Effectiveness of training hinges on teacher input
June 09 2009 by 
Hayes Mizell
A superintendent recently commented to me that his teachers were "very trainable." This raised a question: what is the appropriate role of training in professional development? Actually, a more relevant question might be, "what is training, anyway?"
Training often begins with an administrator deciding what educators should know and be able to do. Educators are then required to participate in a process where they passively receive instruction about a program or practice they're expected to implement.
Most training doesn't take into account the needs, expertise, or experience of its participants. That's because participants have no hand in shaping the training. It's simply assumed that participants come with the same knowledge, skills, and "readiness to learn," and that they all learn the same way. The training is often complex and content-heavy, but time for real learning is limited. ﾠ
Not surprisingly, this type of training often has little impact. An administrator's judgment about educators' needs may not be on target. There may be a lack of clarity about what educators should learn, and a lack of precision about how they should apply that learning. And there may be no effort to determine the training's impact on either the performance of educators or their students. In short, no one may be held accountable for the results of the training.
Of course, quality training that is data-driven, narrowly focused, and sensitive to the unique strengths and needs of its participants can have positve, lasting effects. This type of training is thoughtfully conceived, efficiently organized, flexible, and occurs periodically over months rather than days. Its primary concern is not the "delivery" of the training, but whether and how well it enables participants to "get it," and subsequently apply their learning.
But no matter how effective training is, educators should not assume that "professional development" is "training." Training should not constitute the whole of professional development, or even a major portion of it. ﾠ
An inherent limitation of training is that it is externally driven; school systems and school administrators take responsibility for educators' learning, rather than the educators themselves. However, educators and their subject- and grade-level colleagues understand what they don't know and what they aren't able to do better than anyone. When educators acknowledge the professional development they need, they are more motivated to take full advantage of it. They are also more likely to identify an expert with a good track record and choose that person to guide them in developing the knowledge and skills necessary to improve the educators' performance. Professional learning has greater impact when participants seek it, rather than have it imposed on them.
In the new era of professional development, teachers and principals must take greater responsibility for identifying and learning what they need to educate their students more effectively. If they do so conscientiously, always seeking to perform at increasingly higher levels, the training they now abhor will no longer be "necessary."
Hayes Mizell is NSDC's Distinguished Senior Fellow.
Posted in | 
13 comments
Jun 9, 2009 at 7:57 PM
This is a great article. What a conversation starter to use for continued dialogues about how best to meet the needs of our teachers, as learners.
Jun 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM
I do educational professional development internationally. When someone hires me,I always ask them to give me specific needs of my group and I work hard to address those needs.
Many times the members are surveyed and I receive the results before I leave Sometimes members are asked to email me the needs to address.
I also start my trainings with the goals of the members and postthe list in the room. Their needs are my priorities.
I do know this makes a difference for quality professional development. The educators in my professional development opportunities must have their specific needs addressed.
Carolyn Mizell Chapman
Creative Learning Connection, Inc.
PO Box 597
Thomson, Ga.30824
(706)597-0706
Jun 10, 2009 at 9:00 PM
New Jersey DOE implementing a requirement for teachers on school based team to have akey role in PD decisions to meet student needs.
http://www.state.nj.us/education/profdev/pd/teacher/
Jun 10, 2009 at 10:21 PM
The comment of the superintendent about teachers being very "trainable" hit home for me as a special educator. Back in the day, and still in some states, such as Florida, moderately mentally retarded students were referred to as "trainables", meaning that they supposedly could not learn academics but could learn useful skills. And that seems to be where professional development is, supposedly useful skills for teachers. (What did they learn in college education courses?)
Professional development has to have some aspects that are training, but they must be job specific, just in time, and what the teacher needs--such as using a new computer program, filling out forms, or deciphering a new IEP system. The least useful are the "trainings" required under No Child Left Behind that must take place for a certain number of hours and are totally irrelevant to a substantial portion of the faculty. These are usually large group meetings where tired teachers sit in hard library chairs, where they wait patiently for the buffet lunch or donuts and try not to let anyone notice they are sleeping.
And perhaps the reason for the wait is because it is in the breaks that the education takes place. The education comes in the professional networking among teachers who do the same thing you do. I met a new teacher who was in a middle school severe-profound class and totally unequipped to teach those students. She was trained in mild disabilities. I gave her a crash course in multihandicapped (my specialty) including how to relate to the students and dealing with IEPs that might not be appropriate. It is in the breaks that you find your learning.
And that is the point. Professional Learning Communities need an opportunity to develop so like minded teachers can share what they know with their peers. I did not teethe on computers as the 20 somethings did and some aspects of instructional and even assistive technology can confuse me. But I can tell you what behaviors to expect from a student with Cornelia de Lang and how to use successive approximation and physcial prompting to get an autistic child to look at you. (Taught a regular education teacher that in church. Poor thing had no clue and really wanted to work with those special second graders.)
