iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
iPD: Rethinking Professional Development in Districts
Amy Hodges SlampBill & Melinda Gates FoundationCollege Ready Work TeamMay 24, 2013
© 2011 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation |
EVERY PERSON DESERVES THE CHANCE TO LIVE A HEALTHY, PRODUCTIVE LIFE.
2
© 2011 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation |
Our Areas of Focus at the Foundation
4
25%United States Program
50%Global Health Program
25%Global Development Program
© 2011 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation |
9
By 2025, 80% of students graduate from high school college and career ready so they can be successful in their the community and the world.
Empowering Effective Teachers
Milestones Outcomes Impact
College-Ready Work
Research & Data
Next Generation Learning
80% College
Readiness Rate
Transformed Education
System
Advocacy
More Effective Teachers
with better
tools & supports
Will lead to
Will lead to
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
What’s the problem we are trying to solve
with PD?
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
The good news is,we know what
matters!
The difference in student learning between having a teacher in the top quartile of effectiveness and the bottom quartile is 7.5 months in math. (MET)
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
PD today vs iPD:
Source: Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the U.S. and Abroad, Darling-Hammond, Linda, Stanford University, 2009.
What Current Context Future Context iPD Impact
Access One shot workshops with limited follow-up.
Job embedded with easy access to supports.
PD resources available to teachers 24/7 at work and at home.
Frequency Limited and/ or sporadic support. On demand and accessible support initiated by teacher.
Teachers participate in professional learning daily.
Quality Most systems do not define or measure PD.
PD has a demonstrated impact on student learning.
PD quality assessed through linkage to student learning data
Delivery Labor intensive limits the frequency of PD.
Menu of quality options offered on demand.
Increased access to PD without increasing labor costs.
Feedback Limited feedback; not tied to PD. Unlimited opportunities for feedback to inform PD.
Teachers have access to a range of informal, high quality feedback to support their instruction.
Design One size fits all. Differentiated learning strategies. Teachers have access to different modes of support through collaboration, 1:1 and alone.
Context No or little connection to data. PD informed by reliable sources and types of data.
Teachers have up to date information on how to improve student learning.
Coherence Fragmented. Aligned with CCSS and measures of effective teaching.
Professional learning is integrated into the daily routine of teachers.
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
PERSONALIZED TECH ENABLED JOB EMBEDDED ADAPTIVE & MASTERY BASED DATA INFORMED FRAMED BY DISTRICT’S INSTRUCTIONAL
THEORY OF ACTION & DEFINED MEASURES OF EXCELLENCE IN MULTIPLE DOMAINS
Key components of iPD:
PERFORMANCEEXPECTATIONS
STANDARDSFOR EFFECTIVEINSTRUCTION
CURRENTTEACHING
PERFORMANCE
PERSONALIZED
QUALITY PD PROTOCOLS &EXPERIENCES
COMMUNITIES & NETWORKS
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
Thank you TeachLive for giving us a model of what
great PD and teacher training look like. We are excited you are partnering with us in our
work!!!
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
Launching the iPD Challenge:
• Launching with 5 districts as proof points
• Adding additional districts this fall and networks next year
• Districts must commit to a set of priorities, sharing learning and participating in research
• We are hoping to catalyze the market by both supply and demand
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
iPD Challenge Participants Commit to:
• Whole system redesign• Aligned initiatives/coherence goal• Data systems in place or in process• Supporting value propositions of
teacher voice, job embedded and mastery based PD
• Research for group learning and participation in community of practice
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
Tight Outcomes, Loose Metrics:
• Outcome #1: Improve processes for identifying individual teacher professional development needs
• Outcome #2: Improve the match of professional development plans with teacher needs.
• Outcome #3: Broaden the topics and delivery modes of high quality professional development.
• Outcome #4: Improve the feedback provided teachers on their instruction linked to the district’s method of measuring instructional quality
• Outcome #5: Increase the proportion of teachers who are empowered and effective
iPD Update
CRW Team Meeting May 1, 2013
What’s next?
• We are just at the beginning but we are excited and hopeful
• We are working with great partners to do great things
• We want to learn and share what we learn
“Swing for the Fences”