Home | Back to the Hayes Mizell Reader Index

Remarks of Hayes Mizell at the first joint training workshop for representatives from state-level Staff Development Leadership Councils on February 19, 1999 in Dallas, TX. Mizell is Director of the Program for Student Achievement at the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.

NOTE: The Councils are a project of the National Staff Development Council, an 8,000-member national organization committed to high levels of learning and performance for all students and staff members. The SDLCs will "advocate for state and local policies and practices that support outstanding staff development. They will guide the work of >small, action-oriented groups in communities throughout their states, helping to create schools in which all students learn at high levels." The first group of SDLCs are in California, Maryland, Missouri, New York, and Texas. There is also a second tier of SDLCs in Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, and Louisiana.


A Small Brave Band


If anyone doubted the need for Staff Development Leadership Councils, their skepticism should have been erased by findings reported a few weeks ago by the National Center for Education Statistics study, Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers. As I am sure many of you know, the study concluded:
* While 54 percent of the teachers [surveyed] taught limited English proficient or culturally diverse students, and 71 percent taught students with disabilities, relatively few teachers who taught these students (about 20 percent) felt very well prepared to meet the needs of these students. Their feelings of preparedness did not differ by teaching experience.

* Only 28 percent of teachers felt very well prepared to use student performance assessment techniques; 41 percent reported feeling very well prepared to implement new teaching methods, and 36 percent reported feeling very well prepared to implement state or district curriculum and performance standards.

And just this week, the president of Teachers College at Columbia University, speaking of the pressures on states anticipating the need for 2.2 million new teachers during the next decade, said:

"States are actually going to have to lower requirements to get live bodies into the classroom."

The message I take from this is that most members of the current teaching force lack the knowledge, skills, and confidence to provide the quality of education students need and the public is demanding, and it will only get worse. You have probably noted that in the discussions about this crisis, the emphasis is on "how we recruit, prepare, retain and reward America's teachers," as Secretary Riley phrased it earlier this week in his "State of American Education" speech. Notably absent from the Secretary's litany of verbs -- "recruit, prepare, retain and reward"-- was "develop." However, later in his speech the Secretary did say:
"[I]t is so very important to recognize that professional development as we know it simply has to change. And those of use who are policy leaders must listen to what teachers are telling us...[They] are telling us in no uncertain terms that the current practice of 'one-shot workshops' really has to go. Teachers are asking us for more depth, more planning time, and greater opportunities to learn from each other. And they want help in addressing the realities of the modern classroom: student diversity, students with disabilities, technology and new high standards... All teachers should be encouraged to continue to learn and grow. That's why I ask districts to take a serious look at a new and developing concept called knowledge and skills-based pay."

That was the meat of the Secretary's remarks concerning staff development. He announced no dramatic Federal initiatives, perhaps because he knows all too well that the struggle to provide high quality staff development has to occur in state legislatures, departments of education, school boards, school site councils, and local union negotiations. Of course, until now in these venues there have been virtually no advocates for effective staff development.

This illustrates a great paradox. On the one hand, there has never been a greater need for staff development. On the other hand, staff development, as most people have experienced or perceived it, is held in such low esteem that few people seriously consider it as a strategy to improve the practice of teachers and administrators. Secretary Riley referred to "one-shot workshops" because that is the image that has become almost synonymous with "staff development." This reality presents a huge challenge to NSDC generally and to SDLCs in particular.

Understandably, there has been a reluctance among advocates of quality staff development to paint all instances of discrete, relatively short teacher training with the same broad brush of condemnation. But to be effective advocates, NSDC and SDLCs will need to get to gain a toe-hold of credibility, and that may mean separating yourselves from the kind of staff development experiences that educators, policy makers, and the public consider to be ineffective.

I don't know if there is a taxonomy that graphically classifies the potentially least effective, moderately effective, and most effective types of staff development, but if there is not such classification, perhaps NSDC should create one, primarily for lay audiences. I am sure some people will argue that there is not an adequate research base to make such judgments, but I believe there is a compelling political need for NSDC and SDLCs to communicate clearly and simply where local and state policy makers should place their staff development "bets." All staff development is not created equal, nor does it have the potential for equal effects, and if NSDC and SDLCs cannot bite the bullet of distinguishing good from not-so-good, and not-so-good from bad, they will be less credible as advocates.

To be effective advocates...may mean separating yourselves
from the kind of staff development experiences that
educators, policy makers, and the public consider to be ineffective.

