EDU 8672
Instructional Leadership

Bookmarks:

The purpose for professional development...

Envisioning professional development...

Thinking about instructional leadership...

References

Developing a Professional Development Program:
Envisioning Professional Development

The learning to teach literature suggests that expert teachers focus not so much upon what they do in their classrooms as much as these experts focus upon what is transpiring within the larger environment of their classrooms. More expert teachers attend to multiple cues, process them against what experience has taught them is "normal" or "abnormal," and respond appropriately in what appear to be rather routine ways that foster improved student learning (Berliner, 1988; Carter, 1990; Kagan, 1992).

In contrast, less expert teachers tend not to focus upon the classroom's environmental cues. Neither do they possess a rich enough experiential background to differentiate what is normal from that which is abnormal. Nor have less expert teachers reflected sufficiently enough upon their experience so as to learn what is actually transpiring within the classroom environment. While less expert teachers espouse that they are concerned primarily with student learning, the operative theory of practice governing the choices that these less expert teachers make in their classrooms reveals these teacher are, in reality, more concerned about themselves and their performance than they are about their students and their learning (Berliner, 1988; Carter, 1990; Kagan, 1992).

The notion that teaching expertise may be more a matter of teachers expanding their conceptions about teaching to include the cues evidencing themselves in the classroom environment¾by directing one's interest outward and away from concern and preoccupation with oneself and one's performance¾challenges instructional leaders to reconsider the purpose for as well as the substance of professional development.

The purpose for professional development...

Taken in aggregate, most assertions about the need for professional development found in the literature can be traced to four general assumptions: the deficit assumption¾teachers need training need to repair their skills; the subordinate assumption¾changes in the school organization, curriculum, and student achievement are primary to the teachers' needs; the unfit assumption¾teachers can only manage "teacher proofed curricula," and the continued growth assumption¾teachers are actively engaged in and interested in learning about teaching (Tiezzi, 1991).

For most of the 20th century, the form that most professional development took was constructed upon the unquestioned supremacy of the first three assumptions, miming the way managers in industry have thought about and supervised workers. As such, instructional supervision was driven largely by the factory metaphor, where the supervisor's primary responsibility involved observing non-professional worker behaviors, identifying those that contribute to inefficiency and ineffectiveness, and prescribing remedies (Taylor, 1911/1967). When applied to teaching, this supervisory model¾constructed upon the assumption that there exists one infallibly efficacious way to teach youth¾held teachers accountable for their part in contributing to classroom ineffectiveness. In turn, the purpose for professional development was largely remedial, that is, to provide teachers in-service programs that would inculcate in them the one best way to teach, whether or not that method was relevant to context in which teaching actually transpired (Starratt, 1993).

Let there be no doubt about it: teachers should be accountable for the choices they make as they practice their craft. And, although it might well be the case that teaching is a largely privatized matter that transpires within isolated and independent cubicles which are veiled from outside scrutiny (Lortie, 1975), this culture is not conducive to professional development (Lieberman & Miller, 1990). It stands in need of reform, if youth are to be provided the educational programs they deserve.

At the same time, however, being accountable for one's professional practice differs from being held accountable, as Rallis & MacMullen (2000) rightly note.

Accountability emerges from a professional's deeply profound and intrinsic sense of personal responsibility, what might be likened to a solemn "covenant" as opposed to a standard "contract" (Sergiovanni, 1992). Accountability motivates professionals not only to probe and understand their decisions and actions more thoroughly so that they might expand and perfect their expertise. Accountability also obliges professionals to explain what are sometimes very intricate matters with competence and confidence to their colleagues and other non-professionals who oftentimes do not possess the professional's expertise.

In contrast, "being held accountable" oftentimes involves nothing more than various stakeholders¾oftentimes non-professionals¾exerting raw power and undue influence so as to impose their standards upon professionals. Unfortunately, while the concept of holding professionals accountable is seductively alluring as it simplifies assessment, holding professionals accountable actually serves to weakens professional discretion and threatens the formation of a culture of excellence because holding professionals accountable assumes the existence of a particular model or set of specified outcomes for which professionals are hired to achieve and, both of which stakeholders use to assess professional success.

