Rethinking Staff Development This Too Shall Pass

By Dr. Barrett Mosbacker

August 08, 2009

Here is the hard and sad truth: over the last several decades Christian schools have invested tens of thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars on staff training programs and conferences with little sustained impact. Despite all of the research, despite recent advances in neuroscience, notwithstanding the widespread availability of increasingly affordable and effective technologies, and despite our grandiose pronouncements, our classrooms are virtually indistinguishable from classrooms of the 1920s or 1950s. Only the furniture has changed.

We may have made changes at the margins, but systemic change is hard to find. There are teachers, scattered here and there, who exemplify the best in teaching. And there are a few schools that break the mold and provide paradigms for others to emulate. Sadly, most of these schools are not Christian. They are public or secular private schools. By and large, most Christian schools have hearts of gold while stuck in an industrial model of teaching that has little in common with a rich biblical understanding of the learner or the effective and consistent application of current research and technology.

A harsh indictment, I know. It is nevertheless motivated by a deep love for Christian education and an insatiable desire to see our schools standing as beacons of excellence, schools characterized by creative nurturing environments, rigorous learning, thoughtful and informed dialogue, problem-based learning, integrated technologies, and authentic assessment.

Why?

Why, despite our best intentions and the investment of substantial time and money, do our schools remain largely unchanged? There are many reasons. One of the most important is the relatively ineffective way we design and implement staff development programs. Most of our training programs go something like this. We have a week of training in which we discuss biblical integration or some other topic du jour. Most of the training is delivered like most teachers teach: didactic presentations, perhaps supplemented by PowerPoint slides. There is nominal interaction and virtually no immediate, real-time practice or application of the concepts covered. There is seldom follow-up or accountability. With the exception of yet another discussion of biblical integration (more on this later), topics and emphasis change from year to year. Teachers sit through the presentations, but little changes. School begins. Teachers return to their classrooms, close their doors, and teach just like they always have. We return to our offices to deal with day-to-day exigencies. Within a month, in-service is forgotten. Then, sometime in the spring, we plan for next year’s in-service and the cycle begins again, just like the movie Groundhog Day.

Through this process, teachers learn that “this too shall pass.” Teachers often view in-service as something to endure or a time to catch up on relationships. For most, it is not an occasion for deep reflection. It is seldom stimulating and seldom leads to change in the classroom or systemic change in our schools. Each year we pick our in-service topic, throw it against the wall, and hope it will stick. It usually does not.

I am not cynical, but my observations arise from twenty years of attending conferences, conducting in-service training programs, and consulting with other schools. Too many of our teachers reflect the sentiments expressed in the following video.

Rethinking and Redesigning Staff Training

Our schools are only as good as our teachers. Good teachers are to education what education is to all other professions: the indispensable element, the sunlight and oxygen, the foundation on which everything else is built. They are central to assuring excellence and rigor in the educational experience of every young person in America (Milken, 2000, p. 3).

Accordingly, our top priority is to hire, train, and retain the finest Christian teachers in the country. Hiring the right people from the outset is essential. Over the years I have discovered that despite my best efforts, marginal teachers with marginal gifts will only make marginal improvement. Motivated by Christian charity and patience, I have expended enormous energy and devoted countless hours striving to transform mediocre teachers into, if not great, at least effective teachers. With the satisfying exceptions when I have discovered diamonds in the rough, I have failed. Frogs do not become princes no matter how often and passionately we kiss them.

Although we cannot turn frogs into princes, we can transform teachers with the gift of teaching into remarkably effective teachers. A few can be transformed into master teachers. This situation is analogous to a good coach. A coach can only do so much with athletes lacking raw talent. However, a good coach can take athletes with natural talent and transform them into MVPs and championship teams. That is our task. For the sake of God’s glory, the advancement of His kingdom, and for our students, we can do no less.

