“What does staff development mean to you?”
“Four days a year.”
The teacher's response to my question gave me pause. Could it be that inservice for teachers was not always well received? Apparently.
Lessons such as this became commonplace during my year as acting director of staff development for my local school district. Taking advantage of a unique exchange program between the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education and Albemarle County Public Schools, I agreed to assist the district on a half-time basis when its director of staff development took a new job in late August 1990. As someone who had studied and taught about staff development, I harbored a variety of ideas and beliefs and felt I could make a contribution.
My year “in the field,” however, wound up profoundly changing my views of staff development. It also led to the development of Student-Based Staff Development (SBSD), a model for assisting teachers to perform their instructional roles more effectively.
The Context for a New Approach
Albemarle County Public Schools was far from a troubled school district desperately seeking new ideas, as it already possessed a more sophisticated staff development system than most districts its size. Despite the district's advantages, those engaged in Albemarle's staff development program had some reason to be concerned. While some efforts—particularly those dealing with reading interventions and computers—had yielded documentable evidence of student gains, the impact on students of many other activities remained unclear.
This uncertainty became a liability when, in the fall of 1990, the recession struck Virginia. An unprecedented state deficit coupled with local taxpayers' anxiety sent school officials scurrying for line items in the budget to pare. Unable to muster hard data to support many staff development initiatives, district personnel looked on helplessly as the allocation was decimated.
Opportunity Amidst Retrenchment
Those of us responsible for teacher growth realized that any attempt to recoup monies for staff development would need to be justified in terms of impacts on students. I was charged with assessing staff development needs and proposing a delivery system for which the district might be held accountable.
One of the most frequent concerns of teachers and administrators involved instruction for at-risk students in regular classroom settings. I reasoned that if staff development could equip regular classroom teachers to deal effectively with at-risk students, additional support might be forthcoming.
The first step was to adopt a simple, straightforward definition of “at risk”: any student with a grade of D or F (or its equivalent) at the end of the first grading period (in October) was considered to be “at risk” of failing for the year. Low grades were known to be highly correlated with poor attendance, behavior problems, and dropping out of school. Basing “at-riskness” on grades also implied a clear measure of accountability. Any staff development that could help teachers work with failing students so that they earned passing grades by June would be regarded as effective.
The next step was to determine how to equip regular classroom teachers with strategies that could lead to higher grades. Learning disabilities teachers, Chapter 1 teachers, and other specialists had no lack of intervention strategies, so that was not the problem. As I visited schools and sat in on case conferences to discuss at-risk students, I began to realize that the real problems had to do with organizational factors, interpersonal relations, and attitudes that denied the value of instructional adjustments.
“I gave it my best shot.” Some teachers who referred students to case conferences were unprepared to entertain additional suggestions. The act of referral for these teachers signaled that they had exhausted either their repertoire of interventions or their willingness to work on the problems of the student in question. While others in attendance at the conference (fellow teachers, specialists, administrators) might believe the meeting's purpose was to brainstorm ideas that could be useful to referring teachers, the latter regarded the meeting as an occasion to consider alternatives to classroom interventions.
“Who couldn't be successful with a handful of students?” A second problem involved relations between regular and special education teachers. Instead of seeing special education teachers as a treasure trove of tips and insights concerning at-risk students, many regular education teachers saw only low teacher-student ratios, reduced academic expectations, and an abundance of resources. Administrators who tried to promote greater integration of regular and special education services frequently encountered considerable resistance from regular classroom teachers.
“Where's the follow-through?” A third problem concerned school organization and leadership. For case conferences to work, teachers indicated that administrators needed to take an active interest in the process—attending meetings, assigning responsibilities, monitoring progress, and scheduling follow-up sessions to assess progress and adjust interventions. Often, however, the first meeting to discuss an at-risk student was also the last.
“Training is important, but when?” Many teachers acknowledged that they might benefit from activities that focused on ways to assist at-risk students in regular classroom settings and improve the effectiveness of case conferences. Their major frustration centered on the timing of staff development. Although the district provided a number of days during the school year for staff development, many of them were scheduled during school hours. Unhappy about missing school, teachers wondered why greater use could not be made of the summer. The summer that I became acting director, Albemarle, in fact, had experimented with linking thinking skills training to summer school and found the marriage to be a good one.
How to Help the Neediest Students
Reflecting on my observations, I believed that the school system was most likely to secure financial support for staff development when it could demonstrate direct benefits for the neediest students. The time had come to stop pretending that staff development could effectively address a variety of different needs in the same year. Regular classroom teachers and administrators needed to focus on learning how to help students who were experiencing difficulties.
- Increase the willingness and capability of classroom teachers to address the instructional needs of individual at-risk students. By experiencing success with one student—rather than being expected to simultaneously address the needs of all at-risk students—teachers might gain the confidence needed to work with others.
- Utilize the expertise available within the school district and community. Many teachers and administrators had attended workshops and inservice courses to acquire special instructional and related skills, but they rarely were asked to share this knowledge with their colleagues. In fact, no inventory of trained personnel existed, nor had efforts been made to list resource people in the community.
- Reduce the numbers of students who (1) are placed in pullout programs, (2) receive low grades, and (3) drop out of school. We assumed that most teachers were motivated to “make a difference” in the lives of students. The bottom line, this set of goals would require that SBSD be evaluated in terms of its direct impact on students.
To achieve these goals, SBSD focuses on early identification of students experiencing academic problems and speedy delivery of customized training within individual classrooms. All staff development is directed at helping participating teachers raise the grades of specific students. After collaborative assessment of strategies that have already been tried and generation of additional interventions, an Instructional Assistance Plan (IAP) is developed. Less formal or complicated than an Individual Education Plan, the IAP is a guide for in-class staff development and follow-up. Figure 1 illustrates the SBSD process.
