A school system is successful when it has sufficient human, material, and fiscal resources to implement a curriculum that: 1) enables students to achieve expectations for student learning; 2) meets special needs; 3) and complies with applicable regulations. The system: 1) employs and allocates staff well-qualified for their assignments; 2) provides ongoing learning opportunities for all staff to improve their effectiveness; and 3) ensures compliance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations (Quality systems standards.p. 5).
The implementation of No Child Left Behind has put more emphasis on state testing than at any other time in educational history. Because of this emphasis in state testing, the results from these tests have become the main focus of school systems across the country. Test results are returned to schools’ months after the state test is taken and these results “claim” to explain exactly what is wrong with student achievement. The problem with this scenario is that state tests are touted as a form of “formative assessment” months after the tests are taken and this is simply not true and, therefore, detrimental to schools that look at these results in this way. In a culture that is focused on results, a shift needs to be made to focus on the causes of those results.
Norfolk Public Schools won the Broad Prize for Urban Education in 2005 not only because it produced great results, narrowing the achievement gap and improving performance, but also because it documented in a clear and public way the link between causes and effects, between the actions of teachers and school leaders and student results (Reeves, 2004a). Schools that continually lead the nation in student achievement success have a deep understanding of how students achieved those results; these schools focus on people and processes.
In Douglas Reeves’ book Transforming professional development into student results (2008), he discusses that high impact professional learning has three essential characteristics;(a) a focus on student learning; (b) rigorous measurement of adult decisions; and (c) a focus on people and practices, not programs.
First, high-impact professional learning is directly linked to student learning. The most important criterion for evaluating professional learning strategies is not their popularity or ease of adoption. High-impact learning is related to student results, and student results must be analyzed one student and one classroom at a time (Reeves, 2008).
The second characteristic of high-impact professional learning balances student results with a rigorous observation of adult practices, not merely a measurement of student results (Reeves, 2008). Teachers need to reflect not only on the effects but also on the causes of student achievement, a focus on their practice.
Third, high-impact professional learning focuses on people and practices, not on programs (Reeves, 2008). Programs are only as good as the people who are implementing them and if the people implementing the programs do not have the capacity to do so, then the programs will fail.
In order for teachers to change classroom practice they must have the capacity to do so. We know what high-impact professional development looks like. It is intensive and sustained, directly relevant to the needs of teachers and students, and it provides opportunities for application, practice, reflection, and reinforcement. High-impact professional development is not being lectured to by PowerPoint; it is not teachers attending a conference and listening to an hour-long lecture about an idea or a product that will revolutionize their classroom instruction; and it is not meeting with other professionals and listening to their whining about the state of education today. One of the greatest frustrations of school leaders is that teachers will attend a professional development workshop and return to their classroom and not implement what they have learned. School leaders can’t follow-up with the teacher because they don’t know what the professional development workshops were about and how they would help change classroom practice. Thus, the difference between what is known and what is practiced becomes an added frustration for school leaders (Chenoweth, 2007).
One of the most important transitions in education in the past decade has been the embrace of academic standards as the prevailing method for evaluation of students. This is a seismic shift from the presumption of the past that the primary function of schools was to compare students to one another rather than to an objective standard (Reeves, 2008).
This transformation has four essential implications for every teacher, administrator, and policymaker. First, tests scores alone are not a sufficient reflection of student learning, but educators must base their conclusions on the evidence of student success. Second, the fundamental purpose of assessment is not merely to evaluate students but to teach them. Third, assessment is most effective as a preventive rather than a remediating or punitive strategy. Fourth, the purpose of assessment in a standards-based environment is not only to provide feedback to students for improvement but also to improve the performance of teachers and leaders (Ainsworth &Viegut, 2006).
To improve the performance of teachers and leaders, first, schools wouldn’t use a test score as evidence of proficiency for a teaching professional any more than accepting one student score on a test as evidence of mastering the content. Schools and school leaders should use a broad range of evidence that shows the teachers knowledge, professional competence and understanding of others and themselves. Second, schools and school leaders should provide feedback to professionals that not only assesses their present level of competence but also is designed to help them grow and learn (McTighe& Wiggins, 2005). Third, schools and school leaders can provide feedback to teachers and administrators in the form of a “preflight” checklist—that is, information and support before poor decisions adversely influence student achievement. And fourth, schools should provide low-risk, frequent, and constructive feedback that is designed to be formative (Reeves, 2004a).
Although many excellent efforts have been made to articulate standards for staff development, there are three criteria at the heart of the matter. These criteria are integrity-the relationship of our values to our learning; efficacy-the pursuit of those practices that make a positive difference for students; and diligence-the application of what has been learned. When these criteria are applied to staff development, there is the opportunity for a significant impact on student performance. Programs that rest on data and practice and, least popular of all, that expect the participants to work rather than to be entertained, are the only ones that can be expected to transform classroom practice (Reeves, 2004).
Earlier it was discussed that schools need to develop a culture of accountability. A culture of accountability can help professional development efforts achieve their potential. First, the accountability system itself should monitor not only the delivery of professional development but also its application. In other words, the accountability report should not say, “84% of our teachers were trained in six-trait writing during a half-day program,” but rather “84% of our students participated in eight or more writing assessments using the six-trait format learned by our teachers during a professional development program. As a direct result of this emphasis, the number of students who are proficient or better in writing increased by 22%.” In other words, it is not the delivery, participation, or popularity of staff development that gives it meaning. A comprehensive accountability system links professional development to application and effectiveness–the things that matter for students (Reeves, 2004).
Ainsworth, L., &Viegut, D. (2006).Common formative assessments: How to connect standards-based instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Chenoweth, K. (2007). It’s being done. Boston: Harvard Education Press.
Quality systems standards. (2010, October 20). Retrieved from http://www.advanc-ed.org/districts
Reeves, D. B. (2004a). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Reeves, D. B. (2008). Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiggins, G., &McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
The Prepared Student 