"Over the years, a lot of good things have been done in the name of professional development. So have a lot of rotten things.” (Guskey, T. R., Evaluating Professional Development, 2000).
A New York City teacher’s complaint offers an example of what may be the worst of professional development:
"You see, part of being a teacher is having the opportunity of professional development (PD). Another part is being forced to partake in PD that you don't necessarily want, need, or will do anything for your children. The Dept. of Ed. WASTES hundreds of thousands of dollars each year on useless PD... I am often disgusted at how publishing companies and curriculum designers get rich off of these huge contracts with the NYC public schools... They make millions of dollars off of our kids.” (peaceintheclassroom.blogspot.com)
Her exasperation is clearly evident but what she describes is probably more correctly referred to as Staff Development (SD), not PD.
Although the terms PD and SD are sometimes used interchangeably, SD is what occurs when organizations seek ways to increase the knowledge, skills and attributes of their employees in ways the organization deems appropriate. Arguably, SD is a subset of all those things that make up professional development, but is much narrower in its focus than the broader concept of PD.
I can recall when I have encountered SD and felt frustration similar to that of the teacher from NYC. I’m thinking of those district-wide gatherings where teachers come to hear some speaker from the U.S. address local teachers and administrators on some particular educational topic. He, or she, has authored a book – for sale at the back - offering some particular research-based methodology, opinion, jargon, philosophy, or whatever, on what constitutes “best practice.” “Follow these steps and you’ll have success,” is the implication. I refer to this type of SD as an American, off-the-shelf product.
I find myself somewhat perplexed as I listen. The ideas in question may be research-based but usually fall short of being researched in a scientific, clinical sense. The speaker is often rhetorically gifted and with the style of a “motivational speaker.” She, or he, seems to keep the crowd entertained even though at times I feel as if I am being entertained or manipulated in the same way one may find one’s self entertained or manipulated by an infomercial.
Unfortunately, the message contained in these sessions often focuses too narrowly on what constitutes success in the classroom, i.e., improving high-stakes standardized test scores. Could it be that the high-stakes game of No Child Left Behind, with its focus on improving test scores, has also increased the demand for these staff-development “gurus” across America, and ensured that no consulting company will be left without an eager and anxious consumer?
My critical sensibilities really start tingling when, on occasion, there may even be disparaging references to teachers as being naysayers, laggards, resistant to change and, therefore, problematical . The implication here is that if implementation of a certain initiative proves difficult or less-than-successful, it’s not because of a problem inherent in the plan, or a mismatch of plan to problem; the problem is those teachers of little faith.
To go back to the complaint of our teacher from NYC, there’s the overall cost to consider. Not long ago, I attended a two day assembly for which the tuition was several hundred dollars. Without commenting on the effectiveness of the sessions, what struck me, as I looked around at the hundreds of teachers and administrators from a number of provinces, was the substantial – if not staggering - amount of money that that must be flowing from public education accounts into the coffers of these American consulting companies.
This particular consulting company in question advertises dozens of conferences throughout the United States and Canada each year. With the vast amounts of public education dollars going to these ventures one must ask, are we getting an educational bang for our educational buck? Is it good practice to be using scarce public dollars to fill the coffers of some private, for profit, corporation? Are we receiving significant, on-going benefits or simply crossing PD off the to-do list? Is it a clear vision of professional development that guides these endeavours? The financial cost may be relatively easy to calculate but what of the opportunity cost, i.e., in what fruitful pursuit could teachers be involved if they were not compelled to participate in these other activities?
There may be a better approach to planning and implementing quality, staff development and instilling positive educational change. I call upon another source:
“Change takes root when grown from local seeds planted by those who know the soil, the sky and the prevailing winds. Programs and strategies grown elsewhere usually flounder and founder.” (McKenzie, J. Identifying and Grooming the Pioneers,1998)Do we really need to go south of the border for our answers? The American context is not necessarily our context? Why would we not choose advice, guidance and leadership from those who understand our local context?
Another article in this issue discusses what can occur when home-grown knowledge and expertise is employed in helping teachers to develop and improve in their practice.
(I'll post the companion article to this, "Professional Development as a Home-grown Product," in the near future.)
No comments:
Post a Comment