Click here: Dangerously Irrelevant: Why is staff development so bad?

"We have known for a long time (decades!) about what constitutes effective staff development. As the latest version of the National Staff Development Council Standards for Staff Development notes, effective staff development has small groups of educators working together over time in professional learning communities; is based on principles of effective adult learning; and
deepens educators’ content knowledge.
Yet what does staff development look like in most school districts? Typically it involves three or four one-shot “sit and get” (or “spray and pray”) sessions spread across the year, each on a different topic than the one before, that are attended by most or all educators in the organization. A “one size fits all” model is used, meaning that there is relatively little differentiation between, say, music teachers and math teachers and industrial arts teachers. Sometimes schools spice it up a bit and have a buffet day where educators can pick from multiple choices throughout the day, much like a professional conference."

and from the comment section, I chose this:

"The one area that has frustrated me as a consultant is that there is little to no funding to provide executive coaching services to principals. If a principal needs help, they often can't speak up or they are admitting weakness"

I posted the above to say this:

As those who should know, transition plans (school to post school) can start as early as the age of 14. I was aware that the common practice in HCDS was to wait until the last two years of the student's stay, and that out of these last two years, "work training" was usually no more than half a year per year out of the last two. One could understand the difficulties that arose when I insisted on my son obtaining work experience starting at the age of 15.

While there is so much information that should be provided leading up to the following point, suffice it to say that my son became involved in a "pilot program" in HCDS. He was one of three students in the program. The District paid money for an outside consultant to demonstrate how to set up "school to work" situations for even the most "challanged" students. I thought it was a great program and it provided support and guidance to my son's team.

The program consisted of 3 teams for each of the students. My understanding was that the information and strategies of the "pilot program", once developed, would be shared to others and become integrated within the system. In one of the early meetings one of the teachers of one of the teams said" Why am I here? I have a bunch of student's in my class room that need me - I don't have time for this."

I am sure it baffles the administrators that know how much my son received from HCDS to hear me be critical about the system. My previous post under "A Piece of the Dysfunctional Puzzle" speaks to the difficulty of challanging a mindset as opposed to challanging what is perceived as an isolated incident. An illustration of this may be revealed by a comment another teacher made to me one day. She said to me "it is unfair that your son get's more than the other students in the class."

I recently heard that the "pilot program" and the systems that were in place at the school my son was at the time are no longer there. As far as I can tell, the key players of the program are gone from the school. Some have "moved up the ladder" and some transferred out.

I can only assume that when the next parent comes along that insists on following the rules, another "pilot program" will be invested in.