The emergence of school-based staff developers
Their fate depends on the willingness of school and district leaders
to develop a coherent, well-supported reform strategy
By Alan Richard
Results, September 2003
Thousands of schools are hiring full- or part-time staff developers to lead the ongoing training of teachers from within the schools. Quite often these in-house coaches are reassigned teachers, fresh from the classroom, who work alongside teachers individually, in small groups, and with whole instructional staffs. They may be called, among many descriptors, staff development teachers, academic coaches, lead teachers, instructional coordinators, mentor teachers, or content specialists. Many of these staff developers work full time in one school; others split their time between two schools or among a small group of schools. In some schools, these individuals continue to teach students themselves and work with other teachers during release periods that range from a few hours a month to half of each school day.
In some schools, talented and well-prepared school-based staff developers are having a measurable impact on teaching quality and student achievement. They are helping to develop a new culture of reflection and attention to improvement. Teachers in schools with school-based staff developers have become more familiar with local curriculum guidelines and state academic standards. And there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that skillful, well-supported in-school staff developers can help schools raise test scores. However, based on a review of research and interviews in several diverse school systems, it appears that at many other schools, embedded staff developers are expected to lead school improvement by themselves with little outside direction or support.
Frequently their jobs are poorly defined and invented "on the fly" as they grapple with the immediate needs of novice teachers, the suspicions of veterans, the various expectations of district- and school-level administrators, and the increasing demands of a high-stakes accountability environment.
The ultimate fate of this emerging model of professional development will depend largely on the willingness of district and school leaders to devote the time and resources needed to transform a promising but often poorly focused school improvement tactic into a coherent, well-supported school reform strategy.
Today, most school-based staff developers appear to be operating as independent agents who are scrambling to acquire specialized skills and knowledge before their efforts falter. Many say that before they can help create school cultures where teachers make the connection between sustained professional growth and student success, they need their own brand of professional development, centered on adult learning theory and leadership skills. Many school-based staff developers also long to escape from the isolation of their work. Most agree they would benefit from professional learning communities of their own - groups in which they could reflect on the challenges of instructional leadership with other school-based staff developers.
These key points about staff developers were developed through interviews and observations during a four-month period beginning in June 2002. The following places are included in this report: Long Beach and San Diego, Calif.; Montgomery County, Md.; and Bolivar County, Miss. The author also reviewed written research and case studies that reported on this evolving approach to staff development.
Six important questions
1. Can school-based staff developers help improve schools?
Almost without exception, school-based staff developers say their work is promising and helping their schools improve. Through training and hands-on experience, these educators are discovering new knowledge and skills. They often establish solid relationships with school administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals, parents, students, and community members. They have, in some cases, brought a district-level message or vision to school staffs. They infuse energy and enthusiasm into schools by their own willingness to embrace challenging new work, and by pitching in alongside teachers and administrators as they pursue common goals. In some settings, they are proving to be powerful tools for school improvement, refocusing adults on teaching and student learning. When school-based staff developers survive their own induction period, they can create a culture of greater reflection, promote the study of new developments in education, and boost the sense of self-accountability for teachers and school staffs.
2. Are school-based staff developers a fad or fixture?
It remains to be seen whether school-based staff development will survive education's "fad" cycle and become a standard fixture of successful schools. Like many promising ideas in education, the implementation is seriously flawed in many schools and districts. Leaders do not always clearly define the duties and goals for school-based staff developers. In a few cases, this is a deliberate attempt to give staff developers the opportunity to exert some creative leadership without heavy-handed direction from above. More often, it suggests that administrative leaders are unclear about their own goals. Many school-based staff developers find themselves "abandoned at the schoolhouse door" because leaders have not invested the time, thought, and resources necessary to launch and sustain a coherent program, and to address other serious problems within schools or districts that create barriers for in-school staff developers.
3. Has everyone gotten the word?
In some schools and districts, school-based staff development or "coaching" programs are introduced with little fanfare and little or no explanation of their purpose or their place in the larger scheme of school reform. Frequently principals are "out of the loop" and do not fully understand or embrace the role of in-house staff developer. New coaches may also find that the school faculty has little information about the purposes of in-school staff development and may feel threatened by this new intervention. In districts that are installing large numbers of school-based staff developers, the priorities set by superintendents, deputy superintendents, or school boards do not always trickle down to every school in the ways district-level leaders might imagine. In some places, district-level administrators are assigned the responsibility to propagate school-based staff development but lack the influence or resources to convince schools to try it or integrate it into the mainstream of school life. Whether they realize it or not, when school systems introduce school-based staff developers into schools, they are changing school cultures in a significant way-- and schools, like all cultures, tend to resist change. This new brand of staff development requires a staff development plan of its own--one that builds buy-in at every level from the superintendent to the front-line teacher.
4. Is the school leadership in place to support this model?
Some principals are simply unprepared to reorganize their schools in ways that support shared instructional leadership. When a strong, focused, experienced, creative principal is able to empower others, help a staff grow and change appropriately, and demand better results for the school, a school-based staff developer's chances for success appear much greater. The alternative--a school with a rigid, under-skilled, poorly trained, unmotivated principal--is unlikely to be fertile ground for the cultivation of this new, more collaborative approach to staff development.
5. Are in-school staff developers prepared for these new roles?
Most school-based staff developers have been chosen for these positions after demonstrating teaching excellence. Many have been singled out for recognition in some way, and a growing number have earned National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. However, effectiveness in the classroom does not always indicate a teacher is ready for a staff development assignment. Lack of experience, poor communication skills, and limited preparation can hinder the success of school-based staff developers, and many who have accepted these assignments say they need more professional development on the front end to help them work with adult learners and make the difficult transition from "peer" to "peer coach." They also need sustained help and support as they move along in their work.
6. Where's the proof that it's working?
School-based staff developers share many encouraging anecdotes about their successes, and sporadic evaluations show some evidence of higher student achievement in schools with staff developers in place. But few districts or schools are systematically assessing the impact of these programs using sound research methods. The federal No Child Left Behind law and budget concerns in many districts are increasing the pressure to validate the effectiveness of high-cost professional development programs. The survival of school-based staff developers will likely depend on the willingness of school systems to determine the critical factors that make such programs successful, to solve other pressing problems in schools that impact on staff developers' work, to identify best-practice models, and to reshape the on-site staff development programs around "what works."
Source: The Emergence of School-Based Staff Developers in America's Public Schools by Alan Richard. Published by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, May 2003. Excerpted with permission. Available online at www.emcf.org/programs/student/student_pub.htm
