About 12 years ago, I was facilitating a professional development workshop for several hundred teachers, most of them teaching in high-needs schools. The gym was loud and animated. A survey at the end of the first day indicated that participants thought the techniques and tools were applicable and relevant. I woke up the next morning confident in our plan.
Then, right before lunch on the second day, a teacher wearing cowboy boots raised his hand. He had a rich Texas drawl…
“Are we going to talk about the real problems before we close out today?” he asked.
“Tell us more,” I invited, trying discreetly to exhale my insecurity and any defensive impulse.
“Well,” he started, “This is good stuff. Really. I’ve learned a whole lot. And y’all do a great job of facilitating practice so it’s fun and it sticks. But imagine we were cooks in a failing restaurant on one of those shows on cable television. My kitchen has one frying pan, no spatula, we run out of ingredients all the time, the dining room is hot, the paint is chipped, and we’ve never spent a dollar on advertising. You could teach us cooks how to cook better without really moving the needle. I think there’s a chance that is what is happening here.”
He was right. You can upgrade teacher toolkits without moving the needle in a school.
I’ve told this story several times since, including recently in conversations with leaders thinking through their teacher professional development plans. Let’s call one of those leaders Cami, with a few details changed to protect confidentiality.
Student behavior issues were increasing in Cami’s network of schools. She wanted PD to give teachers more tools for engaging students and for redirecting behavior. She reasoned less boredom would mean less goofing off and better redirection would mean fewer escalations and office referrals.
It was an understandable hypothesis. I wondered if there might be others.
I invited Cami to generate 10 hypotheses about what might be contributing to the increase in behavior issues or what might improve student behavior, then rank them by the effort required and potential impact.
She decided some targeted PD for first-year teachers on lesson pacing was worth pursuing. Cami also prioritized addressing cell phone policy, making sure staff were present in hallways during transitions, giving students more time to get outside and move, and tending to a gap in family communication left by the departure of a leader who had maintained especially close relationships with families.
Once she considered options beyond PD, Cami saw some that looked more impactful.
I notice that PD is especially appealing in education. It’s proximate to students. Providers market it effectively. Funders like the apparent cost-effectiveness and “capacity building.” And many education leaders are former teachers who like to teach teachers.
Investing in people is important, and sometimes professional development is a great bet. But because it can be the unexamined go-to solution, when I hear “we need PD,” I find it useful to generate a few competing hypotheses before deciding where to invest limited time and money.
What else could be producing the problem? What else might improve the outcome? And where would you place your bets?
ES 
EN