Back to the IN CASE YOU MISSED IT index
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997
From: Don Johnson <donjohns@mnic.net>
To: teachers@inet.ed.gov
Subject: Meaningful professional development
Laurie said:
"One of the main issues in school reform seems to be training teachers.
All the research points out that "one-shot" in-services do not
really help at all. The research says that teacher professional development
should be ongoing and have a support system built in so that teachers get
the help they need to make improvements and changes in their teaching in
order to help students learn better. And that is what it boils down to -
improving student learning. My question is, if this is what should be done,
why isn't it happening? Are your schools still giving one day in-services?
Has there been any change in how teacher professional development is viewed
or implemented in your schools? If you were in charge of professional development,
what would YOU do? What would it involve and how would it look?"
Laurie,
This is a question I've pondered many times over my career, especially over
the last two years. In 1996-'97 I worked for the Minnesota Department of
Children, Families, and Learning (Our Department of Ed.) as a Regional Coordinator;
now, in '97-'98, I AM "in charge of professional development."
I have returned to my district as a Professional Development Coordinator.
This is all pretty new to me - my background in staff development is pretty
minimal, so I'm learning as I go.
Rather than only looking into Ed practices in professional development,
I've been talking to a number of industries in my area that do in-house
training programs. I've observed in these conversations that industrialists
place great value on training, and expect much from it. To that end, they
invest a good deal of time and money in instruction of their personnel.
On average, the organizations I've talked to (hardly a scientific sample,
although I suspect it's probably a reasonably uniform number) invest around
30% of the cost of any new program, technology, initiative, etc., in training,
in-service, schooling - call it what you like. They do this, because they
feel that if they're going to invest in whatever their new initiative is
and maximize their profits from it, they must simultaneously promote the
speed and effectiveness of their workforce to carry it out.
In contrast, this year my district is investing 5.1 million dollars in technology;
it is investing less than 1% of that cost in training its staff to be able
to effectively use it. I do not feel that my district is atypical of many
other districts in this state (or in this country), rushing to get "on
board" with hardware, software, etc. - In fact, it's probably more
enlightened than most.
Still, I can't get over the irony that the outside world apparently sees
the value of a truly well-trained and up-to-date workforce more clearly
than the world of education does itself.
I can only imagine what would happen if we were to tell our board and our
community that 1.53 million dollars of its technology bond had to go to
training the district's teachers to use technology. For most, "teaching
teachers" sounds like a contradiction in terms - After all, they're
supposed to teaching everybody else.
Beyond a true financial commitment to staff development, our biggest problem,
as I see it, is getting access to whole faculties, elementary or primary,
for the extended periods of time necessary to do good effective training,
because it means taking teachers away from kids. Parents object to the inconvenience
of their children not being in school. Teachers object to the idea of being
asked to participate in training (often even if they're paid a stipend)
during times they consider to be their "own" (summer, weekends,
vacations) or times they need to get things done when kids aren't around
(grading, planning, preparing, organizing for classes, etc.). Administrators
have their own individual, "building" staff development issues
they want to pursue on the few so-called "staff development days"
we do have.
When professional development is continually shunted aside and characterized
as esoteric, out in touch with "what really goes on in the classroom";
when it is seen as less important than "managing" schools, kids,
and teachers, it's not surprising that education falls short in promoting
the continual growth of its practitioners.
So - We're back to where we began, aren't we? What should we do? I think
the answer is one that the public and many educators alike would not care
for, because it would mean both more money and commitment of time.
Presently, most schools and communities still embrace the old agricultural
school year (based on the premise that the kids are needed for planting
and harvesting). My own school has stretched its year to 9 months (remember,
there's lots of vacation days in there). Why not add one month? We could
use this time to extend the kids' school year, and thus teach them "more,"
or for professional development of our teachers (if we truly believe in
its value).
The former proposal would answer critics who say our time with students
is too short; the latter would provide an extended period of access to staff,
where it could consistently and broadly in-serviced, allowing for professional
interaction between grade levels. This would also still provide two months
of vacation for teachers, and leave kids' vacation time the same. Since
the teacher's time away from the kids would be considered as valuable to
their schools as time spent with students, their pay would be the same,
extended for an additional month.
The real question then would become: by which would kids be better served?
More time for teachers to hone their skills to maximize their efficiency
in a shorter school year, or more time spent teaching kids? I think you
know where I believe the answer lies.
I'm pretty sure I know what business would say in the same situation, but
we're not the same as a business, are we? I believe that whatever we do
with staff development, if we fail to perceive it to be as important to
kids as that which we do with them in class, we will never be able to fully
implement anything beyond those "one-shot" travesties.
Donald E. Johnson
1994 Minnesota Teacher of the Year
625 Carlanna Place
Owatonna, MN 55060
Ph: (507) 451-8133
E-Mail: donjohns@mnic.net