All PD is not created equal

A balanced approach to planning or attending Professional Development promotes clear focus on goals.

Photo of Ashley Haskins
3 2

Written by

Professional Development trainings have a wide range of offerings. They range from basic district programs to new programs that are cutting edge.  Defining Professional Development into different segments would promote balance.  An educator or district would have clearer goals when preparing, selecting or funding for training. At the same time it would encourage focus for making the greatest impact. For example:

25% on basic district training programs (testing or Common Core training)  25% on district new programs (grade level collaboration, district technology upgrading systems etc) 25% on cutting edge new programs offered outside the district (SCOE or other professional training) *25% on follow up to any of the other segments. 

Too much PD in any one area or not enough in any one area would clearly be identified by classifying and segmenting the types of training.

*This is my next idea (there isn't enough follow up on ANY Professional Development)


Join the conversation:

Photo of Dan Blake

Thanks for this post, Ashley. Your call for a balanced approach to planning PD makes so much sense. I have to admit that as I read it, my cynical side kept thinking, "Well this assumes that planning for PD happens at all!" I think that schools/districts and teachers themselves can do a much better job of being thoughtful and balanced in the PD they offer or choose to attend. Schools/districts can set parameters and goals for teacher PD and then allow teachers flexibility to craft a personal PD plan that aligns with those goals.

View all comments