When motivation is viewed from the former perspective, motivation is powered by an intrinsic drive to craft something of considerable substantive value, while in the latter perspective, motivation is driven by an extrinsic force that compels the professional to comply with standards that may (or may not) conflict with professional ethics. Being accountable upholds the dignity and efficacy of the professional's decision-making process, governing it by a covenant that is based upon mutual trust and fidelity between stakeholders and professionals. Being held accountable subjects the professional's decision-making process to the scrutiny of stakeholders who may have little or no interest in understanding what is actually required to achieve success, opting instead to motivate professionals to meet standards through a contract.

Envisioning professional development...

If the purpose for professional development is to engender reflective practice and accountability in teachers as professional educators as well as to build a culture of inquiry and accountability in schools rather than to hold teachers accountable to the dictates of various non-professional stakeholders, then a vision for professional development other than that specified by the factory metaphor appears warranted.

As a starting point, instructional leaders might envision a model of professional development steeped in a "mindset," one conjoining accountability and reflective inquiry so that both non-professional stakeholders and teachers will be guided by an ethic of continuous improvement (Rallis & MacMullen, 2000). Not only would this model permit teachers to take reasonable risks supported by evidence and to learn from classroom practice as they implement shared goals, it would also require teachers to report progress to the stakeholders as well as to engage with them in further collaborative efforts aimed at continuous improvement. The assumption driving this model of professional development is that improving teaching and learning is an intentional and on-going process, one that utilizes internal and external accountability mechanisms. The outcome of this process would be that teachers expand "school capacity," that is, the teachers' professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions would be be utilized in an organized and collective way to fulfill the school's purpose (King & Newmann, 2000, p. 579).

To this end, King and Newmann (2000) propose four principles concerning teacher learning that can serve as guidelines for instructional leaders as they implement a professional development program aimed primarily at fostering professional growth rather than at remediating various deficiencies.

First, since teacher learning is most likely to occur as teachers concentrate on their classroom context, professional development should concentrate each teacher's attention primarily upon instruction and student learning outcomes within their classrooms. Second, since teaching learning is mostly likely when teachers engage in sustained reflection upon their practice, professional development should encourage teachers to study, to experiment with, and to receive continuous feedback as they engage in expanding and perfecting their professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Third, since teacher learning is most likely to occur through professional collaboration, professional development should offer teachers multiple opportunities to collaborate with one another as well as the larger community of educational professionals, including university professors, researchers, and program developers. Fourth, since teacher learning is most likely to occur when teachers have a stake in the process, professional development should allow teachers to influence the substance and process of their professional development.

These principles are grounded not only in "a conception of how individual teachers learn, but also in a conception of how schools as organizations affect teachers' learning, teachers' practice, and student achievement" (King & Newmann, 2000, p. 579). More importantly, when instructional leaders implement a professional development program based upon these four principles, the program eventually will foster a school culture that resembles not so much a factory as it resembles a community, one characterized not so much by standardization and contracts but by reflective practice and professional inquiry, collaboration, shared goals, individual and collective accountability for outcomes, and covenants based upon mutual trust, shared values, and a commitment to the school's mission.

Thinking about instructional leadership...

Envisioning professional development as an process of continuous professional growth¾where teachers inquire into the substance of teaching and learning as these transpire within their classrooms and, then, engage with others in critically evaluating what they are learning individually and collectively about teaching¾provides instructional leaders way to conceive of their supervisory responsibilities as directed at enabling teachers "to awaken the inner voice of reflection" as well as "to engage the external voice of reflection" (Costa & Kallick, 2000). The purpose for supervision, then, is not so much to give instructional leaders opportunities to "inspect" teachers and to "prescribe" remedies for various deficiencies. Instead, supervision provides instructional leaders opportunities to uphold the school's core values and mission while concurrently focusing teachers in activities that give appropriate emphasis to action research typified by individual and collaborative planning, experimenting, evidence gathering, and modification of practice so that improved teaching and student learning will ensue.

