Pieces of the Puzzle Professional Development and Teacher Quality CMS’s professional development efforts to recruit, develop, and retain high-quality staff was closely aligned with the district’s goal to build school and district capacity to support a rigorous program of managed instruction. Central office staff, principals, and teachers were carefully selected by district leadership and the human resources department. The district sought to attract effective teachers to the district by offering competitive monetary packages based on experience and certification, as well as bonuses for working in low performing schools. At the same time, to maintain the goals of each school and help principals cultivate a school culture, principals were given the power to interview and select their own staff and teachers. The district developed and mandated professional development and training for these teachers, including a week of professional development prior to every school year. This professional development was defined around student assessment results and district instructional priorities. In fact, the rollout of the district’s reading initiative was infused with intensive initial training, and ongoing site-based support for instruction continued to focus on literacy and writing. The ELL and special education departments were also included in these professional development efforts to maintain alignment and coherence in reading initiatives. Professional development courses generally followed the train-the-trainer model wherein curriculum and development coordinators were key instruction providers. At the high school level, the professional development department used a coaching model where highly qualified coaches were selected to work with struggling schools. These coaches were supervised by curriculum specialists in the central office. Moreover, in order to evaluate and determine the effectiveness of professional development, the district distributed surveys to teachers and analyzed student data against professional development offerings. The survey looked at the instructional goals set by teachers, and the classroom data allowed the department to review growth based on the training. Teachers received five days of mandatory professional development before school started, but because each school had some autonomy, schools could provide additional training as needed. Teachers were also encouraged to become National Board Certified, and the professional development department recruited teachers and provided support to those who wanted to go through the process. Support for Implementation From the beginning the district set clear, non-negotiable expectations to ensure fidelity to the new districtwide instructional program. These expectations included the mandatory use of the adopted reading textbooks and curriculum, the use of pacing calendars, and the administration of quarterly short-cycle assessments. To help build the capacity of schools to meet these expectations and successfully implement and sustain reforms, the district created extensive school-based support structures. Central office staff and principals were expected to be out of their offices and in classrooms, supporting and overseeing instruction. Principals were included in training on district initiatives and were given professional development on instructional management, walkthrough processes, and the use of balanced scorecards to ensure that, as the instructional leaders of schools, they were monitoring and supporting implementation of district programs in their buildings. The district also established 90 minute common planning periods designed to help teachers and staff identify and focus in depth on areas of student academic needs. In addition, CMS deployed literacy and academic facilitators to elementary and middle schools to help principals develop school literacy plans consistent with district goals, provide professional development for teachers, and provide support for parents. The key idea was to build capacity at the campus level. H-6
Council of the Great City Schools and the American Institutes for Research Council of the Great City Schools • American Institutes for Research • Fall 2011
363