By Rick DuFour

Journal of Staff Development, Summer 2003 (Vol. 24, No. 3)

Copyright, National Staff Development Council, 2003. All rights reserved.

The discussion about generating additional resources for public schooling in general or professional development in particular evokes the image of Charles Dickens' young orphan Oliver Twist, who, upon finishing his bowl of porridge, had the audacity to say to Mr. Bumble, "Please sir, I want some more." There is no question that education has failed to invest sufficiently in the development of the professionals who, in the final analysis, will determine the quality of any school. It is important that school leaders present an effective and compelling case to provide greater support for staff development. But to begin with the assumption that we cannot improve professional development without additional resources--that is, unless someone in authority agrees to give us more--ignores two important facts.

First, an essential prerequisite for effective staff development is a sense of self-efficacy, the belief that we can shape our future through our own efforts (Peterson, 1994). To operate from the premise that we cannot improve until someone else provides for us not only robs us of self-efficacy, it absolves us of responsibility. Second, if truth be told, most school districts could dramatically improve the quality of staff development with their existing resources if they were willing to stop some traditional practices and align the entire operation of the district with what virtually all schools proclaim is their fundamental purpose--high levels of learning for all students. In short, while school leaders can continue to press for more resources, they also must focus on doing a much better job of aligning the resources already available to them.

In their comprehensive study of organizations that were able to sustain excellent performance for an extended period of time, Jim Collins and Jerry Porras (1997) found the leaders of those organizations were relentless in aligning everything--policies, procedures, programs, goals, tactics, strategies, job designs, and day-to-day practices-- with the core purpose of their respective organizations. These leaders ensured all the elements of the company worked together in concert and created a total environment that bombarded employees with a set of signals so consistent and so mutually reinforcing that it was virtually impossible to misunderstand the organization's priorities.

Porras and Collins emphasized that organizational alignment went far beyond simply seeking more. As they wrote, "Attaining alignment is not only a process of adding new things, it is also a never-ending process of identifying and doggedly correcting misalignments that push a company away from its core ideology or impede its progress" (original emphasis).

First district

It is not difficult to identify common practices in many school districts that represent a misalignment of resources. Consider mythical Pleasant Valley School District, which declared improving student achievement in reading its top priority over a three-year period.

During those three years, Pleasant Valley District spent tens of thousands of dollars in increased salaries as teachers enrolled in graduate courses from scores of universities in order to advance on the salary schedule. Most of the courses had nothing to do with improving the capacity of the teacher to raise student achievement in reading. For example, Courtney, an elementary teacher hoping to secure a position in the high school, earned her master's degree in social studies. Not only did her salary increase as she moved across the salary schedule, but the district reimbursed a portion of her tuition.

The district launched its reading initiative at a teacher institute day by hiring a consultant to address the staff on strategies to promote reading across the curriculum; however, there was no follow-up training and no effort made to see whether the consultant's presentation impacted teacher practice in any way. In the second and third years, the institute speaker presented on unrelated topics and made no effort to connect the presentations to the reading goal.

During the four days set aside for staff development each year, Courtney and her colleagues were free to choose from a wide variety of workshops, most of which were unrelated to improving student skills in reading. The district provided some financial support for teachers to attend workshops and conferences outside the district; however, it provided no time for teachers to work together collaboratively within their own buildings.

The district's teacher evaluation process did not require Courtney to provide evidence that she had made any effort to improve her ability to teach reading or that her students were more proficient readers. Nor was the district's reading goal referenced in the principal's evaluation of her teaching.

Although the superintendent of Pleasant Valley continued to insist that improved reading was the district's priority, the rest of the central office conveyed very mixed messages to the individual schools. The director of elementary education was convinced that the critical friend concept was the best way to improve teacher effectiveness and required every school to implement the program. The director of transportation decreed that every principal had to evaluate the bus drivers for his/her school and accompany the driver on at least two different bus routes prior to writing the driver's evaluation. The technology director transferred all technology specialists out of the elementary schools to help install hardware and software at the high school.

There is little reason to believe students in this district will read better, and the district's failure to improve results will have more to do with ineffective leadership than a lack of resources.

Second district

Consider the superintendent of a second school district who recognizes that the indiscriminate learning of individuals does not guarantee that the organization's effectiveness will be enhanced. To qualify for district financial support, staff members must demonstrate how the program they wish to pursue is specifically linked to school or district goals. Courses and workshops designed to improve reading instruction qualify for additional support. The district also creates its own program of courses and workshops to address the reading initiative, and teachers can advance on the salary schedule by completing these district-operated programs. As the superintendent explains, "If we are willing to provide financial incentives for our staff to pursue programs from external sources where we have no control over the quality of the instructor or the rigor of the course, why shouldn't we provide those same incentives through our own programs where we can specifically design the experience to address our district's priorities--and we exercise total quality control?"

After all staff received an overview of strategies to improve student achievement in reading at a teacher institute, district specialists demonstrated how those ideas could be implemented in specific grade levels and subject areas throughout the year. Those specialists then served as coaches as teachers applied new strategies.

The superintendent was convinced that workshops, courses, and institutes were no substitute for the power of job-embedded staff development. So he asked principals to create a schedule that allowed teachers to work together in collaborative teams at least once a week. Teams were asked to clarify how they could contribute to improved student reading, to develop formative assessments to monitor their progress, to analyze student achievement data, to set specific improvement goals, and to support each other in implementing their improvement strategies.

The superintendent made it clear to principals that their efforts and effectiveness in improving students' reading in their schools would affect their evaluations. He met with each principal twice a year to review plans for improving reading and the indicators each monitored to assess the effectiveness of the plans. He devoted part of each monthly administrative team meeting to principals sharing ideas, strategies, and concerns regarding the reading initiative with their colleagues.

The superintendent was particularly emphatic that central office administrators speak with a single voice on the importance of the reading initiative. Each member of the cabinet was asked to develop and present a plan as to how his or her department could contribute to the district goal. Proposed initiatives that were unrelated to those goals were tabled. The superintendent insisted that central office staff help schools focus, rather than dilute, their efforts and energies.

In the second district, the professional staff was bombarded with a consistent message--we must improve student achievement in reading. Training, compensation, evaluation, planning, and coordination of services all were aligned to achieve that goal. The district certainly could have benefited from additional resources, but it used the available resources in a powerful way.

References

Collins, J.C. & Porras, J.I. (1997). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Collins.

Peterson, K. (1994). Building collaborative cultures: Seeking ways to reshape urban schools. Retrieved February 10, 2003, from North Central Regional Educational Laboratory web site: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le0pet.htm

About the author

In each issue of JSD, Rick DuFour writes about effective leadership. His columns can be found at www.nsdc.org/library/authors/dufour.cfm.

Rick DuFour is an educational consultant. You can contact him at 465 Island Pointe Lane, Moneta, VA 24121, (540) 721-4662, fax (540) 721-0382, e-mail: rdufour@district125.k12.il.us.