KCMSD Job Embedded Professional Development

An Interim Report for the Plaintiffs by

Judy Gouwens

December 3, 2002

Two researchers visited selected schools in the KCMSD in November 2002 to gather information about how the schools were implementing job-embedded professional development. The researchers visited Central, Northeast, Paseo, Southeast, and Van Horn High Schools; Central, Kansas City Arts, King, Northeast, Nowlin, Robeson, and Rogers Middle Schools; Askew, Blenheim, Border Star, Bryant, Carver, Franklin, Graceland, Holliday, Knotts, Ladd, Longan, Longfellow, Milton Moore, Mt. Washington,Paige, Pinkerton, Pitcher, Richardson, Trailwoods, Wheatley, and Woodland Elementary Schools; and, Foreign Language Academy and Southeast K-8.

Visits to the schools were short, with most lasting between one and two hours, and focused solely on job-embedded professional development. At each school the researchers interviewed the principal or her/his designee about job-embedded professional development. The researchers also observed job-embedded professional development activities at the schools if there were any going on at the time of the visits. In a few cases, the researchers returned to the schools a second time if a professional development activity that could be observed was scheduled for later the day of the visit or the next day. Most of the visits were announced to the schools; nine visits were unannounced. One school scheduled for an unannounced visit was not included due to a crisis situation at the school. In most cases, representatives of the teachers' union accompanied the researchers.

Researchers sought to determine whether there was job-embedded professional development going on at each of the schools, and if there was, to learn about the nature of that job-embedded professional development. The specific questions that guided this study included the following:

1. Who is responsible for job-embedded professional development at the school?

2. How are the decisions about job-embedded professional development made? Who makes them? On what bases?

3. What kinds of activities are included in job-embedded professional development?

4. How is job-embedded professional development differentiated?

Researchers were received graciously and in general found principals and other school personnel to regard job-embedded professional development positively. The researchers found, with a few exceptions, schools to be making an effort to implement job-embedded professional development.

The researchers noted the following:

· There seems not to be a common definition or understanding of job-embedded professional development across all the schools visited.

· While nearly every Professional Development Committee has a responsibility for and a role in job-embedded professional development, others involved vary from school to school.

· There is variation in who makes the decisions about the content and format of professional development and how those decisions are made.

· At most of the schools visited, there was little differentiation of job-embedded professional development. The quality of job-embedded professional development varies greatly from school to school.

· The competence of instructional coaches varies widely from school to school.

Definitions

Terms used in this report to describe professional development include the following:

Action research -- applied research conducted by teachers and administrators at the school level around questions related to improving their own professional practice and their students' learning.

Coaching -- a professional development cycle that could include a presentation of information or strategies, demonstrating the use of that information and those strategies in a classroom with children, and actively supporting the classroom teacher as s/he learns to use them through observation and feedback.

Demonstration teaching -- a demonstration of teaching strategies conducted in a classroom with children present for the purpose of observers being able to see the effects of the strategies on children's engagement and/or learning, as well as expert demonstration of the strategies.

Differentiation -- providing professional development opportunities that address the specific learning needs and classroom challenges of each individual teacher.

Peer coaching -- coaching by colleagues rather than expert coaches. Peer coaching should include at the least, observation and feedback, but could also include demonstrations and co-teaching.

Study groups -- groups of teachers and other school personnel who meet on a regular basis to study and discuss professional literature that has been selected by the members of the group to address specific classroom and school challenges.

Walk through -- a guided walk though classrooms to observe and then discuss such issues as the work that is valued in the classrooms, the teaching strategies observed, and children's responses to the strategies.

Workshops -- presentations of information and strategies to teachers and other school personnel. Such presentations should include theoretical bases for the information and strategies, thorough explanation of the information and strategies, and opportunities for participants to demonstrate their understanding of the information and strategies actively.

Job-Embedded Professional Development

According to Sparks and Hirsch (1997),

Job-embedded learning . . . links learning to the immediate and real-life problems faced by teachers and administrators. It is based on the assumption that the most powerful learning is that which occurs in response to challenges currently being faced by the learner and that allows for immediate application, experimentation, and adaptation on the job. (p. 52)

There are many forms that job-embedded learning for teachers and administrators can take. These include training and demonstrations followed by coaching, peer observation and coaching, small group problem-solving, walk-throughs, reviewing student work, team planning, analysis of school and classroom data, participating in study groups, and conducting action research.

