Many faculties have suffered from "flavor of the year" professional development in recent years.

     I have suggested here that school leaders can shift the paradigm by supporting horizontal and vertical teams along with designing a plan for success.  School leaders do not always need to move the whole faculty at once.  In fact, they may be well advised to find and develop believers who provide models for others to follow.  Many faculties have suffered from "flavor of the year" professional development in recent years.  Experienced teachers often fatigue of the "here today, gone tomorrow" pattern of building or district initiatives.  Massive, school wide initiatives look great at summer administrative planning retreats.  They also satisfy that burning sense of urgency leaders feel when the data suggest that a turnaround strategy is required.  Unfortunately, without faculty believers and a well designed plan, what gets trumpeted in pre-service week, fades by Thanksgiving, and the cycle repeats the following summer.
     Let me give you an example from my own experience.  Four years ago our building worked through a book study.  The goal was to improve student engagement by focusing on proven classroom management and instructional techniques.  The year long program featured monthly faculty workshops.  The workshops were well organized and well executed by a steering committee of faculty members.  The program was especially successful at reinforcing what teachers already felt they were doing.  Red flag.  The program did not feature any form of teacher observation, specific feedback, or ongoing reinforcement.  At the end of the year, the principal was promoted and a new administrative team began the next year.
     The new principal was advised by the director of instruction that the building had a problem with student engagement.  The director suggested that a consultant be hired to conduct quarterly, building-wide professional development.  When the "new" initiative was announced, 100 sets of eyes rolled.  The faculty felt misunderstood at best and disrespected at worst.  Four years after the first "engaging instruction initiative" little has changed and a new director of instruction is planning a fresh strategy.  So we've spent four years, tens of thousands of dollars in consultant fees and thousands of staff professional development hours to little effect; or negative effect, since the faculty is now deaf to talk of "student engagement."  If four years ago, that steering committee had been working side by side with a few teachers on building their skills and more importantly, beliefs, how might things have changed?
     In a future post, we will consider a multi-layer approach to strategic planned and execution.  Success can be designed!