It’s been a busy few weeks (or year…) for many of us, but I was gutted to miss this week’s #edCPDchat, especially given the focus on the relationship between CPD and teacher autonomy. This is an area that I’m trying to develop in my own department this year (I blogged on the approach I’ve taken here) so I was keen to sit down and take a look through the discussion.Q1: How do you balance whole-school priorities with individual need, making sure that staff feel the relevance of the CPD that is available to them?
@meredithfox22 made the excellent point that this is a big challenge (there can often be tension between the priorities of a school and individual needs). She pointed out how appraisal targets might not always be the best way, and I agree with this (especially where these targets are also linked to pay progression and/or student outcomes).
The approach @MMinton10 mentioned could offer another way though, with staff undertaking an action research project and getting training in order to do so. From what I’ve seen, this is becoming a popular approach in schools and can be an excellent way of engaging staff with research, though I do feel that the CPD that sits alongside it is also important. Where staff are given too much freedom and little/no guidance alongside this, it’s possible that the process in itself can be forgotten until two weeks before it’s time to share the “findings”. In short: any individual projects need to be given regular time where staff can collaborate, reflect and refine their approaches.
@MMinton10 also mentioned how her school’s action research focus areas are decided in collaboration with school/department priorities. I can definitely see the value in this myself, as my department have worked on a similar model (albeit on a much smaller scale) this term, where we all looked to develop our questioning by choosing a single strategy to refine over the term. It worked well for us as it enabled for more collaboration (through paired reflection time and peer observations) as staff shared an overarching goal that also matched up with a whole-school priority.
However, I’m starting to wonder if @PearceMrs has a better idea to follow, with the mention of an ‘individual CPD plan’ that’s created with a line manager. She highlighted how it also acts as a form of feedback, so that CPD can be balanced between whole-school and individual needs (it would also mean CPD is responsive to staff need, a priority mentioned by @SaysMiss). Of course, time could be a potential issue- but perhaps that’s a reason for schools to start to look at how much time they allow for CPD. Do we really spend enough time developing our teachers?
Q2: Can teachers ever have total autonomy over their CPD?
@MMinton10 made the important point that teacher autonomy is a key ingredient in increasing motivation. In that sense, we definitely need to value teacher autonomy if we want to retain and develop great teachers.
However, the tension between school priorities and individual needs can make ‘total autonomy’ problematic. @DoctorPreece mentioned this by stating that we need a shared culture, which whole-school priorities are part of. I feel that what this looks like (and how much autonomy teachers have as result) will vary from school to school though, especially when you consider @SaysMiss’ point that individual priorities are more likely to be aligned if ethos and culture are explicit. Perhaps schools who are still developing a sense of shared culture might need less than total teacher autonomy in the meantime?
A teacher’s own knowledge might also impact how much autonomy is best too: @greeborunner highlighted how novices could easily become overwhelmed so maybe, as @DoctorPreece suggests, there should be a narrower range of options in these cases. That being said, if you were to develop individual CPD plans with line managers (as @PearceMrs mentioned earlier) this might be a barrier overcome through support and coaching rather than narrowing what’s on offer.
The biggest idea for me to consider for Q2, though, was the concept of ‘flexi-INSET time’ mentioned by @PearceMrs (which is very topical, given the recent release of @Emma_Turner75’s new book on flexible working). I think that I definitely need to consider what this looks like on a departmental level after seeing the benefits of collapsing department time for individual CPD over the past term. I especially liked how there was still a degree of low-stakes accountability as staff log their engagement, which in turn acts as feedback for those overseeing CPD. I do agree with @ajm_PE that the potential for wasted time is a potential pitfall, but one that can be overcome if you support staff with the process- perhaps in combination with individual CPD plans.
Q3: How can performance management be a lever for teacher autonomy over their development needs?
Do we need to consider a national model to ensure that there’s a consistent, growth-led approach?
Some big questions here (in line with the well crafted questions throughout from @KLMorgan_2 and @MissLLewis who led this week’s chat). In my opinion, a lot of the problems highlighted are due to the way performance management has been used by some schools as a ‘high-stakes, high-accountability’ measure that has pressured staff rather than supported them. @piersyoung mentioned how PM processes often assume a ‘linear system’, which doesn’t reflect the actual processes of learning and progress in staff development. @lucyheighton also warned that any national model would need to make the links between any criteria and pay progression explicit, though does teacher development and performance management need to be related to pay at all?
I agree with @ajm_PE that PM that is linked to pay is in danger of ‘killing intrinsic motivation’ and with @PearceMrs’ suggestions that development and engagement with CPD should be seen as valuable in itself, rather than being directly linked with outcomes. At the MAT I work in, we see this as a feature of the ‘mutual professional trust’ that is important to our culture.
When it comes to the idea of a national model, I feel that this could be beneficial, especially as it could facilitate better ongoing CPD when staff move schools (which could, in turn, support teacher retention). It could also have the potential of weeding out some of the poorer-quality CPD that’s out there by offering a QA process/trusted standard (in turn making better use of both school budgets and teachers’ time).
For the tension between teacher autonomy and school priorities, of course a form of ‘performance management’ (albeit not necessarily in the form many schools will be familiar with) could be useful in maintaining the right balance. However, less micro-managing and more of the ‘tight-loose’ approach that @KLMorgan_2 tweeted from the @edCPDchat account might be a sensible way forwards.
A massive thank you to @KLMorgan_2 and @MissLLewis for running the chat this week, as well as to everyone who contributed for your reflections.
#edCPDchat will return in 2021. Follow the @edCPDchat twitter account for more updates.
