Join the conversation

A Conversation with Stephanie Hirsh and René Islas of the National Staff Development Council

We recently spoke with Hirsh, who is executive director of the National Staff Development Council (NSDC), and René Islas, her federal policy advisor. Schools don't have much to show for the billions of dollars the feds have spent on professional development (PD) over the past eight years, they told us. But unlike critics who would all but de-fund PD, they argue for much better use of PD dollars.

Hirsh and Islas believe that a "school-wide, team-based approach" to professional learning, an approach outlined in NSDC's Standards for Staff Development, will pay big dividends. And they believe that federal law can foster that approach in schools across the country.

Improving Our Investments

Public School Insights: Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) already includes money for professional development. Why do you think we need something different?

Stephanie Hirsh: The federal government is committed to improving teaching quality, and the single most powerful way to do that is through professional learning. We believe that the federal government has a responsibility to take a position on what effective professional learning is and how it wants to spend its dollars to support it.

The money that has been allocated for professional development over the last several years has not resulted in any significant overall improvement in teacher practice or student learning. New evidence gives us better information on the kinds of professional development that improve practice. So if we can focus the resources we have at the federal level toward more effective PD we can achieve better results.

In addition, PD as included in previous ESEA authorizations has promoted a fragmented, individualized approach to professional learning. The PD that we are advocating promotes a school-wide, team-based approach to professional learning that has the potential to affect all teachers and all students.

By the way, we are working to advance this clearer, more coherent definition for professional learning at all levels—local and state as well as federal. We think everybody needs to know about it—everybody can do better with the PD resources that they have.

Public School Insights: So you have a vision for a stronger kind of professional development the federal government could support. As you know, others have suggested that PD be largely defunded and that the federal government put the money in other areas, like alternative certification programs. Is that a viable argument?

Stephanie Hirsh: I believe there is no more important strategy than investing in the current teacher corps, who must develop the knowledge and skills necessary to help prepare children for 21st-century learning, for workforce readiness, and for college-ready standards. While we can invest dollars in attracting good people into the profession, we also have an obligation to provide the support they need to continue to improve throughout their careers. We know that professional development is really the only strategy we have to accomplish that.

René Islas: $24 billion have been spent since Title II was created in its current form in NCLB. And like Stephanie said earlier, we do not have a lot of evidence that it has improved teacher practice or student achievement. So when some people say that Title II needs to be defunded, I do know what’s motivating their argument--$24 billion have not produced results in the way that we would have expected them to.

Where my beliefs differ from theirs is that they are calling for investing in individuals: Individual new teachers, individual new principals--all of these very direct investments in alternative certification. When they are calling for improvement at scale, they should be looking at how they can help the greatest number of teachers to improve teaching and learning. And that is what we believe professional development, done well, can do.

And let me make myself very clear. What we are saying has not produced results is Title II as currently written. We are not at all saying that professional development itself, done well, lacks results. There's a vast body of knowledge that says it does produce results.

What the Research Tells Us

Public School Insights: Could you say a bit more about that research?

Stephanie Hirsh: First off, there is an enormous amount of evidence that points to the power of collaborative learning. Our recent study, Professional Learning in the Learning Profession, does a great job of summarizing that research. And a number of other studies, including studies by the American Institutes of Research, have found that, when teacher leaders and instructional coaches are well prepared and implement effective professional learning, they are able to document improvement in the teachers and students.

Another body of research supporting a new vision of professional development is research done on the countries that outperform the US on international assessments. There is a huge body of literature on this topic. For example, a study by McKinsey & Company found that countries that outperformed the US invest in teachers. Teachers in those countries are expected to collaborate, and those countries have put structures in place to support and promote that collaboration. For example, they include time for collaboration in the school day. Those countries also have differentiated staffing models and prepare teacher leaders to support other teachers.

Then we have evidence at the state level. We have studied states that have become more serious in their expectations for professional learning and their investment in it. For example, Florida adopted the NSDC standards, embraced our definition for professional learning and translated it into the Florida Professional Development System.. According to an independent study in Florida, districts that aligned their professional development to these standards showed higher gains in student learning.

More recently a peer effects study found that teachers’ practices are influenced by other teachers with whom they work. So ensuring that teachers are working and learning together—the core of the definition we are advocating—can elevate performance across the team.

And think about the MetLife report that just came out, as well as the recently released Gates Foundation and Scholastic survey of 40,000 teachers. They found that, after support from leadership, teachers value the opportunity to collaborate with and learn from colleagues. So the profession is saying, “We want this. We need this. This helps us improve.” And the research supports it as well.

We also have lots of evidence on the other side—that when we implement professional learning poorly, we have nothing to show for it.

René Islas: I think that is why we feel obligated as an organization advancing the cause of professional development to make sure that federal law provides structure and guidance on how to make their investments most powerful for teachers and students.

