The Staff Development Outcomes Study

1. The Staff Development Outcomes Study Sara Bubb & Peter Earley Institute of Education, London s.bubb@ioe.ac.uk

2. TDA funded research Jan-Dec 08 Case studies of 35 schools (4 special, 12 sec, 19 pri) in all gov regions to see how they developed their staff to have such an impact on pupils. 21 had high free school meals. 25 high performing – ‘outstanding’ in inspection in last year, high CVA. 10 less high performing – 6 ‘good’, 4 satisfactory Visited for 1 day Feb-July 08. Interviewed teachers, support staff, pupils

4. Staff development is … an on-going process encompassing all formal and informal learning experiences that enable all staff in schools, individually and with others, to think about what they are doing, enhance their knowledge and skills and improve ways of working so that pupil learning and wellbeing are better. (Bubb & Earley, 2007).

5. Main Findings • There was an association between school outcomes and staff development. • The high performing schools mostly had strong staff development, although two schools were weak in this regard.   • We found an association between the quality of staff development and levels of pupil deprivation. Schools with low FSM were best at developing staff and having a whole school impact.

6. Aspects of staff development 6 Ethos Leadership & management Identifying needs Meeting needs Evaluating impact Dissemination Schools were strongest in generating a positive ethos and identifying needs, and weakest in the areas of monitoring, impact and dissemination.

7. Where staff development was most effective • Ethos was strong. Leaders fostered, and all staff felt, a sense of entitlement to and responsibility for their own development closely linked to benefits for pupils. • Staff development was led & managed by experienced senior staff; well-informed and devoted much time to this aspect, linking it strategically to school improvements in efficient and cost-effective ways. 7

8. Identifying & meeting needs • Procedures such as PM were well thought through and long-established. • Flexible systems allowed for needs to be identified and met as they arose without losing the impetus on original priorities. • Needs were met in the most effective way chosen from a wide menu of opportunities, many of which were school-based.

9. 10 How good at job 0 How keen to improve 10

10. Activities that encourage reflection • Teamwork eg planning • www.teachers.tv • Solving problems • Networks • New roles • On-line communities • Working with specialist • Sharing learning • Qualifications • Observation • Being observed • Learning walks • Conversations • Staffroom ethos • Reading • Coaching/mentoring • Pupils’ views • Courses/conferences

11. People said that time for development activities was an issue • Projects and courses spanning a term+, with activities to trial or research and involving purposeful collaboration, made most impact on school improvement. • Staff in primary & special schools spent more time on development activities than in secondary. • Only 19 of the 35 schools were using all their allocated closure days for staff training.

12. Pupils in 10 schools felt that SD had negative consequences • ‘We do work we’ve already covered, recapping. It’s a waste of time.’ • ‘When our teacher is out it’s horrible: the classes behave badly and we don’t get any work done. I’m not sure training is a good idea.’ 16 schools covered SD well eg using IT facilities or internal cover: • ‘It doesn’t really matter who teaches us because they know the plans’.

13. Impact • Training and development were having a profound effect on individuals. • People found it hard to prove that staff development was making a positive difference to pupils. • Dissemination was a weak link at many of the schools. Sustaining development was easier when staff turnover was low and communication & relations strong.

14. What are the implications for you from the Staff Development Outcomes Study? Sara Bubb Institute of Education, London s.bubb@ioe.ac.uk