Monday, October 10, 2016

A Shift in Learning: Training, Professional Development, and Organizational Learning

Change is difficult. The larger the change, the greater the difficulty. So how does a large organization, like a school, make a large change? It does so with training, with professional development, and with organizational learning.

Over the last decade, many elementary school systems in the United States of America have made a large change by adopting Columbia University’s Reader’s Workshop model for reading instruction. This model of instruction is usually much different than the reading instruction it replaces. School systems are relying on their administrators and teachers to adopt an entirely new pedagogy for the most fundamental and important subject taught in elementary schools. Successful adoption relies on systematic change.

The first step for success is training. Teachers and administrators must receive extensive training in the new pedagogy. With Reader’s Workshop, schools must provide at least one year of training, experimentation, guided instruction, and practice, before the new model can even be implemented. Teachers must be given materials, modeling, and instruction in how Reader’s Workshop operates. This must include everything from the philosophy behind the workshop model, to the planning and execution of daily lessons. The training stage is the stage in which teachers learn; the material is new, and they gain knowledge and understanding.

The second step for success is professional development. Once the Reader’s Workshop model has been fully implemented, teachers and administrators need professional development to enhance their performance and get better with the model. The professional development stage is the stage in which teachers, now armed with the knowledge and understanding, improve in their abilities to teach using the Reader’s Workshop model. Professional development must be ongoing, and is included under the umbrella of organizational learning.

The third step for success is organizational learning. With Reader’s Workshop underway, and teachers receiving professional development to improve in their performance, the entire system must take a look at the model and determine what is working, where improvements are needed, and even whether or not the program should continue to be implemented. At an institutional level, the second year of a major change like the adoption of Reader’s Workshop will look much different than the first; students will no longer be new to the format, and teachers will have gained experience, insight, and development that they did not have previously. Model teachers will be identified to assist those requesting or requiring assistance; reading groups, courses, and time to observe peers will all become essential for success. It can also be quite helpful to bring in consultation from outside of the school to provide an unbiased look at the strengths and weaknesses of the program. At this point, the entire organization must begin to analyze the program, and make recommendations. Like professional development, organizational learning is ongoing; with each new year the school must look at where is has come from and where it is going.

Change takes time. My opinion is that in order for real improvement to be made, and for real change to occur, it must be given time. Too often today, this is not happening. For example, in Hartford, Connecticut, there seems to be a new superintendent of schools every three years. Vanessa de la Torre and Jenna Carlesso of the Hartford Courant wrote, “In the past 25 years, just one Hartford superintendent has served longer than three years and eight months on the job”  Each superintendent is hired to make a change in the school system, and throws away that which has come before. In order for any of these plans to become effective, we need to let them grow beyond the training stage. Real organizational change cannot be effective without training, professional development, AND organizational learning.

5 comments:

  1. Elijah,

    I really enjoyed your post for the clear connections you made between training, professional development, and organizational learning. In one context, we can see how training can benefit an organization and lead to system wide learning via professional development; in another context, we can also see how a vacuum in leadership can delay much needed training and effectively imperil professional development and organizational learning. This latter point particularly hit close to home because I am, myself, a product of urban public education; so I am keenly aware of the institutional challenges confronting stake holders of urban education. Bridgeport, where I received my secondary education and the community I serve as a professional, just lost its Superintendent too:

    http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Rabinowitz-to-step-down-as-superintendent-in-9752588.php

    And if that wasn't bad enough, the board of education, which is tasked with finding a permanent successor to helm the Superintendency, has been rendered ineffective because of infighting and intransigence:

    http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Bridgeport-BOE-chair-cancels-meetings-calls-for-9217953.php

    All of this leads me to wonder about who initiates training within schools as organizations (primary and secondary) and, more importantly, whether there is a need to reevaluate that system? Applying some double-loop thinking (I think), should urban superintendents be the primary catalysts or initiators of system wide training, especially when professional development (for teachers and staff), organizational learning (for the schools and district), AND student achievement outcomes hang delicately in the balance?


    Kofi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the problem is one of expectations. The superintendent is hired to make changes in the school district, and is usually hired based on the plan he or she proposes to the school board. There is usually a 6 month - 1 year observation period (what might be considered the needs assessment) but in reality, there is already a plan in place to "move the district forward." The limited PD time given by the district is then given over to the superintendent's (and sometime, principal's) plan for the district. I don't think I have ever been in a district where a superintendent did a needs assessment that included teachers and students (parents, yes, but not students.)

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another thought...

    What's to be done in a situation where an exemplary reading teacher refuses to adopt the new, model pedagogy? If said teacher has proven be to successful at teaching/instructing reading, must s/he undermine his or her self-efficacy for the benefit of the learning organization?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I honestly do not know. This came up in school today, when I asked a veteran teacher what she thought of the new model being used across the school to respond to open-ended questions (the APE model.) She and I had both been teaching in the district long enough to see other similar models come-and-go (the Double Stuf Oreo model, the TEE model.) She felt the Oreo model was the most effective, but felt compelled to teach the new one, lest her kids be left out the following year. I thought that is was depressing, but I absolutely understood her reasoning. Unfortunately, there is less and less autonomy in schools with every passing year.

      Delete