May 31: Last day to save $75 on registration for 2012 Annual Conference in Boston More Info June 30: Board of Trustees nomination deadline More Info July 22-25: 2012 Summer Conference in Denver More Info

The three elements of the standards

By Pat Roy

Results, November 2004

Copyright, National Staff Development Council, 2004. All rights reserved.

The NSDC Standards for Staff Development are organized into three areas: context standards, process standards, and content standards. This organization is a result of staff development research and experience.

During the early 1970s when staff developers got together, they focused on content. Questions included "Who is a good presenter?" or "What program are you doing that you feel is successful?" At that time, content was considered the most important aspect of staff development - if you selected the right content, everything else would fall into place.

When the Rand studies were published in 1978, they turned staff development on its ear. Those studies examined Title IV-C projects to determine their effectiveness and impact. Rand found that there were many factors other than the content that impacted the effectiveness or sustainability of these three-year projects. Among the findings of the studies:

1. Teacher involvement was necessary for project success;
2. While district support was essential, neither top-down nor grassroot efforts were sufficient - collaboration was key;
3. The greater the scope of the change, the more time and effort are required; and
4. Staff may need to "reinvent" their own process for implementation - implementation plans cannot be taken off the shelf

.

Staff developers recognized that process was as important as content. Process issues include the use of data to determine priority goals, the development of collegiality to support change (Little, 1982), and using a variety of models and designs to ensure the development of knowledge and skills as well as quality implementation of innovations (Sparks & Loucks-Horsley,1989). As a result, classroom coaching now is considered a necessity not a frill if quality implementation is to occur (Joyce & Showers, 1988). Staff developers found that teacher involvement in determining and planning professional development resulted in ownership and commitment to their own learning (Mohlman-Sparks, 1983). Research on adult learning and the change process ensures that change is viewed as process and not an event (Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, Hall, 1987).

In 1983, a review of professional development research exposed a third area that influences the impact of professional development: context factors. Mohlman-Sparks (1983) identified the need to involve teachers in decision making in order to create a context of acceptance. Administration needed to include both logistical and psychological support during all phases of the change process. Further, in the 1990s, work provided by Senge (1990), Fullan, and Stiegelbauer (1991) emphasized the influence of the organization on individual learning. Hord's research into school culture and climate resulted in the recognition of the importance of professional learning community (1997), and Deal and Peterson identified the critical role of leaders as social architects (1999).

All three areas - content, process, and context - need to be in place in order to plan, design, and implement the kind of professional development that will impact student learning. Ignoring any of the three elements can cripple the intended impact of professional development.

References

Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol. III: Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Deal, T. & Peterson, K. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 18-19.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. White Plains, NY: Longman Inc.

Little, J. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.

Mohlman-Sparks, G. (1983). Synthesis of research on staff development for effective teaching. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 65-72.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Sparks, G. (1983). Synthesis of research on staff development for effective teaching. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 65-72.

Sparks, D. & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989, Fall). Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57.

About the author

Pat Roy is co-author of Moving NSDC's staff development standards into practice: Innovation configurations (NSDC, 2003).