We all know that professional development matters. But what is it all for?
Over the last few years, the answer has been presented straightforwardly: to provide teachers and leaders with evidence-based knowledge on how to be effective in their classrooms and school practices.
Digging deeper
On the face of it, there is little to argue about here. I think most people would accept there is merit in having a coherent system throughout a teacher’s career journey.
The different elements of training and support should join up so that school leaders are aware of the same evidence as early career teachers. And any joined-up approach should be based on the best understanding of what is effective in helping teachers and school leaders be better at their jobs.
That is the central premise of the ‘golden thread’ of professional development supported by the Department for Education – the Early Career Framework and National Professional Qualifications. Together, along with reforms to Initial Teacher Training (ITT), they are designed to create a single, coherent body of knowledge about effective teaching and school leadership practice, all driven by an overt desire to be evidence-led.
This is baked into the policy development process directly through the role played by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) as the custodian of what constitutes acceptable evidence within the frameworks.
It is a compelling approach for all those leading policy thinking – especially government – because it offers the promise of a causal link. After all, if anybody wants to ask His Majesty’s Treasury to spend money on anything, it is important to be able to demonstrate impact for investment. So, spending is focused on interventions underpinned by clear evidence of what works, to draw a clear line of sight from the money being spent to the outcomes you are likely to achieve.
Alas, the world is seldom this simple. There are two key risks in an approach that fails to respond responsively and more sophisticatedly to the investment and structures supporting professional development in schools: agency and relevance.
Agency
In 2020, the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) looked at the factors most likely to impact the job satisfaction of teachers, using that as a way of considering how to improve retention. That study showed that teachers in England have less autonomy by some margin than those working in other comparable professions, and compared to their peers internationally.
Crucially, it also showed that autonomy is closely related to job satisfaction and retention and that teacher autonomy over professional development goals was most associated with higher job satisfaction.
This evidence seems to run counter to the ‘golden thread’ approach over recent years, which has decreased the autonomy teachers and school leaders have over their CPD. The drive to create a coherent structure – ITT-ECF-NPQs – has come at the expense of choice and variety in the system.
Even within the structure itself, we have seen a decline in the number of providers offering training and qualifications, further restricting choice. School spending on CPD has also plummeted, meaning even less agency for teachers and school leaders.
Relevance
We’ve all been on a course, seen a lecture, or listened to a podcast and come away disappointed that it did not resonate with our own challenges. Then, inevitably, we have all spoken to a colleague who has experienced the same thing and is energised by the training that left us completely cold. This is because teaching and school leadership are complex jobs, deeply dependent on context for success, and ‘one-size-fits-all’ approaches cannot respond to that.
Any attempt to codify evidence into an acceptable list is necessarily subjective. There is no way to be certain about what type of professional development might be most effective for every individual in every circumstance.
Instead, we have to rely on generalisations and ‘best bets’ as a way of saying whether one intervention is better than another and decide the frameworks of what constitutes effective practice.
We should show more humility in our understanding of the evidence base, which, after all, can and should be constantly changing as we invest in more research to understand what different types of professional development interventions deliver.
This is not to ignore evidence. If there is something that clearly shows an approach fails to work or a theory is debunked, then we should be clear about that. But it is equally dangerous to overclaim for the efficacy of a particular approach.
To do so is a form of gaslighting, stretching the credibility of even the strongest evidence. At its worst, it can significantly undermine a teacher’s confidence as they keep trying an approach they have been told is the right answer without seeing the results they need.
Reflections
If we come back to our original question – what is professional development for? – we can see that a more sophisticated approach would also be useful to improve job satisfaction and retention, by allowing for greater agency in decision-making by teachers and school leaders.
We are starting to see the initial shoots of a better approach from this government (including through the recent announcements to review NPQs and the ECF and to introduce an entitlement to CPD), and we should cheer that endeavour. It is an important part of supporting the professionalism of all teachers and school leaders.
Gareth Conyard is CEO of the Teacher Development Trust.