One thing the instructor or facilitator needs to know is the background of her students and how to tailor training to meet the needs of all of them. I need a peer tutor in a technology class, but I have the history and physics of special education down pat.
Another thing is helping the teachers to work together with professional respect and learning from one another. Regular teachers tend to not want to learn from special ed teachers. They tend to disrespect us because they have dumped their hard children on us and think we must be "special" too if we want to work with them. I was once asked if I was a day care worker! I had a Masters. She only had a B.Ed. Career Special ed teachers are bright and knowledgeable, but we speak our own language and often lose the regulars. The greatest compliment we can pay is, "She's good enough for Special Ed."
A quality facilitator can bring all into a professional community where they learn from one another while also allowing congregation of similar peers so that all can share their special knowledge and find their own sub community
I would like to see more professional development where an important educational question is asked, and all participants, brainstorm and create solutions which are presented to the decision makers. (And not in an ooey gooey way with small groups where no one gets all the viewpoints.)
But wait! Why is someone else the decision maker? Why is it only in education that the professionals don't run the schools? Why is the Superintendent of the Washington D.C. schools not a professional teacher? (She is not the only one. She just came to mind because she is Teach for America.)
Doctors run the AMA. Plumbers run the Plumbers Union. Lawyers run the State Bar and the ACLU. A preacher heads the Southern Baptist Convention and the Pope is Catholic and a priest. But schools are run by preachers and businessmen. Now they are putting in non-educators as principals in some of the charters. That is scary.
Jun 11, 2009 at 6:55 AM
I responded to this posting on Facebook, but would also like to do so here. In New York State we have a state-wide organization of Teacher Centers (NYS Teacher Centers) who work with school districts to provide high quality, research-based professional development activities. Our program is supported financially by New York State and the individual school districts served. Director of the centers are teachers and the Policy Boards that oversee each center must be made up of at least 51% teachers. One of the main missions of these centers is to provide for the "teacher voice" in professional development. Centers regularly gather data through Needs Assessments and at most centers teachers have the option to propose workshops, courses, study groups, and professional learning communities on topics of interest and importance to them. Teacher Centers also respond to the data on student achievement provided for the districts they serve. The Teacher Centers contribution to planning district training done on school time may vary by center, but they offer an option for teacher-centered professional learning.
Jun 11, 2009 at 7:06 PM
The difficulty, for me, with this topic starts with the title because "training" implies that we are doing something to someone. For me, it even conjures up the idea of animals being trained to learn specific tasks. While I totally agree with the importance of teacher/principal/student voice in the learning process, I think we need to consistently use language that honors all that adults bring to the process. Even if there are specific tasks that are essential to learn, it's important for us to remember the knowledge, skills, and resources that adults already have and build on those to embrace new learnings.
Jun 12, 2009 at 7:37 AM
Our Teacher Center funds professional circles for groups of 5 or more teachers. These groups gather for 15 hours or more to solve educational problems, create and enrich curriculum, share and organize materials and resources,and collaborate to share best practices in technology, content areas, literacy, classroom management and much more. They are initiated by teachers and are subject to approval by administration, which is always forthcoming. We can honestly say that professional development in our Teacher Center is in the hands of the teachers. This is true of all NY State Teacher Centers. We are proud to offer professional development opportunities by teachers, for teachers.
Jun 12, 2009 at 11:15 AM
I appreciate the distinction between training (a top-down, one-size-fits-all, content-driven "thing"--e.g., initiative, procedure, program, etc.) and professional development (a bottom-up, differentiated, human-centered process). It is the thoughtless confounding of these distinct media, Mizell is correct, that makes for resistance among teachers or others who are supposed to bring them to fruition. Training fills jugs; professional development lights candles. Even great initiatives take on the feel of court summons when this distinction is not honored.
Jun 12, 2009 at 3:26 PM
The administrators decide? The teachers decide? How about the data decides. Hayes Mizell does mention the data-driven component of quality training, but in a manner that diffuses its importance (it is dwarfed by the list of adjectives and jargon cited in the description). Data provides the clarity. Data demonstrates the discrepancies between expectations and performance. The discrepancies will marshal the necessary motivation because student performance outcomes are not external influences,they are the teachers' students and are a reflection of their practices. Reliance on personal opinion to shape training is one of the problems in education. Reliance on data to determine decisions should be the focus for administrators and teacher leaders.
Jun 12, 2009 at 4:42 PM
To add to this discussion I would mention the work of Professor McNaughton at Auckland University. He suggests it takes a lot of time and effort to get to understand the needs and the culture of a school. In his studies he reports it took about a year to fully understand how a school works and how it might be helped. He mentioned that understanding the culture of a school is very important - and this comes about by talking to teachers. Student effect sizes, correlated with TPD interverntion in reading literacy, were very good when this approach was used.
