’ve learned and put it into practice, follow up with questions and look for continued guidance. I have said before that we would see more growth and gains by focusing on the people that are interested because I could better support them to develop where it was necessary as opposed to putting that same energy into 75 or more teachers when at least half don’t care. Thank you for your post!
I’m not saying that these ideas are politically viable, but I hope they’re thought provoking enough to make people think through the choices we take for granted in why we do what we do.
I try to relate professional development for teachers to teaching children in the classroom. It’s much easier to impact the students who want to learn. But, isn’t it our job to inspire, motivate, and engage all students? Therefore, maybe the question isn’t “should we train all teachers” but “how do we inspire, motivate, and engage teachers in the training they need?”
P.S. I am one of the teachers who can’t get enough PD and totally understand the frustration of wasting PD on those who don’t appreciate it. Thanks for the food for thought.
Thanks for the push back Andrea. I am certainly trying to get on the aggressive side here and I do like the reframing of your question. I wonder how it would go if you started with that question and then implemented the Five Why’s on every answer after that: https://robertkaplinsky.com/applying-toyotas-5-whys-to-education/
After reading the post and all comments and responses, perhaps the only new thought I can add here is that I think the problem lies in that many still view PD as “trainings” that require “resources” and are “doled out” by the powers that be. I do believe that teachers need to continue to grow professionally, and I think (almost) all of them want to. But to answer your question, a more equitable approach would be to broaden our definition of PD, increase teacher choice in content and format, and improve the culture of adult learning in schools and districts. PD can be coaching, Independent studies, lesson study groups, PLCs, online courses, etc. When a mandate does require consistent content for all, or there is something ALL kids deserve their teacher to have access to, then we can be more equitable by following Learning Forward’s standards for professional learning and be thoughtful about giving teachers ownership and relevance.
I second what Cara says and add this–our language betrays us. We have Training (sit–stay–woof!) that is Delivered and Received. If I were required to go somewhere to Receive Training, and I had a lot of papers to grade, I may take the papers with me just in case I didn’t want what was in the Package. (Certainly the papers would stay in my bag during a RK workshop!)
Hey Cara and Carrie. Thanks for this push back. I’m going to agree with you both. I think I’ve used PD and training interchangeably for years, but I do see what you mean and why you make the distinction. I think that for the purposes of this blog post, I guess I should have called it “Should We Be Professionally Developing All Teachers?”
I do understand that there are different types of PD and that they are not all equal. I’m concerned about where we focus first.
Robert, your article was very thought provoking– especially in the days of COVID-19. I am a math and science instructional coach, and I too, have been with a number of teachers who were only attending PD for a compliance check mark. However, PDs should be timed correctly and planned according to need. A teacher once told me that the first time she heard a PD, it was not effective learning because, she wasn’t ready for the message…yet! PD is like Dan Meyer’s analogy, “Don’t give them the aspirin before they have the headache.” With COVID, teachers who previously did not want my help to learn and stretch are reaching out to me like never before, but now they have a legitimate NEED for the messages and practices that I was peddling BC (Before Corona).
LOL at your new BC. So yeah, my whole point of this blog post is to be thought provoking and get people questioning why we do things the way we do. We currently value equality over equity in PD, and I think students lose out because of it.
My first thought is when trying to make a change in instruction if all teachers don’t get the message , it becomes an easy out – I was not trained ! My next thought was yes I have seen how your idea works. When I was the only math coach for multiple schools I had to pick where I would have most impact and it was never where a principal sent me! I found success by working with those that wanted me in their room and we saw gains in student achievement! The next year the teachers next door and across the hall wanted me in their rooms! LOL In my district I am pushing for a model where we do provide PD to those that want it. I am conducting sessions through TEAMS and the first one was completed last spring with 8 teachers ( it was on fractions so that may have been a factor for low numbers ) the second one had 18 on math mindsets , This fall I have many repeaters and have found many of those are bringing their fellow teachers to the sessions. I think offering to those who want is a great way to see more success with follow through .
