The vision of professional development for a school district is an important indicator of

the overall focus on student success. A plan of action for creating effective professional learning
includes proactive attention to the phases of design, evaluation, and implementation. It also
carefully analyzes and respects content, process, and context. The planning of such learning
opportunities needs to be transparent and have a solid foundation.
Design phase
The Backmapping or Backward Planning Model for designing results-based professional
learning stresses the importance of using student learning objectives in the planning of
professional learning endeavors. This is parallel to the primary goal of improving student
learning outcomes (Guskey, 2014). Keeping goals of professional learning aligned with student
outcomes, school goals, and supported by data, ensures that professional learning will head down
the right path. To continue on the path, the backward mapping model prescribes identifying the
knowledge and skills that educators would need for successful implementation (Guskey, 2014).
Only after that should activities, trainings, expert coaching, or other professional development
options be chosen to specifically fit the plan (Guskey, 2014). In designing professional
development opportunities, follow-up and support systems must be included to plan for the
sustainability of content implementation. Creating a Logic model is a preferred way of making
sure to have a blueprint of resources, intended changes and effects, and outcomes for a design
intended to result in measureable student success (Killion, 2008). Educators need to be involved
in a variety of active, hands-on, and collaborative forms of engagement (Laureate, 2010).
Evaluation phase
Evaluation is a tool used to ascertain the impact of work that has been done (Killion,
2008). It is used to strengthen professional development for better student results (Mizell, 2003).

Evaluation can be meaningful if it is focused on the impacts of the professional development on

student learning. Since the goal of professional development is to increase adult learning for
student achievement, the student achievement and reasons behind it, must be the focus. Once the
student need is identified and professional development to address the needs is being developed,
evaluation plans should go hand in hand.
To keep evaluation transparent and objective, Innovation Configuration (IC) maps need
to be developed and shared with stakeholders. The IC process works to tease out and concentrate
efforts on the key components of a program or practice. It does this by providing clear, specific,
and shared descriptions of what a new program or practice should look like (SEDL, 2001).
Having a set of IC maps for a new program makes clear to all just what they should be doing and
how to do it, as well as what observers would look for as evidence. The maps describe variations
for each component of a new program in terms of the actions and behaviors that are ideal,
acceptable, and unacceptable using action verbs (Laureate Education, 2011). Because IC maps
describe different degrees of implementation for various roles within the system, they give
precision and meaning to what innovation looks like in practice (Roy & Hord, 2004).
Implementation phase
Fidelity of implementation is the make it or break it stage of an innovation. Planning to
include all areas of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) can address implementation
concerns and identify needed modifications to positively impact student learning. CBAM
includes the use of three important tools: Innovation Configuration Maps as previously
mentioned, Stages of Concern (SoC), and Levels of Use (LoU). SoC determinations are made
using an interview, open-ended statement completion, or questionnaire. They serve to determine
how the program is affecting the participants and how they feel about it (Hall and Hord, 2015).

The attitudes, aspirations, and beliefs are collected through SoC interviews. Using the indicators
of the seven concerns categories, it provides the ability to identify concern patterns and then
address or concentrate on them with professional development, coaching, and/or personal plans
(Hall and Hord, 2015).
The LoU tool on the other hand is not about feelings or perceptions of stakeholders, but
about their behaviors in regards to the innovation and its use. The knowledge and skills can be
analyzed using LoU. Information gathered from LoU interviews can check the progress of
implementation, address problems, and structure collaboration. LoU determinations are made
using interviews with a branching focus. LoU interviews provide a way to determine the
behaviors that are being used (or not) as a result of the program and rate uses on a continuum of
seven categories (Hall and Hord, 2015). Using the results of the LoU interviews can provide
details for new professional development topics, needs for peer or external coaching, and
formation of targeted PLCs.
Frameworks for Professional Development
Content
In attending to the content, this is described as coherent material to enhance the
competence of educators (DarlingHammond & Richardson, 2009). Once content based on
student learning needs is identified in the design phase, adults need to be trained to be proficient
providers of these content for students. Adult learning should include frequent trainings,
instructional coaching, and professional discourse on the content and research-based
instructional strategies with fidelity. Although the knowledge may be virtuous and researchbased, not all knowledge is universally valuable. The idea of content needs to be tied to the

characteristic of job-embedded professional development, which is a direct connection to the

teachers classroom curriculum and instructional practices (Croft et al., 2010).
Process
Educators need to be involved in a variety of active, hands-on, and collaborative forms of
engagement (Laureate, 2010). The process component would benefit from having modeling,
processing time for educators, guided practice, and structure for reflection (Darling-Hammond &
Richardson, 2009). To keep the processes embedded into the school day, they could be
embedded into meetings monthly during team meeting time or faculty meeting time.
Implementing classroom walk-throughs with a targeted focus including feedback and open
communication would be job-embedded (Pitzler and Goodwin, 2008). Theses learning walks,
focused on what teachers are doing to support student learning, the goals and expectations that
are apparent, and how observations of what is occurring, correlate to achievement data (Pitzler
and Goodwin, 2008).
Context
The mission of the Manheim Central School District is To prepare responsible citizens
who are lifelong learners. Although our focus is on students, effective professional development
also honors the professional (Laureate, 2010). Professionals bring experiences, skills, and
knowledge not only to their student, but to each other. Collaboration allows ideas to mix
pursuant of student success. When all educators and peripheral staff are not accustomed to
working together, this will be a slow process best achieved with persistence and frequent
repetitions of shared goals. Administrators need to view groups of educators as powerful change
agents, rather than work groups in need of assigned tasks.

In conclusion, effective professional development takes a great deal of front-loaded

planning, not an arsenal of presenters on speed dial. Effective professional development begins
with an assessment of needs particular to the school, grade, or discipline, not a choice of the
newest educational trend. It requires dealing with evaluation methods and documents before full
implementation, not as a quick afterthought to get data to report out. It respects and includes all
stakeholders and takes onto account the content intended, the process to be used, and the context
of the system.

References
Croft, A., Coggshall, J. G., Dolan, M., Powers, E., & Killion, J. (2010). Job-embedded
professional development: What it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational
Leadership, 66(5)
Easton, L. B. (Ed.). (2008). Powerful designs for professional learning (2nd ed.). Oxford, OH:
NSDC.
Guskey, T. R. (2014). Planning professional learning. Educational Leadership, 71(8).
Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. (4th
ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Killion, J. (2008). Assessing impact: Evaluating staff development (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2010). Qualities of effective professional development: A
framework for professional learning [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://class.waldenu.edu
Laureate Education, Inc. (2011). Innovation configurations: guided practice. (video).
Baltimore, MD. Author.
Mizell, H. (2003). Facilitator: 10, refreshments: 8, evaluation: 0. Journal of Staff Development,
24(4).
Pitler, H., & Goodwin, B. (2008). Classroom walkthroughs: learning to see the trees and the
forest. Retrieved from
http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/teacherprepretention/0125NL_ChangingSchools_58_4.pdf
Roy, P. & Hord, S. M. (2004). Innovation configurations: Chart a measured course toward
change. Journal of Staff Development, 25(2).
SEDL. (producer). (2011). Concerns-based adoption model (CBAM): Video: Innovation
configurations [video]. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/cbam/videos.cgi?movie=LoU