PD delivery structure must be given proper time and consideration if it is going to have impact. It is the case that it often doesn’t, and this is a complex issue with deep structural roots and practical systemic implications.

There are two things that I want to highlight. The first is systemic. PD is designed and delivered with democratic intentions (de-mystifying practice, making professional mastery explicit) into a resource-poor, managerial macro-system. A ‘natural’ consequence of this is the ‘squeezing out’ of things that are hard to measure, like collaboration, co-construction of meaning and contextualisation. Attempts to try to measure and codify these ‘soft’ elements of PD can, in the context of a long history of managerialist policy implementation, feel like Just More Compliance Monitoring. So, when follow up is weak or missing, the PD feels transactional, generic and infantilising, but when it is codified, it feels like compliance monitoring, and this erodes trust. Both outcomes present barriers to sustained teacher professional growth.

My second point is about PD design and active ingredients. I have been reflecting on this a lot recently. I increasingly feel that, in the sprit of Rosenshine, the active ingredient of any PD on a pedagogical strategy (having been carefully selected to meet a real need in the school) should be made explicit. This transmits the principle (the what makes it work) of the intervention not just the technical elements (the how to). The technical elements are certainly important, but without the deep understanding, they are experienced as just more replicable, monitorable, compliance checking tick-boxes. This sub-optimal because a) it allows lethal mutations arise, and b) it annoys teachers and undermines their trust in that PD in particular and, worse, PD in general.

I recently attended a PD that was ‘blanket’ in part of its delivery. Lots of ‘stuff’ delivered very quickly. I used my department time to pick out one strand, discuss it with my team, tease out what we could actually do, work out how we would rehearse it and review impact. Yes, subject leaders should be able to do this – I’m not arguing for spoon feeding! But those delivering and designing PD should also have done some of the heavy lifting on this to help subject leaders and teachers process and implement the desired strategies with fidelity in context.

So, yeah, I was annoyed. And that’s not great for me because I love PD and I really want it to be good for everyone.

But I am more annoyed by how much sub-optimal PD annoys other teachers. The ones who were already a bit jaded when they arrived. They are the ones who really need PD to make them feel included and special. They need to feel that it is easy to pick up and adapt in their context, and they need to feel that their effort in doing that translation makes a difference.

PD should be an opportunity for teachers to feel included and successful. Too often it falls short. Until PD design and delivery gets structurally better, this reality remains a long way off for many teachers.