Presuming we have made good hires, designing effective training programs is the key to enhancing the effectiveness of our teachers and creating dynamic world-class schools. There are several components to an effective training program: designing training for the adult learner, defining measurable organizational and pedagogical expectations and goals, accountability, practicing what we teach, and establishing multi-year training programs.

Design Training for the Adult Learner

Adults learn differently than students. Their motivations are also different.

It is particularly important to understand that as adult learners, teachers expect the learning to be immediately useful. Too often our training is theoretical and conceptual rather than immediately applicable.

Although it is essential that teachers have a thorough knowledge of theory, concepts, and research, they will not change their teaching unless the application of the learning is demonstrated. We should not assume that teachers will connect the dots. We need to connect the dots between theory and practice for them.

This is the problem with much of our biblical integration training. It is lofty, mission oriented, theological, philosophical, and conceptual but is seldom practical or actionable (see more on this below under Practicing What We Teach).

For example, I often ask prospective teachers to give me a specific example of biblical integration in mathematics with two caveats: they may not make reference to a statement like “numbers are orderly because God is a God of order,” nor may they make reference to the animals going into the Ark two-by-two or anything similar. With rare exception, teachers struggle to provide concrete, specific, theologically coherent examples. They cannot get beyond generalizations to meaningful and applicable integration.

Likewise, I have asked prospective teachers to give me a specific example of biblical integration in history but with the following caveats: they may not make reference to American history, and they must go beyond a statement of God’s sovereignty. Once again they are often stumped. If they cannot make reference to the Christian influence on American history or to God’s sovereignty, they have little idea how to integrate biblical truth in history.

I have gone through this exercise with literally hundreds of teachers with the same results. With few exceptions, most Christian teachers do not know how to provide concrete, practical, sophisticated, and actionable integration within academic subjects. Yet training in biblical integration and the development of a biblical worldview has received more attention and time in staff development than any other single concept. By and large, the same can be said of other topics covered in our staff training programs. Teachers go through the process, but little changes for the vast majority. How is it that we are so ineffective?

I believe it is because we are not teaching the way adults need to learn, we often do not provide actionable examples, we do not have specific measures of success, and we do not hold teachers accountable for the training. We also do not take time to reflect upon the process most adults follow in deciding whether or not to embrace change.

Define Measurable Pedagogical and Organizational Expectations and Goals

Early in my corporate career I was taught an invaluable lesson from my boss: never assume anything. His language was colorful and he made an indelible impression on me. I do not recall the reason for his instruction (obviously I assumed something that I should not have), but I did learn an invaluable lesson. Making assumptions will get one into trouble or at minimum reduce one’s effectiveness. I believe we make the same mistake by assuming that teachers understand our specific expectations of them and goals for our schools. We may be right, but we should not assume this to be the case.

It is critical that we clearly state our expectations and that we match our training programs with those expectations. In other words, our training and expectations must be integrated, and this integration must be deliberate, not haphazard. If our training is to move us closer to realizing our goals, our goals must be clearly defined.

What are our goals for our schools? I am not referring to our mission statements or our philosophy of education. Nor am I referring to our strategic goals per se. In this context I am referring to specific expectations for our classrooms and our schools. A statement of clear classroom expectations might look something like the following:

Classroom instruction will be dynamic with high levels of student-to-student and student-to-teacher interaction, quality questioning, Socratic dialogue, use of integrated technology, teaching strategies informed by neuroscience, and thoughtful, specific, and sophisticated biblical integration and at least two authentic assessments per quarter.

To ensure that our teachers understand clearly what is expected of them, I recently issued a memo outlining specific expectations. This memo was distributed to all teachers, is posted on the school’s SharePoint server, and was discussed with all teachers and principals during faculty meetings. Central to our expectations is the goal of creating vibrant, engaging, creative, rigorous classrooms where students are not passive recipients of information but are engaged in the learning process.

Clear expectations also provide a framework for the design of our professional development programs. Once we define the goals for instruction, training is designed to advance those goals. Training has a sustained and coherent focus.