In the schools visited, researchers noted that most of the principals described job-embedded professional development as including presentations, demonstrations, and coaching, both expert and peer. Some also described analysis of test data, study groups, and team planning. No principals described action research as a form of job-embedded professional development.

Only a few of the interviewees seemed to understand that job-embedded professional development should be directly related to issues that arise out of teachers' practice in their classrooms. Most seemed to think that professional development was job-embedded if it was conducted during the school day rather than at other times.

Observations confirmed that there were indeed presentations, demonstrations, coaching, and classroom observations going on in many of the schools visited. There were no opportunities to observe teachers problem-solving together about improving their own teaching, study groups, or data analysis sessions. Researchers did observe team meetings; the content of them, however, was more related to what to teach (curriculum) rather than problem solving about how to teach.

Researchers had the opportunity to observe the work of some instructional coaches. In one school, for example, the instructional coach was observed doing a short presentation about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation for a small group of teachers. According to the instructional coach, this presentation was in preparation for classroom demonstrations that would show teachers how to incorporate motivational strategies into their teaching. In another school, instructional coaches were observing in classrooms for the motivation strategies they had presented to teachers.

In another school, an exemplary teacher demonstrated ways to raise students' levels of concern during a mathematics lesson. Several other teachers were observing the demonstration; they were taking notes in preparation for their discussion to be held later that day about what they had observed. In several schools, there were opportunities to observe coaches debriefing with teachers.

Responsibility for Job-Embedded Professional Development

There seems to be considerable variation in who is responsible for job-embedded professional development across the schools visited. All schools reported making use of the district level content coaches. Some schools have full-time instructional coaches; other schools share instructional coaches; still others have no instructional coaches on their own staffs. Some schools have "exemplary teachers" or content area teacher leaders who are involved in job-embedded professional development. Nearly all of the principals also described MAP teacher leaders as having significant roles in their schools' professional development. Several schools reported using outside consultants to provide job-embedded professional development, many of whom are funded by the Kauffman Foundation.

In some schools, the principals and/or vice principals reported taking active roles in job-embedded professional development, while other administrators seemed to delegate the responsibility for professional development. Only a few principals noted that job-embedded professional development was the responsibility of all teachers and administrators in their schools.

On two days of the visits, there was district-level professional development for coaches and others involved in professional development. It was interesting to note that even on these days, some schools did have professional development activities going on. But in several of the schools visited, there were no professional development activities taking place on the days of the visits even when the coaches were in the buildings. The researchers were not able to determine what other responsibilities instructional coaches might have if they were not planning for or facilitating professional development.

Decisions about Job-Embedded Professional Development

Principals reported that decisions about professional development were made by a variety of people. Some noted that their schools' Professional Development Committee made decisions about professional development. Others reported that instructional coaches, MAP teacher leaders, or content lead teachers decided what professional development the teachers in the schools needed. Only a few reported that individual teachers made decisions about their own professional development. At most schools visited, the decisions seemed to be made by several of these people collaboratively, rather than any one person or group acting alone, although a few principals said they deferred to the school district to determine what professional development was needed. One principal reported wanting teachers in her school to make decisions about professional development, but they were reluctant to do so.

According to the research on professional development, where there is effective professional development, decisions about that professional development must involve teachers at the school level. At the same time, the decisions must be made within the context of school and school district priorities for improvement.

Only a few principals described including teachers in making decisions about their own professional development, but evidence of some teacher involvement was observed. At one school, for example, a small group of teachers was observed meeting with an outside balanced literacy consultant. The consultant was conducting a review of the components of balanced literacy, with the purpose of helping the teachers make decisions about the balanced literacy professional development for the current school year. These teachers were being offered the opportunity to determine the content of their professional developing within the context of the school's commitment to balanced literacy. This involvement in decision-making seemed to be more related to how the consultant works with teachers rather than the norm for professional development in the school.

Content of Professional Development

While some of the schools' professional development was clearly focused on such initiatives as balanced literacy, technology, and assessment, a number of principals reported that the content of the professional development at their schools was determined by the school district. According to several principals and instructional coaches, the school district sets a "topic of the month" that comes from the Essential Elements of Effective Schools. The topic just finished was "active learning"; current topics were "motivation," "level of concern," and Bloom's taxonomy.

The content of job-embedded professional development that was observed during the school visits included work on various parts of balanced literacy, mathematics problem solving, motivation, and level of concern.

