Leave No Teacher Behind
By Bernajean Porter

People who do system analysis have a great belief in "leverage points." These are places within a complex system where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything. The intellectual development of both students AND teachers obtains the maximum benefits for students. However few schools are organized as learning organizations for their staff. The dollars and time for teacher learning has been quite limited over time – generally the burden of learning is shifted to individual teacher initiative or volunteerism. But we now have to grapple with the fact that student success is logically linked with their teachers being supported as learners as well. Professional learning is a powerful leverage point.

Funding professional learning is not optional IF schools want results from their technology investments. Even though there has been a general acknowledgement that a greater percentage of technology dollars are needed for professional development, nationally few schools spend more than 5-6%. Schools argue for their time time and dollar limitations in being able to help teachers effectively use technology while continuing to purchase mass quantities of equipment. Teachers need extensive support in order to re-habit their instructional strategies. Investments in teachers DO pay off according to years of research. The eMINTS project in Missouri revealed their technology program resulted in a significant increase in their student’s state test scores (eSchool News, March 2002). But the training was not a one time, token event --- the eMINTS program supported 200 hours of professional learning for each teacher plus on-site coaching time. Technology resources were implemented for success with focused and sustaining learning to acquire instructional strategies. See NSCD.org for effective staff development practices.

Technology tools can no longer be the singular focus of training. The EMINTS training was not about technology for its own sake. Even though all classrooms were resourced with technical tools, the teacher training was focused on inquiry and problem-based learning. Having coded workshop titles, interviews and classroom observations from hundreds of schools as literacy, adapting or transforming uses (see bjpconsulting.com for Grappling’s Technology and Learning Spectrum) – a pattern consistently emerged. If workshops were mostly about the technology, then the uses in schools and the teacher talk was mostly about learning and practicing technical skills. If the workshops were about instructional strategies supported by technical tools, then the uses and talk in schools matched as well. Teaching only the tools and leaving teachers to extrapolate an array of uses, if any, dissipates the potential of technology to impact visible results. Teachers teach what they are taught.

Finally, a staff development plan collectively focuses the technology training around improved student performance. Technology uses should not be about mood use determined by individuals. Team work and reflective practice is essential. Technology uses that serve learning goals need to be collectively planned and implemented for
ALL kids. Grade level, content area, building teams or district content committees need to first collectively identify instructional gaps; second, determine best instructional practices; and finally, the role of technology as a supporting resource to close the instructional gap. Technology resources need to support teachers more effectively in altering classroom practices rather than being limited to check-lists for technology skills.