The Dilemmas of Professional Development

Abstract

Why do so few staff development programs incorporate features that research has shown to be effective? Ms. Richardson suggests that the recommended practices may be at odds with America's culture of individualism. THE GROWING body of research on professional development has provided us with consistent guidelines for planning and implementing staff development that may lead to the reform and improvement of practice. I can say this because I have been engaged in professional development and have conducted research on the topic for nearly 20 years. But I have been intrigued, concerned, and frustrated by the fact that, while we have had research evidence on the characteristics of effective staff development programs for some time, these features are not commonly seen in practice. Indeed, most of the staff development that is conducted with K-12 teachers derives from the short-term transmission model; pays no attention to what is already going on in a particular classroom, school, or school district; offers little opportunity for participants to become involved in the conversation; and provides no follow-up. We have been engaged in this form of staff development for years, knowing full well that this approach is not particularly successful. We know from many studies1 that research-based professional development exhibits a number of characteristics. It should: * be schoolwide; * be long-term with follow-up; * encourage collegiality; * foster agreement among participants on goals and vision; * have a supportive administration; * have access to adequate funds for materials, outside speakers, substitute teachers, and so on; * develop buy-in among participants; * acknowledge participants' existing beliefs and practices; and * make use of an outside facilitator/staff developer. We have known about the first six characteristics for some time; the last three are more current. And there might not be complete agreement about the need for an outside facilitator/staff developer, because there is not yet enough research on this point to suggest that it is essential.2 One form of professional development that employs these characteristics is the inquiry approach,3 which I will discuss in some depth below. With this approach, the participants determine their individual and collective goals, experiment with practices, and engage in open and trusting dialogue about teaching and learning with colleagues and outside facilitators. Why are the nine characteristics listed above not standard practice in school districts' staff development programs? While I do believe their use is increasing, the overall approach still is not standard. For some time, I have been thinking about reasons why these research-based practices are avoided, and I've come up with a number of explanations. First, the approach is expensive. Second, such staff development processes need to take place over a long period of time. And, should the particular professional development process chosen be an inquiry approach, there are two additional reasons districts might avoid it: it is hard for a school district to determine how to support an inquiry approach (and even harder to figure out how to mandate it), and giving participants the power to make decisions about the goals to be pursued and the changes to be made might lead to unacceptable decisions. This last issue often leads districts to seek to standardize goals in advance, and that poses problems for teachers and professional developers who are involved in inquiry/constructivist processes. But I am not completely satisfied with these explanations. There may in fact be a cultural norm -- the norm of American individualism -- that works against the use of research-based staff development practices and operates at a quite different level from the four reasons listed above. Let me explore this norm on the way to a discussion of a form of professional development that can bring teachers together around a problem and that requires their joint effort, while allowing them to maintain their sense of autonomy, expertise, and individual efficacy. …