Text Links: Home Lesson Plans Humor Teacher Inquiry Urban Education Web Wizardry Links All material is my personal opinion, and not that of any other organization. Copyright 2001. Permission is granted for individual teacher use. All rights reserved. Feedback is invited: Email me!

Ill-served by Inservice A Critique of Teacher "Professional" Development Anthony Cody November, 1994 (Note: This piece was written more than four years ago, and reflects experiences which occurred between 1990 and 1993. It is intended as a constructive criticism of the relationship between teachers and would-be professional developers. ) There is an old spiritual which contains the lines, "I've been 'buked and I've been scorned..." This is a familiar sensation to teachers who have been ill-served by in-service. Think back on the last time you as a teacher were involved in professional development. Were you treated as a professional? Were you even treated as a sentient being, capable of independent, original thought? Or was the experience closer to a traffic school lecture, complete with "teacher-proof" guidelines. I have been fortunate enough to have one or two good experiences in professional development, and our collaborative group has shown me how stimulating discussion with fellow teachers can be. However, in District-sponsored inservices, I have far more often found my self patronized, lectured, and demonstrated to death, with little opportunity for my true growth as a professional. Teachers typically leave these sessions grumbling to each other about another wasted afternoon. I am going to critique my most recent experience, which helped crystallize my dissatisfaction, then offer some guidelines for teachers and would-be professional developers. I was nominated by my principal to a body in my district designated the "Leadership Cadre." We were to be trained by two consultants [Drs. Bruce Joyce and Beverly Showers] in their models of instruction. The District provided subs so that we could attend sessions two days each month over the last year. The District's goal was to have a "cadre" of people trained in these techniques, who could conduct further trainings in the future, after the presumably high-paid consultants had left the scene. The first six months of the program saw radical fluctuations in participation in the group. Novice teachers were involved at first, but then were left out. (In one appalling violation of respect, experienced teachers sitting in the same room with novice teachers were asked whether they felt the novices were holding the group back!) There were problems with substitutes, meeting locations, and notification. Part of this was the District's fault, but the instructors never seemed to recognize the disruptive effect this had on the group. Like performers for a theatrical audience, they were prepared to perform for whomever showed up. The first six sessions were devoted almost exclusively to lectures and demonstrations of the techniques. We were not given time to develop applications of the techniques to our own grade level, curricular area, or teaching style. As the examples were exclusively grade four to twelve, English and Social Studies, this led to a great deal of frustration for those of us who fell outside these areas. Worse, we were never asked to give feedback as to how effective the sessions were, or for ideas to improve them. I finally stood up at the end of a lecture and asked when we would be allowed to do some development of our own applications of these lessons. When this suggestion received support from most of those present, we were finally given an afternoon for development the following day. A subsequent session featured a demonstration of an inductive technique in which we were given sets of demographic data about various states. We were instructed to look for patterns in the data and attempt to make generalizations about the states, grouping them according to the characteristics they seemed to share. We were encouraged to look for correlations, for example, did high educational levels correlate with high income levels. We were warned about the danger of ascribing causality to any aspect of the correlation, but contrary to accurate statistical evaluation, and in the absence of very strong correlations, participants were encouraged to group states based on what I felt were insignificant variations. I raised the point that the word correlation had a real meaning, and we should be careful to look for statistically significant correlation, and not draw any conclusions based on insignificant correlations. Encouraging people to make generalizations based on insufficient data might lead to conclusions in line with previously held beliefs and prejudices, and might actually reinforce erroneous beliefs. I said we should include basic education about what correlation means, so that students could use a discerning eye when analyzing data. The instructors said, fine, fine, and moved on. In a break shortly afterwards, Bruce Joyce told me "You know, most of these elementary teachers are weak in math. What you were saying is really over their heads. That's why we keep it simple, so they won't be intimidated." As the year progressed, we were given more time for development, though the group size dropped by about half. The District began to define further the future role of the Cadre, and we were invited to assist in the training of teachers during the summer. At this time we were also given an article to read authored by Joyce. The article, which appeared in an academic journal, critiqued efforts by professional developers, and suggested they be held responsible for the implementation of their methods (or lack thereof). It suggested ways to boost implementation, including site-based Study Teams. These are groups of teachers who meet to share their successes in implementing new techniques. He states, however, that "...study group members should be chary of offering advice to one another. They need to acknowledge that they are novices with the new procedure and may well offer poor advice without realizing it. I have watched more than one study group invent a dysfunctional variation on cooperative learning because the most forthcoming member of the group provided the wrong advice in a knowing manner. " In a discussion of the article, I raised a disagreement with this warning, arguing that it reduced teachers' role to that of cheerleader, with no critical input. I argued that teachers should have an active role in critiquing techniques, and should creatively modify and innovate. They should see themselves as researchers, not passive implementers of someone else's ideas. I was surprised by the instructor's response. "I agree with you," he said. I protested that he had not shown any evidence of agreeing with the principles I was advocating. "I just