Accountability and Follow-Through

Upon the wise recommendation of Mr. David Balik, our Dean of Faculty and Academic Affairs, we modified the evaluation instrument to match our expectations. The evaluation instrument includes a number of specific expectations tied directly to prior staff training, e.g., use of technology, questioning techniques, and similar skills. This heightens faculty attentiveness and response to training by making it clear that “this shall not pass.” We expect that the concepts and skills covered during staff training will be implemented in the classroom. Failure to do so is not acceptable.

We are not offering ideas for consideration during in-service. We are providing training. To make this point clearer, consider an example in the medical field. Can you imagine a physician attending a training conference on the latest techniques in surgery and then ignoring them on the operating table? Can you imagine your physician going to a professional conference with the attitude that “this too shall pass?” Of course not. True professionals take training to enhance their practice, not to go through the motions. Similarly, can you imagine your tax accountant going to a seminar on changes in the tax code and then choosing to ignore them when preparing your tax return? Doing so would be malpractice and would result in fines, revocation of a license, and possible imprisonment. You could multiply the example indefinitely for pilots, attorneys, engineers, and others.

Why then do we permit professional teachers to ignore their professional training and fail to apply it in their classrooms? Are not the souls and minds of students more precious than the physical well-being of a patient or the size of our tax refund?

Practice What We Teach

I have had some wonderful professors in my doctoral graduate program in educational leadership. I learned an immense amount from them and I am grateful and indebted to them for their scholarship and instruction.

Unfortunately, I must admit that more often than not, my professors taught in a manner inconsistent with the learning theories, concepts, and principles they so passionately promoted. By and large, my learning consisted of reading, taking legal pads full of lecture notes, writing papers, and taking tests. This is traditional practice and perfectly valid to a point.

Sadly, I can count on one hand the number of professors of education whose instruction incorporated Socratic dialogue, problem-based learning, concept attainment, authentic assessments, technology integration, cooperative learning, or a host of other techniques that research clearly demonstrates are highly effective.

I have been guilty of the same inconsistency. Too often my in-service instruction consisted of lectures supplemented by PowerPoint slides. There is a place for this style of instruction, and it can be effective. Unfortunately, it is difficult to convince teachers to change the way they teach unless we model it for them. We are not credible if we lecture about Socratic dialogue but do not ask probing questions, if we lecture and never engage teachers in problem-based learning during in-service, and never provide them an authentic assessment of their own learning.

We must practice what we teach. You will soon find, as I have, that this requires more thought, more time, and is harder than giving a lecture. If nothing else, it makes one more empathetic to the challenges facing our teachers.

I can, however, give two examples of practicing what we teach, not perfectly, but in good faith and with good results. One involves biblical integration and the other technology.

Biblical Integration

Teachers who have been employed in Christian schools for any length of time have been exposed to biblical integration and the goal of helping students develop a biblical worldview ad nauseam. A harsh indictment, I know, but our experienced teachers are beginning to yawn (quietly) at another lesson, in-service program, workshop, or keynote speech on biblical integration. They get it and are committed to it, but as illustrated above, most do not know how to integrate, and many do not know that they do not know.

In an effort to address what I see as a significant problem in our schools, teachers who are unable to provide systemic, concrete, specific integration within each discipline, we redesigned our training program using several different approaches. We also provided helpful resources and tools.

First, biblical integration was defined in very specific terms for the faculty. They were given examples of what integration is and is not. It is not icing on a cake with Bible verses applied here or there. It is not devotions before class. It is not prayer before class. It is not chapel services. And it is not simplistic, overly generalized theological concepts superficially overlaid onto an academic concept, skill, or fact. Integration is like yeast. It permeates. It infuses the curriculum content so that it is inextricable from lesson content.

Second, most teachers have not been well prepared theologically for integration. Without solid theological grounding, integration is not possible. Unfortunately, the theological knowledge of most of our teachers is limited to what they have learned from sermons, Sunday School, and personal