The vote on this week’s topic was close, but I have to admit that I was glad of the result: middle-leadership of CPD. It obviously ties in my own research on planning and delivering departmental CPD (through an article for Impact and in a previous blog), but the timing for this week’s chat also lined up with a meeting that afternoon, where I’d gone through how I’d applied the ‘active ingredients’ of CPD with the other English leads in my trust.
Q1: What do you use and who do you consult, when designing CPD programmes?
The majority of the discussion here centred on the ‘who’ in the question, with many agreeing that those being developed should be part of this process. @EnserMark highlighted how we should be considering our team's interests and needs, with others highlighting different ways of gathering this information (such as an audit questionnaire, from @ajm_PE; a team discussion, from @meredithfox22; or regular one-to-one discussions, from @m_chiles). I can see (and have used) each of these suggestions, as the audit has the advantage of getting all the feedback into one place while the others enable the personal touch, which is important in terms of understanding staff needs and also gaining their buy-in.
However, I also feel that we need to be aware of the limitations of this approach: can we assume that all staff are able to recognise their own areas to develop? Whilst, in my opinion, it’s important for them to self-reflect and have input, surely it’s also important to use informal (and low-stakes) evaluation of what happens in the classroom too- which is why I also consult with my second in department, so that we can discuss the needs we have seen whilst visiting lessons or looking at learning in books.
When it came to discussing the ‘what’ in the question, @ajm_PE noted that (after deciding priorities) it would fall to the leader to decide whether they should deliver aspects themselves or delegate (especially for areas they weren’t as knowledgeable in). @ATT_Institute also highlighted the subject-specific needs, meaning that the curriculum plan would be an important resource to consult when it comes to planning CPD over time.
In the conversation, I also posted the question of whether we should be using cognitive science to design CPD (as this has been something I’ve focused on recently to develop my own approach). @bibliogeodie agreed, seeing the learning processes we consider for students as applicable for teacher learning too. @JoyceMatthews_ returned to this idea in a discussion for Q2 as well, asking whether leaders are trained in the processes for teaching adult learners.
Q2: How can you make department meetings into CPD opportunities?
The most common response to this question revolved around reducing the focus on administrative tasks through weekly emails/bulletins or restricting the time for notices to a short slot at the end of the meeting. @EnserMark also noted that the purpose of these meetings needs to be clear, so that staff know it’s time for CPD, with @MissLLewis pointing out that one way to build this culture is to delegate concepts to experts in the department. This is not a strength for me, though I'm hoping that giving staff more ownership as they identify their own areas to develop this year will be a step towards this kind of collaboration.
I also liked @m_chiles’ suggestion that some of this time should be spent practising explanations, which would feed into @SaysMiss’ mention of the need for immediate application, so the CPD covered should be relevant to what the team are covering at that moment. For this reason, @SaysMiss bought in the need for CPD programmes to be responsive. I definitely agree with this, as I am constantly reviewing my long-term plan for department CPD to ensure that it matches current priorities (even if it’s just a case of adapting the planned focus).
Q3: How can you ensure that subject development aligns with whole-school priorities?
This question linked back to an earlier contribution from @NLad84, where he mentioned that the thing to consult after assessing your team’s needs would be whole-school priorities, so that the departmental plans would be aligned with them. @isaacmoore7 pointed out that ‘if designed well, a school’s priorities should flow into departments’, alongside a mention of the need for ‘room’ for department-specific plans. I felt that his choice of the word ‘designed’ was particularly important here, as this synergy does require effective planning and also excellent communication between SLT and middle-leaders.
The teaching and learning briefing format we have adopted at my own school helps with this, as this year we have a pre-recorded briefing played to departments (at the start of department time) as a reminder of a whole-school focus area. Middle leaders can then follow up in their department meeting (as appropriate), which is supported by the termly plan I’ve put together for these briefings.
This model illustrates @EnserMark’s idea about a short whole-school input followed by more time for departments to explore and apply those concepts in a subject-specific context though I also agree with his tweet that school leaders make it a ‘priority to improve subject knowledge and subject pedagogy’. For this reason, it should be subject leaders who are planning their programmes of CPD, as they know their subject, their teams and the needs of both best.
Thanks to everyone who took part in the chat, and also to @greeborunner for doing a great job of hosting this week. Don’t forget to vote for next week’s topic here!
