In my previous two articles, I argued in favour of a new approach to quality assurance, moving from a system of performance management to one of performance improvement. I also argued that quality-assurance data should lead to performance feedback aimed at helping teachers to improve.

The natural next step in the process, once feedback has been shared, is to provide teachers with opportunities to engage in quality professional development activity that help them improve aspects of their performance.

Teachers, and what happens in their classrooms, are the only real drivers of positive change in our colleges. So the only way to improve the quality of teaching is to improve the quality of our teachers. And the only way to improve the quality of our teachers is to treat them fairly and with respect - to train them well and to continue to develop them throughout their career.

Improving the quality of teachers requires systems of collaboration so that professional development becomes an everyday, collaborative exercise, not an end-of-year “sheep dip” activity done to teachers by their managers.

Improving the quality of teachers requires professional development to be personalised, tailored to individual need, so that it is made meaningful; it should encompass all aspects of self-improvement activity, such as reading research papers and blogs, watching colleagues teach, working with a coach and engaging in lesson study, not just attending a generic formal training course.

Collaboration over competition

Improving the quality of teachers also requires professional development to recognise hard work in all its forms - even the quiet “just doing my job” kind. It should further encourage rather than stifle teamwork and favour collaboration over competition.

In short, quality improvement is about fairness and professionalism; it’s about building a mature, adult culture in which teachers and managers work together in the best interests of students, to improve the quality of teaching in their colleges and to do so without fear or favour.

So how can colleges ensure that they provide high-quality CPD for staff and do so without drilling a big hole in their diminishing budget?

The Standard for Teachers’ Professional Development (2016) - along with the Education and Training Foundation Professional Standards - may hold the key. According to the five strands of the Standard, professional development:

• should have a focus on improving and evaluating student outcomes;
• should be underpinned by robust evidence and expertise;
• should include collaboration, as well as expert challenge;
• programmes should be sustained over time;
• must be prioritised by senior leadership.

So what does this look like in practice and how can colleges deliver it?

As the Standard suggests, the most effective CPD is collaborative and driven by teachers. It should involve responding to advice and feedback from colleagues, and reflecting systematically on the effectiveness of lessons and approaches to teaching. This might take the form of peer observation and feedback, peer coaching, or of more formal lesson-study activity. It might also take the form of peer-to-peer work scrutiny, both of students’ marked work and assessment records, and of medium- and long-term planning documentation.

Whichever form it takes, the most powerful CPD gives ownership to staff, and creates the time and space needed for them to work together, share best practice and learn from each other’s mistakes.

Not a ‘voluntary extra’

Another way to ensure that CPD is effective is to make it an unmissable event, tailored to meet the differing needs of departments and teachers. Every member of staff should recognise the importance of CPD as a mandatory part of their job - not as a voluntary extra. But they will only do that when CPD is worth engaging in - and it will only be worth engaging in when it is relevant, timely, keenly focused on real classroom practice, and genuinely and tangibly impactful.

To ensure relevance and focus, CPD should be influenced by research evidence but informed by context.

In other words, it should take its lead from what research indicates works best (for example, John Hattie’s meta-analyses or the Education Endowment Foundation toolkit), while being mindful of the unique circumstances of each college, subject, teacher and cohort of students.

As well as being unmissable, CPD should be regular, embedded and joined up. CPD should be seen as a collaborative enterprise involving all staff working together, rather than something that is “done to” them by senior leaders.

CPD also works best when it performs two functions: innovation and mastery. In other words, it should not just be about learning new ways of working - CPD for innovation - although this is undoubtedly important. Rather, it should also be about helping teachers to get better at something they already do: CPD for mastery.

CPD for mastery is about recognising what already works well and what should be embedded, consolidated, built upon and shared.

Matt Bromley is an education journalist and author. He tweets @mj_bromley