In an ideal world, continuing professional development, or CPD, would be something that every teacher looked forward to and embraced as an opportunity to become better at the exciting and complex job of teaching. 

Something tells me we are not in that ideal world.

It’s the start of a new term and, as ever, there are tales of woe from teachers who have been sitting in a - hopefully socially distanced - hall for most of a day while different members of a leadership team popped in to overwhelm them with new information about administration and processes, and perhaps throw in some new teaching and learning strategies. 

Experience tells me that things will get no better as the year goes on and people will come back from courses with war stories of “fun” icebreaker tasks and zany activities that no self-respecting teacher has touched in a decade (I’m looking at you, learning styles). 

What has gone wrong?

CPD has gone AWOL

My theory is that we have taken the continuous, the professional and the development out of CPD and been left with nothing.

For our development to be continuous, there should be some kind of plan of how “this” leads to “that”. We should be taken on a journey from A to B that leaves us somewhere new.

Another word for such a journey is a “curriculum”, and this is what is often lacking from much CPD in schools. 

We should get a sense that what we do in September will be returned to and built upon later in the autumn, revisited after Christmas and then reflected on in June. 

Lack of a plan

Instead, something is announced on the first day back, in a flurry of activity, only to be forgotten a few weeks later and replaced by the latest big idea.

This becomes an ad hoc “and another thing” rather than a planned programme of improvement that teachers should have a right to expect. 

It also needs to be professional, meaning that we as teachers should be treated as professionals and experts in the pedagogy of our subjects. 

Few teachers still need to be taught how to teach but what we do need are updates to our professional knowledge and new ways of looking at things.

We don’t need to be given a list of strategies that people expect to see in our lessons. Instead, we need to learn the principles behind strategies, which we are then able to apply ourselves in ways that fit the demands of our subjects. 

Does it actually make a difference?

Finally, CPD needs to actually lead to some form of development.

I am often taken aback at the range of things that a school will label as CPD. People standing up and giving updates about the mock result data might be useful and interesting (although I suspect is not), but unless it leads to a change in our understanding about teaching, it is not CPD. 

A session on the implications of cognitive load theory could be a fascinating way to spend an hour but, unless teachers are then given the time to reflect on it and think about its implications for their classes, it will not lead to development. 

It also needs to meet the needs of individual teachers. My development needs will not be the same as those of the teacher in the classroom next door and yet schools often pretend that they are. 

The way forward

One thing we saw during lockdown was a real demand from many teachers to take control of their own development and access the many courses put on by groups such as ResearchEd and Seneca Learning, as well as the webinars and podcasts from Tes (you can watch the one I hosted below). 

At this time of year, as I listen to the horror stories of my fellow teachers, I feel very lucky to work where I do. 

Here, we have a curriculum underpinning our CPD that is closely linked to the needs of the school and of individual members of staff. 

Proper CPD

Any whole-school session on pedagogy is kept short and to the point, with immediate follow-up in departments to allow discussion on its applicability, or not, and time to adapt plans and try things out. 

We also have additional non-contact time on our timetables to meet in small groups and read, discuss, and try to reflect on different ideas. 

Until I saw this in action, I don’t think I understood just what CPD could do. Like many teachers I meet, I had become jaded and saw CPD as just another burden on my time and a barrier that got in the way of me doing my job. 

I am a big believer in the power of CPD to transform education. At its best, it should leave teachers empowered to make decisions as well-informed professionals. At its worst, it leaves us drained and unsatisfied.

It’s time to put the C, the P and the D back into CPD. 

Mark Enser is head of geography and research lead at Heathfield Community College and author of the forthcoming Generative Learning in Action. He tweets @EnserMark