haven't figured out how to translate that into reality," he responded. He insisted he was sincere, and offered to work together in the future, to make the ideas we agreed upon real. I was skeptical, but took him at his word. In our subsequent session we were to discuss the schedule and program for a summer training session. The teachers these sessions are aimed at are experienced teachers, who got two weeks of training in these methods last summer. The Cadre members were to act as assistant trainers during these sessions. In keeping with our agreement to work together to translate my ideas into reality, I prepared an alternative presentation for the first day of the training. It featured the following premise: "Participating teachers are experienced researchers and innovaters, who experiment with techniques, adapting and improving them to fit their particular student populations and teaching styles." The session featured small group discussions on which techniques had been useful, and which the teachers wished to learn more about. The small groups would report back, and group feedback would influence the emphases of the training. We would also solicit variations and innovations, and devote generous amounts of time to development. Newly developed techniques and applications would be published and made available to other teachers in the District, with recognition given to the authors. At the next session, (our last of the year), the instructors presented a complete, minute by minute schedule for the summer trainings. It featured a fifteen minute introduction, then dove into demonstrations of the techniques. There was substantial time devoted to development, but there was no space for feedback or critical thought. I presented my alternative to the instructors and the Cadre and everyone seemed to agree with this approach. The instructors said they would take my ideas and "incorporate" them into the program. I was incorporated, alright. I was incorporated into a one page questionnaire which asked teachers to report which methods they had used, and what they hoped to learn in the session. I don't think this information was even used once gathered. The critical discussion I had proposed was totally lacking, and the teachers set about their task in the pedestrian fashion I had feared. This experience reflects what I feel is a fairly typical relationship between professional consultants and the teachers they are hired to train. (Even the term "teacher training" has an element of disrespect in it. Are we seals?) And what did this training cost? The training of the Leadership Cadre, consisting of 25 teachers, cost the District $40,000 in sub pay alone. Beyond this, our classes and schools were disrupted by our absence. The point is not that this was a complete waste, but that teacher development, if rethought, could yield much greater results. I shared my experiences along the way with the collaborative research group I belong to. They first challenged me to define my goals in participating in such a flawed effort. This helped me develop my critique of the instructors approach, as well as strengthen my efforts to make myself heard. More importantly, our successful experience of month after month, invigorating and supporting eachother with insightful discussion, showed me that there is another way. What is a better approach? Our goal, whether we are teachers, administrators, or consultants, is to deliver the best education possible to our students. We are here spending precious education dollars not for our egos, or our academic careers, but so that we can make a difference in each teachers' classroom. Education reformers have realized that we must place the student at the center of his or her own learning, including his or her prior experience. Our premise regarding teachers must do no less. Teachers are all experienced innovaters. We all take a wide range of techniques, and experiment and modify them to meet our needs. This creativity is seldom recognized or honored, and is therefore stifled. To unleash this creativity, we must redefine teachers as researchers and authors, with knowledge which is useful to others. Effective teacher professional development should include the following elements. First, allow teachers to define their needs and tailor development efforts to meet those needs. Do not impose "development" on anyone. Second, involve teachers in critically evaluating whether their needs are being met along the way. Third, each individual teacher's experience and background should be central to their learning. They should bring this experience to bear in revising and recreating techniques for their own use. Lastly, if consultants or outside experts are used, teachers should be treated as their equals. Practitioners are not passive implementors of techniques, but are active innovators, who modify existing techniques, and create new ones. Development should include original work, critical evaluation of techniques, and creation of new methods. This innovation should be recognized and elevated, as a means of empowering teachers. The result of these changes will be three-fold. First, consultants will have to relate to teachers in a new, more respectful way. Second, teachers will actually implement techniques enthusiastically, knowing that the power resides within themselves to make the techniques effective and appropriate for their classrooms. They will be recognized and rewarded for original work they do. Lastly, teachers will become enthusiastic about new ideas, and share their successes in the knowledge they will be recognized. This will result in increased innovation and livelier classrooms for our students. The push for this is not likely to come from academia, the base of most of these consultants. Parents, who might be distressed to learn of the ineffectiveness of these methods, are unlikely to learn the truth. Rather, it is teachers who must stand up. We cannot wait until in-services are over to grumble. If consultants are to be hired, they must meet our needs, and to respect us. We need to promote models of development which serve our needs. If we find we are not being treated with respect, we should articulate our dissatisfaction. If changes are not made, we should walk out. Our districts must not hire consultants who disrespect or patronize teachers. We should work with administrators to draft criterion to be used in the hiring and evaluation of consultants. Beyond this, we should recognize that outside consultants are not essential to our growth as professionals, and in fact may be obstacles. We should create new collaborative forms which unleash and reward our creativity. Note: Since this piece was written, the Oakland Unified School District has made much progress in supporting the efforts of teachers to take charge of our own growth and curriculum.