Some of the professional development observed clearly focused on content that addressed "challenges faced by the learner" (Sparks and Hirsh). A small group of teachers was observed as they observed a master teacher teaching a "working with words" lesson in her own classroom. These teachers, two of whom were from another school, had requested the opportunity for such an observation. They had specific goals for themselves for the observation, as well as specific questions for the master teacher. After the demonstration lesson, the observers had scheduled time to discuss their observations and questions with the master teacher.

On the other hand, some of the teachers who participated in the presentation on extrinsic and intrinsic motivation described above seemed not to be interested or engaged themselves. Even though the instructional coach tried to engage them actively, a few did not participate in the activities of the workshop, possibly because they had not been a part of the decision about the content, or possibly because the issue of motivation did not arise out of the challenges they faced.

Differentiation of Job-Embedded Professional Development

As with all teaching and learning activities, the optimum for learning is differentiation. Just as all children do not need or benefit from the same instruction, all teachers do not need the same professional development. When asked about differentiation of professional development, few principals could describe how job-embedded professional development was differentiated in either format or content.

Teachers, just as their students, need different amounts of time and support to learn and adopt new teaching strategies. A teacher who lectures, for example, may need much more support than a presentation, one demonstration, and one round of coaching to be able to change from lecturing to engaging students actively in the classroom. On the other hand, teachers who already use the Essential Elements of Effective Schools may not need such professional development. When asked about such a case, one principal said, "I guess we could send them [teachers who did not need the professional development offered at the school] to a workshop somewhere."

Quality of Job-Embedded Professional Development

The researchers noted a wide range of quality among the job-embedded professional development they observed. Both of them observed some high quality demonstrations and coaching, as noted earlier. But they also observed some that was poor quality.

At one school, a curriculum coordinator was observed teaching a demonstration lesson in constructed responses in mathematics problem solving. The lesson went on far longer than would have been developmentally appropriate, and the children were not engaged. (During the demonstration lesson, the classroom teacher was doing paperwork at her desk rather than observing or working with the curriculum coordinator.) When asked after the demonstration, the curriculum coordinator said there would be no follow-up or coaching provided to the classroom teacher.

At another school, during a demonstration lesson that was staged for the researcher to observe, the classroom teacher who was supposed to be observing left the classroom. The coach taught a math lesson on permutations that was far too abstract for the children to understand; the coach used no manipulatives in the lesson, and rather than engage the children in understanding a concept, she gave the steps in a process. After the "demonstration," the coach explained that she was modeling cooperative learning and raising the level of concern through proximity and setting time limits, although neither of these strategies was effective in engaging the children or helping them learn.

At still another, a coach was observed giving feedback to a classroom teacher. Rather than engaging the teacher in a discussion about the lesson observed, the coach recited a list of things the teacher had not done well. The coach offered the teacher no opportunity to discuss or even ask questions about the feedback, nor did the coach work with the teacher to make a plan for continued work on the content of the observation.

This very ineffective coaching raises the question of how coaches are selected, trained, and coached themselves. Every principal explained that professional development was provided by Rob Becchino at the school district level for the coaches, administrators, and others involved in professional development. But from their descriptions of this professional development, it seems to be focused on content rather than on coaching. Effective coaching requires specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions that differ from those needed for teaching. Coaches need professional development and support to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions for coaching. At the same time, teachers also need to learn how to coach if they are going to participate in peer coaching.

Summary and Recommendations

All of the schools visited seem to be making efforts toward implementing job-embedded professional development for all teachers. Because of the short time allowed for visits to the schools, researchers did not have the opportunity to observe whole cycles of professional development--presentations, demonstrations, coaching, and feedback, teacher study groups, or team problem-solving at any of the schools. It is not possible for the researchers yet to make any firm judgments about the effectiveness of the professional development in bringing about changes in the ways that teachers interact with their students or improvement of instruction. It is apparent, however, that at most of the schools visited, there is substantial room for improvement.

Because of the uneven quality of the professional development observed, it is recommended that there be strong and substantial professional development for, and evaluation of, all staff involved in providing professional development. Attending and participating in a workshop on a particular topic, for example, is not a guarantee that a coach can actually implement the strategies presented in the workshop in a way that is effective and that demonstrates them to other teachers. In particular, coaches must learn how to establish trust with the people they coach, to demonstrate new strategies effectively, to work collaboratively with the teachers they coach, and to give feedback in ways that sustain trust and so that it will be accepted and used by teachers in their professional practice.

Reference

Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1999). A New Vision for Staff Development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.