As a teacher, I measured professional development on a spectrum from “vaguely aligned” (we played math games!) to “I’d rather be teaching phonics right now” (any session that involved someone reading, verbatim, from a packet I had in hand). The midpoint was “at least it’s free grading time,” which was how I, an early childhood teacher, viewed any session on standardized test reading passages. But while I was frequently frustrated, I thought it was a problem specific to me; somewhere out there, I reasoned, there was PD that could help a teacher improve. And anyway, it was only a couple of days a year—not too significant.
Not exactly, says this new report from TNTP, which dug deep into the efficacy and size of three districts’ (and one charter network’s) investments in teacher professional development; it found the efforts outsized and the payoffs lacking. Researchers looked at three districts and provided low, medium, and high estimates of the annual cost of PD, which were based on which line items one included in the final price tag. On the low end—comprising only teacher time and baseline expenditures to host the PD—districts spent at least $50 million each year. On the high end—when other things like salary incentives, data-analysis, and coaches’ salaries are included—districts shelled out up to $196 million. All told, teachers spent about 10 percent of their time in PD, and it averaged out to $18,000 per teacher, per year—between 6 and 9 percent of a district’s budget. That’s much higher than anticipated, but not necessarily problematic if it’s working.
Unfortunately, TNTP was unable to find a clear link between money spent and teacher improvement. After rapid early gains, teachers plateaued; two years of observation data showed that for every ten teachers, three improved, five stayed the same, and two declined. To be sure, plenty of teachers made great strides, but no unifying factors contributed to that improvement. And teachers also reported dissatisfaction and a lack of faith in their districts’ abilities to create and implement good PD.
The picture at the charter network was slightly different. On the one hand, a highly coherent approach that incorporated a tight loop of observation, feedback, and implementation led to substantial improvement in 70 percent of teachers. On the other hand, the network was spending an average of $33,000 per teacher—nearly double the price traditional districts paid—and operated on a much smaller scale.
TNTP takes the right approach by recommending that districts tweak, not cut, professional development. They make a familiar call for more actionable data, clearer metrics, and strategic reinvestment of funds. More boldly, they suggest reimagining early-teaching careers to focus on one specific aspect of instruction, administration, or engagement, which would create a smoother path to growth. All would likely lead to teacher improvement. But given the size, scope, and entrenched interests in PD, I’ll wager that very little changes in the near future.
SOURCE: “The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth About Our Quest for Teacher Development,” TNTP (August 2015).