Jun 13, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Data is important. It can guide education and help create focus. However, in this political age where it is more important to the government that a student bubble the right box than that she observes an ant colony at work, we need to remember that teaching is an art as much as it is a science. All the data in the world can't teach as much as watching a kitten being born. I once taught a boy to read and write by putting the class guinea pig on the table and we wrote about it. He was not even one of my students.
So it is for professional development. We can have data driven trainings until the Lord comes back but if they are not combined with teachers networking and sharing with their peers then education has not taken place and the professionals have not developed.
Only a 100% Skinnerian behavorist considers data as the be all and end all. Teachers are more than data. That is why, in spite of Teach For America, not every one who is smart and has a high GPA can teach.
Education is not accomplished by bubbling and drill, not for students and not for teachers. It is the human side of education that has been left out since the debacle of No Child Left Behind. When a high school honor student tells you the school system destroyed her creativity by the 3rd grade and a gifted 5th grader in a magnet program says school was better when he got to go to the gifted teacher because they had discussions and projects there is a major problem
Jun 15, 2009 at 6:54 AM
Professional development in education is unfortunately wasted in mandated meetings that the participants have no opportunity to assist in designing, implementing, or participating. I have worked in more than a couple of districts and have seen a unifying theme: Educator participation in designing professional development is not enthusiastically desired by those running the production lines.
Professional development today is tied to pushing students along the NCLB education assembly line. Strictly designed education models that allow models to dictate programs, courses, seminars, etc. instead of a true assessment of needs. Dr. Bruce Morgan, President of the now defunct Bible Institute of New England stated it well in the title of his 1974 pamphlet on education: "Don't Mess With The Assembly Line, You'll Screw Up the Robots!". And so it is with education today, we treat students like the robots being assembled on the plant production line instead of the uniquely individual creations of God that they are. Each one, reachable in a unique, challenging, and special way.
Teachers cannot expect to attain input into the process until the mentality of the policymakers changes from running the assembly line to one of CRAFTSMANSHIP in building and creating uniquely special students equipped to use their individually special and unique talents to the betterment of society for all of us. Then, teachers will reclaim their place as professional eduacators held in high esteem and applauded for their unique and special gifts to society.
As it is, we wait for the donuts and coffee at break time.
Jun 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Wow, there is such consensus among educators about the qualities of good professional development. It seems like a miracle when someone reports that it is different where they are. I am amazed that Dr.Morgan had the foresight back in 1974 when schools were nowhere near as robotic as they are now. That was the year before the implementation of PL 94-142 and you no longer had to be "normal" to go to school. They could no longer kick out the slow kids. And the administrators treated special ed. like the redheaded stepchild because our little square and triangular pegs did fit their round holes and a career special educator does not either.
But come to think of it, the big thing in teaching reading in the 1972 school year was a program called Distar, a scripted program. the assembly line had started. It did not work. That very same program that did not work was recycled into a commonly used reading program implemented in low income schools repackaged as Direct Instruction. When I saw it, I said, This is Distar. It looked almost identical to the original failed program from 20 years before.
It would be no problem to simply put Direct Instruction on computers today and hire a Teach for America or paraprofessional to supervise the lab. There is the assembly line.
I had a principal who, when he was upset, particularly over "a spy from downtown" telling grease about his school, would say "This wouldn't happen at Delta Airlines." He constantly referred to us as though we were labor.
Craftmanship in education. That is when you use the data (science) to inform and guide the art of teaching. It left when No Child came in, but apparently there were prophets of doom expousing much earlier.
Craftsmanship needs to return. Professional development would be a good place to start because teachers teach the way they were taught. I don't know how it can, however until teachers take over their industry. Neither our President nor the Secretary of Education are teachers so they really don't understand that teachers have degrees in education, gifts, and special skills and are artists as well as scientists.
Every other professional field is run by the members of that field. Education slipped away from the educators? That is why we have alternate certification and Teach for America instead of teachers in the classrooms with our most vulnerable students. It is also why a little robot is considered a great student. He can bubble away, but ask him to think and consider big ideas,he does not know how. It is also why, when his bubbling skills are not so valued in college, he panicks and messes up his scholarship.
When Zell Miller was govrenor of Georgia, he promptly implemented a 15% raise,lottery funded programs, opportunities and expectations that teachers get advanced degrees. It helped. All lottery profits go to education. He put that in the constitution because he knew that politicians would find other uses for it. Zell had been a K-12 teacher and a college professor. He had his faults but it was not in education.
Educators need to take education hostage and it might be best for the professional development people to get it started. Teacher teach the way they are taught.