This is just one of the challenges you will face as you work at state and local levels to increase and strengthen staff development. Another is that as you are more frequently in the corridors of power, whether at the state or local level, you may be drawn into increasingly rarified discussions about arcane policy issues that some people consider important but which substantially miss the mark of local educators' real needs. This is why it is important for you to take the initiative, to be clear about what you want, and to seek out, cultivate, and collaborate with allies who can help you get it.

Each SDLC is, in effect, a small brave band of advocates for high quality staff development. As I have said, your first task is to know in your own minds what you believe high quality staff development is and what it is not. You have to be able to communicate that clearly. It won't work to say to a policy maker, "Well, here are NSDC's standards for good staff development." The more understandable your message is, and the more practical and grounded your proposal is, the more likely it is you will be successful.

Because your time and other resources are limited, you will have to be deliberate in seeking opportunities to leverage your advocacy and expertise. Perhaps staff development, in some form, is already part of the current education reform debate in your state, and if that is the case you will want to seize the opportunity this presents. If, on the other hand, staff development is not receiving much attention, you will have to work hard to get your proposals on the agenda. How you do this will differ according to the opportunities that present themselves.

You may identify and assist just one influential legislator who recognizes the potential of staff development as a positive political issue, or you may identify an organization, such as the League of Women Voters, that is not currently interested in the issue but is open to becoming educated about it and perhaps willing to make improving staff development part of its agenda. I have no doubt that the opportunities are out there, but you have to think broadly and creatively to identify and exploit them. If effective staff development is an important public policy issue, not just an education issue, then people other than educators have to have opportunities to learn more about it, participate in developing strategies to address it, and use their influence in venues other those for professional educators to mobilize support for improving it.

But what should you be advocating for? Again, this will depend on many different state and local factors, but I hope you will keep some "basics" in mind. First, I think it is appropriate to advocate for states and school systems to make more money and more time available for more staff development. There simply are not enough staff development opportunities to address the staggering problems of limited professional capacity that I described at the beginning of these remarks. However, it will be a serious mistake if you frame your message and advocacy in ways that cause policy makers to hear it as : "Give us more money, time, and days for staff development, and by the way we are concerned about quality too."

I think you have to establish your credibility by addressing issues of quality and effectiveness first, and then making the case for why there needs to be more staff development if policy makers are serious about increasing student achievement. I mean this quite literally. In your printed materials and oral presentations, it is important to stake out your ownership of the quality and effectiveness issues and then address the resource issues.

I believe you can increase your leverage as advocates if you insist that accountability should be part of any new staff development initiatives. One of the hurdles you have to overcome is that policy makers and the public know very little about the results of the previous staff development they have supported. Indeed, many of them either believe that supporting staff development is a necessary evil, something educators demand even if policy makers understand little about what it achieves, or they believe that supporting staff development is just throwing resources into a black hole.

Each year there is a steady drip, drip, drip of
staff development resources, but it drips into a broken vessel,
seeping out at the same rate as it drips in,
never accumulating to make a discernable difference.

Yes, there may be mountains of documents in the state department of education that report how school systems and schools have used staff development grants or days but I doubt anyone really understands what this information means. No one understands the impact of staff development on teachers, administrators, schools, and certainly not on students. Because no one knows whether or how or under what conditions staff development makes a difference, no one is held accountable for the use of staff development resources.

Each year there is a steady drip, drip, drip of staff development resources, but it drips into a broken vessel, seeping out at the same rate as it drips in, never accumulating to make a discernable difference. Educators may use staff development well, or they may use it badly, but if there is no accountability, the drip, drip, drip continues.

If SDLCs are going to make case for more staff development resources, they will also have to press for more accountability for the use of those resources. SDLCs may need to devote considerable effort to conceiving practical accountability models for staff development initiatives. Assuming they are able to do so, SDLCs will then have to educate policy makers about how to integrate accountability into their support for staff development. They will have to guide education bureaucrats in the practical application of the accountability model so as to minimize negative unintended consequences.

Finally, SDLCs will have to lead building-level educators to understand that holding themselves accountable for the effective use of staff development is the best way to avoid the burdens of external accountability. As I have suggested, one element of this kind of accountability is better information about the use and effects of staff development. I am not suggesting more paper compliance that perpetuates the view that accountability is a game in which the objective is to keep state department or central office staff at bay, or not to appear on some list published in the newspaper. Instead, the information component needs to be an instrument for staff development.