Many aspects of SBSD represent the conventional wisdom about how best to work with teachers. Not only is the focus of staff development on assisting students, but also teachers collaborate to assess their needs and to share intervention strategies. Other elements of SBSD are relatively new and entail a restructuring of staff development. That teacher training is triggered by student performance during the first grading period is unique. Also somewhat novel is the delivery of inservice training in the classroom of the student experiencing difficulty. Such a system eliminates the disruptive impact of off-campus staff development. Linking training needs to IAPs constitutes an additional departure from standard practice.
Figure 1. Process Model of Student-Based Staff Development
How the Model Works
To get an idea of how the model works, imagine that it is late October and the first six weeks' grading period has just ended. The principal, a counselor, and a representative group of regular and special education teachers meet to review printouts of students' grades. They compile a list of students who are failing or performing unsatisfactorily and who are judged to need changes in instruction. They then assign these students to case review teams consisting of teachers, administrators, specialists, and a staff development resource person. Teams meet on a conference day to review previous efforts at intervention and to brainstorm additional ideas. The teams then write an IAP for each student.
Next, the teams determine whether those expected to implement the plan, particularly the referring teacher, desire staff development to implement it. In cases where inservice assistance is requested, the staff development resource person on the team creates a customized inservice program. Inservice typically brings resource people from the school district and cooperating community agencies into the classroom to provide on-site training. In some cases, teachers may be released for a day or two to observe other teachers using promising instructional interventions.
For every IAP, a team member is designated to monitor progress. Unsuccessful plans are modified quickly so that at-risk students are given as great a chance to succeed as possible. Revised plans may necessitate additional staff development.
There is nothing unique about expecting school personnel to confer about how to help struggling students. What's been missing is a direct link between the development of assistance plans for individual students and staff development. SBSD provides this link in a relatively cost-efficient manner by utilizing local experts and delivering training in the classroom. Released time for teacher trainers and per diem payments for other local resource people are the primary costs.
During my year as acting director of staff development, my colleagues and I undertook limited tests of SBSD in several schools. Specifically, we refined the team meeting process, provided awareness workshops for cadres from schools in one of Albemarle's feeder patterns, developed IAPs for several dozen students, and delivered training in behavioral, motivational, reading, and learning disabilities interventions. Roughly half of the students for whom IAPs were developed experienced improvement. Most of those who did not eventually qualified for special education services.
Ingredients for Success
To increase the likelihood that SBSD will succeed, several supporting activities may be useful.
First, districts should compile a directory of local expertise. Besides listing the special skills and knowledge of district personnel, the directory might include similar information about resource people in the community. With such a directory, staff development specialists can match a teacher's needs with a local expert. Only in cases where expertise is unavailable locally would districts make an effort to contact resource people elsewhere.
Cadre training is the second necessary element. The objective is to provide three individuals from each school in the district with systematic training in instructional interventions and related strategies pertinent to the needs of at-risk students. These individuals need not be masters of particular interventions, but they should be competent to make recommendations during case review conferences.
After visiting Pittsburgh (at our assistant superintendent's behest), I became convinced that the best time for cadre training was summer school. Pittsburgh Public Schools makes extensive use of local summer schools for staff development. Teachers and administrators there appreciate the opportunity for sustained training in a school setting that does not take place during the regular school year.
After a series of brainstorming sessions with Albemarle teachers and administrators, a summer school prototype emerged. The summer school would be offered at no cost to students who were experiencing academic difficulties. Teachers trained in various interventions—for example, Reading Recovery, cooperative learning, learning disabilities strategies, HOTS—would be hired to teach summer school classes to help students prepare for the next grade level. These teachers also would train and supervise three to five cadre members from different schools. The presence of cadre members in the class ensures that each at-risk student receives individual attention.
Classes meet in the morning. After lunch, students either go home or attend a recreational program coordinated by the Parks and Recreation Department. Cadre members meet with their supervising teacher to debrief one another after the morning's experiences, receive training, and plan for the following day. Over the course of several summers, cadre members acquire a broad repertoire of interventions, equipping them to provide suggestions during team meetings. They also learn how to conduct productive team meetings and how to develop and assess IAPs.
Albemarle tried a modified version of this summer school with encouraging results, but full implementation is contingent on the district's ability to secure state, federal, or foundation funds or to restore lost staff development funds to the budget.
Staff Development That Delivers
SBSD promises to enhance teacher efficacy by providing regular classroom teachers with a variety of interventions to assist at-risk students. It also helps create a school culture in which teachers and administrators openly discuss instructional issues. It is vital that teachers do not give up on struggling students when conventional practices fail. Often more can be learned from understanding why instruction is not working with certain students than by listening to the “success stories” of outsiders.
- the number of students receiving low grades at the end of the first grading period;
- the number of these students' teachers who received customized training;
- the cost of the training (calculated mostly in terms of released time for district employees and per diem payments for other local resource people);
- the number of target students whose grades and performance improved during the year.
It would be difficult for a school board to cut funds for staff development when presented with a list of actual students who benefited as a result of teacher training.
SBSD also ensures a measure of accountability for parents of at-risk students. While school officials may not be able to guarantee that all students will succeed as a result of SBSD, they can guarantee that students experiencing academic difficulties will be identified early in the school year and provided an assistance plan that typically calls for in-class instructional adjustments, rather than referral or reassignment. In most districts, only handicapped students currently are assured such attention.
SBSD serves the needs of at-risk students who may not be eligible for special education—the students often described as “falling through the cracks.” At a time when tight money threatens staff development budgets, school districts must be able to demonstrate that inservice dollars directly benefit students most in need of assistance.