Stephanie Hirsh: We are not asking for more money with no strings attached. We are advocating a vision of quality and a strategy for quality control.

Improving Federal Law

Public School Insights: Let's talk a bit about a recent bill advanced by Congressman Jared Polis, a bill that would, among other things, redefine professional development in ESEA. How does this bill advance your vision and your strategies for improving professional development?

Stephanie Hirsh: First it includes the NSDC definition of professional learning. Secondly, it recognizes that that just because something is mandated does not mean that people know how to implement it. It addresses building capacity of system and school leaders to ensure fidelity to the definition.

René Islas: We advocate giving guidance and providing support for implementation. And that is what the bill does.

Public School Insights: Do you see room for the approach that you advocate and that is embedded in the Polis Bill in the President's budget proposal?

René Islas: In the President's budget he created a new program called “Excellent Instructional Teams.” That is directly aligned with our definition of professional development. Because it was a budget bill and not an authorization bill, it did not include a definition of professional development or other such guidance. So the jury is still out on making sure that we have those quality control elements in place, but I think that it is a good start in the right direction.

Stephanie Hirsh: The President’s budget proposal consolidates a number of existing programs into five new programs, one of which is these Excellent Instructional Teams. But there are implications for professional development and professional learning in several of the other programs as well. So the definition has applicability in many areas.

Public School Insights: Have you have encountered concerns that the approach you advocate is too prescriptive?

Stephanie Hirsh: We prefer to view it as a powerful framework that ensures structures are in place to promote effective professional learning among all teachers, not just some teachers. And we think that is extremely important.

We also think that it offers flexibility for teachers and principals to determine the focus of professional learning, as long as that focus begins with the examination of their students’ performance data. We believe professional learning should be focused on the school and the students within that school—the ultimate purpose of professional learning is helping students improve.

There is also a very important role for the more traditional professional development providers. They will find a way to become true partners with educators in schools assisting them to address their highest needs with regard to their students and educator learning.

René Islas: Is this too prescriptive? I think the answer is no. It is much less prescriptive than the law has been in the past. In the past, and in the current No Child Left Behind, the law has said that you need to spend your money on technology professional development, or reading professional development, or science professional development, or something of that nature. To me, that is prescriptive. It does not allow educators at the local level to look at student needs in determining what they should focus their professional learning on. This, on the other hand, says, “Start with your students first.” What do they need in your own local context?

Stephanie Hirsh: What René is saying is true—Title II has been prescriptive about topics and has therefore limited local decisions about the content of professional development. If we’re being prescriptive, we’re being prescriptive about quality: quality standards for professional learning. If we are willing to set standards for student learning, then I think we need to be willing to set standards for teacher learning.

Making Time for Professional Development

Public School Insights: How would you respond to criticisms that teachers do not have time for the kind of professional development you’re talking about?

Stephanie Hirsh: The 2010 MetLife survey found that the average teacher reports having 2.7 hours a week for collaborative learning. I thought that was really fascinating. But we do not have information about how they are using that time, and we are not reporting on the effectiveness of it. Research shows that we need to give teachers the tools and skills to use that time effectively. So I do not think that time is as much a barrier to teacher collaboration as people say it is. The primary barrier is that teachers do not always have the technical skills to facilitate it in ways that improve practice and results.

In addition, it would be beneficial to have more time. Just compare our 2.7 hours of collaboration to what’s become common in some of the countries that outscore us on international assessments--40% of the work week in some cases--and then ask do we have enough time? No. Do we have some time? Yes. So let's prove the time that we are using is affecting practice. My assumption is that when we are able to do that, we will have a rallying cry for more time.

A National Priority

Public School Insights: In considering the public debate about school reform, do you think people spend enough time talking about professional development?

Stephanie Hirsh: If we were not rallying around professional development, I do not think there would be any national conversation about it right now, save for Senator Reed’s and Representative Polis’s strong commitment to the issue. In most conversations about state standards and assessment, for example, professional development is largely absent. I believe those conversations will get there, but I hope they aren’t too late.

In addition national attention is focused on recruiting talented individuals into the profession. While we have some evidence that the stars are getting some good results, we also have evidence that suggests they are not committed to the profession. So what is our nation’s long-term plan to ensure that all teachers become stars? In my view it is creating a system that helps all teachers learn.

Public School Insights: Are there any big questions that I should have asked you but didn't?

Stephanie Hirsh: Maybe, “Who supports our approach to professional development in federal law?” We are proud that there is support for this change in definition from both national associations and other education organizations. I think that is exciting that there is agreement from all of them. The teachers’ organizations have endorsed the bill. The principals’ organizations have endorsed it. Organizations like TAP—the Teacher Advancement Program—have embraced our definition. There is a consensus among educators that this defines quality professional learning—that this is what we aspire to offer all teachers. I think it would be wonderful if the federal government would put its stamp of approval on it and provide resources to make it happen.