This nonlinear and expanded conception of supervision and evaluation, grounded in the phenomenology of teaching rather than in science (Sergiovanni, 1984), facilitates the reconstruction of what teachers are learning in their classrooms. To this end, the instructional leaders should envision professional development as:

• Focusing primarily upon teacher growth within the profession. Four goals seem paramount: to amplify the meaning of the teacher's work through the insights of others; to apply meaning beyond the situation in which it was learned; to make a commitment to modifications, plans, and experimentation; and, to document learning so as to possess a rich base for shared knowledge (Costa & Kallick, 2000). These goals highlight the importance of collegial supervision and evaluation, of using the action research cycle as a tool for professional development, of building a culture of professional discourse in the school, and of expanding the school's capacity to achieve its purpose.

• Culminating in the development of a professional portfolio. For teacher growth within the profession to transpire, instructional leaders need to program for professional development in such a way that the program enables teachers to develop a well-conceived portfolio documenting what they are learning as professionals and identifying their trajectory of professional growth over the years. Duck (2000) suggests that teachers include a statement of educational philosophy as well as samples of various teaching and learning activities (e.g., lesson plans, projects, photographs, videos). Teachers might also might include in their professional portfolios a journal of classroom episodes or vignettes that emerge from "reading teaching" (McDonald, 1992). The purpose for engaging teachers in developing these artifacts of their professional learning is not to weigh teachers down with additional work, but to focus them upon what they are learning and to have available materials which they can use as they engage with others in professional discourse about teaching.

• Building a culture of reflective practice, inquiry, and continuous professional development. The instructional leader's goal is not primarily to inspect and supervise teaching but to foster the development of a community of professional educators. As Sergiovanni (1984) notes, this requires careful analysis and integration on the part of the instructional leader, the individual teacher, as well as the community of educators. Each is engaged in learning¾the instructional leader about leading a community of professional educators, the teachers about teaching, and both learning about becoming a self-governing and more democratic school community¾so that the school might fulfill its noble mission. The challenge for both the instructional leader and teachers is to recognize, with all humility, that both know less about leading and teaching than each might purport in order that the instructional leader and the teachers will reconstruct leading and teaching through shared supervision and evaluation. All of this suggests that improved teaching and learning in schools is the healthy by-product of a functional community that endeavors to understand better and perfect the knowledge, skills, and dispositions associated with the standards of professional practice.

Envisioning professional development, then, does not begin with programmatic thought about what an instructional leader will do to increase the teachers' expertise and improve learning outcomes. Rather, the a priori mission of the school and its goals provide the substantive base for instructional leaders, teachers, and various stakeholders to engage in discussing precisely what they must do together in order to bring the school's mission and goals to fruition in the experience of the students.

Discourse provides the hearty leaven to engender a program for professional development that ultimately is intended to improve teaching and learning. Programs to achieve this outcome cannot be prescribed nor can they be dictated. No, these programs will emerge and evolve as teachers identify what they are learning about teaching and what they need to further develop as professionals, as instructional leaders provide these resources, and as both become accountable to the school's stakeholders. Between "here and there," however, there will be a lot of "muddling through" (Lindblom, 1979).

References

Berliner, D. C.  (1986).  In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.

Book, C. L. (1994). Implications of transactional communication and the constructivist view of learning for teaching and professional development. Journal of Management Systems, 6(1), 26-36.

Carter, K.  (1990).  Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach.  In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310).  New York: Macmillan.

Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000, April). Getting into the habit of reflection. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 60-62.

Duck, L. (2000, May). The ongoing professional journey. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 42-45.

Kagan, D. M.  (1992).  Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.

King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2000, April). Will teacher learning advance school goals? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 576-580.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990). Restructuring schools: What matters and what works. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(10), 759-64.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, A. (1991). Teachers—their work and their world: Implications for school improvement. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517-526.

McDonald, J. P.  (1992).  Teaching: Making sense of an uncertain craft.  New York: Teachers College Press.

Rallis, S. F., & MacMullen, M. M. (2000, June). Inquiry-minded schools: Opening doors for accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(10), 766-772.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1984). Expanding conceptions of inquiry and practice in supervision and evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6(4), 355-365.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Starratt, R. J. (1993). Staff development, supervision and appraisal. In Transforming life in schools: Conversations about leadership and school renewal (Chapter Ten, 83-97). Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Administration.

Taylor, F. W. (1911/1967). The principles of scientific management. New York: W. W. Norton.

Tiezzi, L. J.  (1991)  Influences of a professional development institution on teachers' learning about teaching reading to Chapter I students.   Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.