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I bet a lot of readers will be able to relate.
Hi Robert,
Your article left me wondering if the problem lies with making the right choice for PD. You’ve made a compelling argument against one size fits all. I think many district choose this model because they are hoping to create critical mass to move the needle and they may feel having everyone transitioning at once will accelerate the process. And while it might have some impact, it generally loses steam when another program, idea, strategy, buzz word, comes along before any real change has set in. We’ve certainly seen a lot of PD cycles and re-cycles over the last 30 years in education.
My wonder is this: Do teachers have the right information about themselves and their classrooms to choose the right PD that will have the most impact? Do they truly know their strengths and weaknesses, and are there supports in place to sustain change over the long haul? Would some independent analysis of their teaching style and strategies yield some data and insight into what PD they should pursue. For instance, I’ve seen many teachers attend countless sessions on how to infuse technology into their classroom. But most of those attendees are already on the cutting edge of this practice, and the session is more of a validation of what they already do rather than a learning session. While the teacher may be engaged and interested in the session, there is little to no impact on their practice.
Prior to scheduling and attending any PD, could teachers fill out a survey that would help them identify which sessions would address their needs? Does such a thing even exist? If our goal as educators is to constantly get better and improve, maybe we need some help in identifying what areas to pursue
Interesting perspective. Well around the time I was writing this blog post, I was working on bringing my company, Grassroots Workshops to life. My goal was to differentiate PD for teachers and let them have more control over their learning.
Have a peak at our offerings now: https://grassrootsworkshops.com/workshops. I feel like most math teachers could already find something they’d like, and we’re growing into other subjects as well.
I’m retired now but I spent years both leading PD and working in the classroom as a math specialist and a classroom teacher. What I found was that teachers were rarely asked what PD they would like to attend, The Administration would decide on a list and teachers were told they could pick one from it. There were often reasons other than learning that teachers chose one PD over anther. Most often it was a nice way for the school to pay for travel near friends or relatives. Those teachers who really wanted to benefit from the PD were forced to choose only one even if they wanted to, say, work on both language arts and math.
In designing my own work with teachers I have seen what you saw when the PD was in the summer and teachers were required to attend. Teachers knitting or chatting and not engaged. When I have done PD for a school during the year I have designed what I do to meet their specific needs and that has been more successful. Often it included classroom visits where I worked side by side with the teacher seeing problems they dealt with every day or met and talked with teachers first to determine what their needs were.
The most success “PD” I have found is working side by side over the year with teachers in their classrooms. I started with a few teachers and soon everyone wanted some time and help. By doing it this way I was able to strengthen teachers math understandings as well as math teaching skills. They saw that I didn’t always have an immediate answer but didn’t give up, instead designed little experiments to see what worked. They saw I made mistakes too, which made me more like them and more approachable and I often helped to lighten their load by doing some outside work freeing them up to spend time in other areas. I knew it’s not like math is the only thing they teach.
So yes what you say is true. Teachers need choice in the PD they want to pursue. If a teacher would waste the space that another would benefit from the school should find another way to keep that teacher;s skills current. If a teacher wants to attend 4 PD’s in wide ranging areas they should be able too if they are only preventing someone from traveling to see their friends.
I’m also not a fan of the “you’re all going to attend this same PD and then figure out how to make it work in your classroom” approach. Having more flexibility is always appreciated when available.
I skimmed many responses because I am trying to get through the gift of a day with no students and no required PD-ironic!
As I was reading and reflecting, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs came to mind. We are speaking about engaged v. uninterested colleagues, but isn’t that a rather simple analysis? There are reasons for our behavior and maybe the core of the concern is not the PD but the status of a staff’s “needs”; unmet and met? Just wondering…
That’s something I’ve wondered about too, especially during the pandemic. When people are struggling just to survive, making time for PD is very hard to prioritize.