After working with hundreds of school leaders, a common frustration I hear is that some of their staff seem anything from “passive” to downright “resistant” when it comes to CPD.
Leaders can often feel like they are offering all sorts of opportunities and inputs but only get complaints in return. Or else they receive very little reaction and watch the impact rapidly fizzle.
Luckily, experience suggests that not only is this issue addressable, but it can lead to a school which is buzzing with energy, with staff really enjoying and engaging with the development on offer. This leaves school leaders feeling much more free – more like strategists and guides to learning that staff are proactively and enthusiastically driving, rather than feeling like they are relentlessly fighting an uphill battle.
Understanding staff resistance to CPD
To resolve the issue requires understanding it. Resistance to CPD often arises from past negative experiences or lack of buy-in. As teachers spend longer in the profession, they are much more likely to see ideas that they have encountered before, giving a sense that the idea is perhaps not worth engaging with again, or that it is likely to fade back out of fashion just like it did before.
Maybe they encountered it before and they were definitely not persuaded of its helpfulness or the evidence that underpinned it. Alternatively, they may feel they learned it sufficiently last time, even if it was just a brief encounter with the idea.
Teachers may also have had experiences where CPD was poorly implemented, perhaps presented superficially, scheduled at a time that felt irrelevant or without enough time to digest the learning.
Many teachers will have seen new ideas implemented rapidly and then turned into accountability tools. For example, ideas about classroom practice may have been briefly introduced but, rather than giving staff time to develop real expertise, teachers were perhaps asked immediately to demonstrate those techniques in tick-box observations.
This approach breeds more cynicism so that when an idea is being presented purely for learning purposes, some may assume that it will eventually turn into another tick-box exercise.
I have spoken to experienced teachers who tell me “eventually you just learn to nod and smile, put on the act when someone is in the room, but otherwise ignore it all for your own sanity”.
Given all of these potential historical issues, it is perhaps not surprising that there are teachers with more negative attitudes to the CPD that their senior or middle leaders want to schedule.
Understanding teachers’ history of CPD experiences is vital when unpicking why there could be resistance. It may take time to win back staff members’ trust and engagement, no matter how important a leader feels their own ideas are.
Genuine needs analysis
A one-size-fits-all approach to CPD in schools and trusts often fails to consider the individual strengths, weaknesses, and needs of teachers. A genuine needs analysis which involves staff members and team leaders is crucial if we are to design a programme that will really meet everyone’s needs, not just the needs perceived by school leaders.
This approach ensures that CPD initiatives are tailored to the specific needs of each teacher, thereby increasing their effectiveness and acceptance among staff.
When the Teacher Development Trust (TDT) works with schools on a diagnostic review of their professional development, we are often able to pinpoint the areas that future CPD schedules need to emphasise in order to gain more buy-in. In some settings this can be more time to consider topics and subjects, while in others it can be about more support around behaviour, for example.
Consider coaching
Coaching can be an effective form of CPD when implemented correctly. Effective implementation is about much more than just sharing coaching ideas or skills.
When we work with schools through our pedagogical coaching programme, we work not only with the coaches but also with school leaders: it is not just the coaching approaches that are key to success, it is the “coaching culture” that leaders create to enable it to work.
This means building coaching relationships that will generate meaningful learning, separated from accountability and performance management conversations. We also like to make sure that coaching does not get stuck in a one-size-doesn’t-fit-all model. If coaches get stuck using only a purely “facilitative” approach whereby they ask questions but never suggest ideas, some teachers can feel stuck or that it is not adding enough value, leading to scepticism or resistance to the coaching itself.
On the other hand, where coaches get stuck in a “directive” mode, always telling coachees what to try next, it can disempower staff and fail to build reflective thinking, also leading to resistance or passivity – if teachers aren’t empowered to play a role in considering their own next learning steps then it is easy to just sit back and wait for the next instruction.
Lesson study
Another model is the lesson study approach, which involves collaborative planning, prediction, observation, and reflection. It can be a powerful tool for teacher development that can build teachers’ abilities to improve their practice and evaluate their own progress.
It requires some really thoughtful training, support and structure to ensure that valuable meeting time generates as much learning as possible. It can be engaging for staff to explore their own practice and both engage in dialogue with experts and read research summaries to generate solutions. This model can help to shift the way that people approach professional development, moving it away from “copy-pasting” techniques and focusing much more on pupils’ needs, formative assessment and diagnosing underlying issues then matching those with expert teaching techniques.
But lesson study too is also no guaranteed success. Without enough support, staff may feel they are getting lost in a complex process. Poorly formed groups can leave some feeling like they are doing all the work or having to work through challenging relationships.
Without enough time, staff feel they are struggling to get around to their own learning and sometimes resent not being able to take more time for planning and marking and other responsibilities. Some staff may have had previous poor experiences with lesson study or teacher research groups and may feel cynical about attempts to bring them back.
When we work with schools to introduce lesson study (also known as collaborative enquiry), we spend a lot of time supporting the roll-out of the initiative, avoiding some of these pitfalls by piloting carefully, building expertise, aligning other initiatives, and finding ways to build buy-in.
Final thoughts
Understanding and addressing staff resistance to CPD is essential for school leaders to be successful and to empower staff. There are too many schools where leaders and staff feel like CPD is more of a battleground of resentment instead of the professionally energising, joyful and helpful process that it can be. By reflecting carefully, using a clear diagnosis of the current state of CPD and building skills of CPD leadership, coaching and enquiry, leaders can understand and overcome the issues and create schools where staff thrive professionally and grow their expertise so that pupils succeed.
David Weston is founder and co-CEO of the Teacher Development Trust, a national charity for schools, childcare settings and colleges focused on creating workplaces where teachers thrive and become expert so that pupils succeed. Find out more at https://tdtrust.org/. Follow David on X (Twitter) @informed_edu and find both his and previous Teacher Development Trust articles for Headteacher Update via www.headteacher-update.com/authors/david-weston
Further information & resources
- TDT: Collaborative enquiry: https://tdtrust.org/collaborative-enquiry-training/
- TDT: Diagnostic review: https://tdtrust.org/cpd-diagnostic-review/
- TDT: Pedagogical coaching: https://tdtrust.org/pedagogical-coaching/