For example, what if each school was charged to organize a small action research team of teachers to systematically collect data about the school's major use of staff development resources, to survey teachers' assessments of the utility of their staff development experiences, and to document teachers' application of staff development to their classroom practice? What if teachers' service on this team was a three-year commitment with a significant stipend? What if there was a similar district-level action research team of teachers charged to train the school teams, and to critically review and analyze the reports of the school teams, and to provide feedback? I am not offering this as model, but only as an illustration of how I believe SDLCs and policy makers should begin to think about an accountability model that both incorporates the principles of good staff development and creates incentives, as well as consequences, for the more effective use of staff development.

I also hope you will keep in mind whom you are advocating for, not only teachers, but principals, assistant principals, and students as well. As for teachers, I would echo Secretary Riley's statement that we should "listen to what teachers are telling us." They are, after all, the people whose needs staff development should address more effectively. Remember that most teachers are not superhuman. They face tremendous challenges, they are isolated, they are tired, and many of them are not enthusiastic about devoting time and energy to their professional development. Keep these realities in mind.

In this context, what types of staff development are most likely to address teachers' spoken and unspoken needs? How can staff development opportunities be conceived, organized, and implemented in ways that foster teachers' participation, increase their knowledge and skills, and motivate them to put what they learn to use in their classrooms? As a practical matter, how can the concepts of job-embedded staff development and continuous support be reflected in policy? It will be useful to struggle with these and many related questions if new staff development initiatives are to be better received and have greater effect than those in the past.

But staff development is not just for teachers. Principals and assistant principals get even less. It is a truism in education that the direction and overall health of a school is shaped by its administrators. Increasingly, states and school systems are holding these educators accountable for raising the levels of student performance in their schools. This goes against the grain of the administrators' preparation and evaluation. Few of them expected to be or perhaps wanted to be instructional leaders, yet they now find themselves accountable for increasing student achievement.

To perform this role effectively, building administrators will need intensive and continuous staff development. They need to develop skills in how to lead their faculties in analyzing student performance data, and in modifying classroom practices to improve student performance. Principals need to know how to conduct meaningful classroom observations and how to use the annual performance review of teachers to focus the teachers' professional development.

Administrators even need to know how to use building-level staff development resources more effectively to improve instruction, and how to assess the effects of staff development. Very few principals have these skills and unless policy makers devote more attention and resources to providing administrators with the staff development they need, all the accountability systems in the world will not produce the increases in student achievement the public is seeking.

Somewhere there is a state board of education or
local school board chairperson who thinks it would be
a good learning experience to observe through
a one-way window a focus group of teachers discussing
their staff development experiences and how to improve them.

As you think about focusing your agenda and selecting your strategies and tactics, keep in mind what works in staff development. Listen to the people you want to reach, don't lecture them. Respect and use the prior experiences of your audience, don't dismiss or denigrate them. Listen to what you are saying and look at what you are writing through the ears and eyes of others. Is it clear? Is it understandable? Does it make sense? Assess your relationship with the people you want to reach. Is it "one shot" or is it sustained? Engage the minds and the hearts of policy makers, make them participants in a constructionist experience rather than passive recipients of your information or admonitions. Above all, be prepared, do your homework, know not only your subject, but the interests, hopes and fears of your audience.

Finally, be bold. Somewhere out there is a policy maker or superintendent who believes it is not a wacky idea to suggest that teachers should be involved in staff development at least 20 percent of each school week. They are waiting for your challenge and your help. Somewhere there is a state board of education or local school board chairperson who thinks it would be a good learning experience for their board to observe through a one-way window a focus group of teachers discussing their staff development experiences and how to improve them. They are waiting for your suggestions and your organization of the event.

Somewhere there is an education committee staff person with an incipient interest in persuading his or her committee chairperson that there is a need for and political capital in a comprehensive review of the state's support for staff development and how to use it as a lever for increasing student achievement. That staff person is waiting for you to walk through the door, focus their interest, and offer your help.

My point is that in terms of attention to and action on staff development, you are walking onto an almost empty playing field. You have an exciting opportunity to seize the initiative, capture people's imaginations, and define the issues on your terms. I hope you will make the most of this opportunity and demonstrate how it is possible to shape policy that not only provides more effective staff development but results in improved teacher and student performance.

Thank you.