The “Bridging the Gap” series is first to use data from a representative sample of school districts across the nation to examine whether severe critiques bear out in the data. Each report proposes and explores a potential definition of quality professional learning that is simply defined and easily measured. The series employs real school district data to demonstrate a possible method of establishing baseline quality standards, setting goals and tracking progress.

The possibility of a pathway forward is inspired by the “Bridging the Gap” report series, designed to bring some specificity to the perennial diatribe against professional learning. The reports, however, are only a jumping off point. To both deepen the series’ utility and press the field forward, we invited experts and practitioners to share candid reactions and recommendations that we hope will ignite further discourse.

Learning Forward advocates a definition of high-quality professional learning that incorporates 22 elements. The top six, most critical elements are those employed in the “Bridging the Gap” series. The definition also includes examples that help clarify what differentiates a systemic approach.

Missing the Mark or Misalignment?

We first asked Brown and Johnson to react to the primary findings of the “Bridging the Gap” series — namely, that for four out of the six indicators of quality (sustained, intensive, collaborative, job-embedded, data-driven and classroom-focused), over 80 percent of activities offered failed to meet the federal definition. Academic research findings and educator anecdotes suggest professional learning is missing the mark, but our findings indicate profound misalignment.

Brown observed that these findings are consistent with the way too many school districts approach professional learning, which is to plan an approach at the beginning of the year and hope it pans out in terms of value to teachers and leaders. “A more practical and effective strategy would be to approach professional learning as a system,” said Brown.

Johnson also reacted with little surprise. She noted, a persistent onslaught of initiatives, policy changes and leadership turnover mean that most well-thought-out systems wage an uphill battle to be systemic in nature. “There is a challenge to achieving meaningful depth in any content — and that challenge is largely the quickly shifting landscape,” she said. Johnson further observed that smart decision making is premised on strong data tools that reflect complete and accurate information. “Without clarity about who is getting what and why, and how educators are learning in formal and informal settings alike, it’s hard to make smart, influential decisions about professional learning,” she concluded.

Defining Quality and Establishing Metrics

We next asked Johnson and Brown to comment on the “Bridging the Gap” series approach to defining specific, simple meanings for each of the quality terms and establishing metrics that could easily be measured using a professional learning management system. A big challenge to measuring professional learning quality is using collectible data to understand the status quo and set targets for improvement. Johnson agreed with the premise. She pointed out that an essential first step in change management is setting a common language. “The question,” she noted, “is not whether these are the exact right metrics. It’s how we as a field use the metrics to drive improvements in professional learning.”

Brown also supported the premise — one that Learning Forward has been promoting through their own extended definition and metrics. He, nevertheless, identified some shortcomings in the approach. First, one element he considers critical to building a strong system is matching it to the needs and characteristics of the school, district and state context. “Bridging the Gap” glosses over this step, and it should be more central,” he argues. Second, Learning Forward’s many years of research and experience have raised collective responsibility as a central tenet of effective systems. “As Johnson observed, turnover and shifting landscapes are a real threat to improvement,” he said. “Without everyone on board and committed to the vision for improvement, it is likely not only to fall short but to stop making any progress at all.”

Tools and Ideas for Making Change

One central goal of the “Bridging the Gap” series is to provide clear, actionable data and guidance that will help school district leaders to advance improvements to their professional learning systems. We asked Johnson and Brown for their insight into additional tools and ideas for district leaders who want to make positive change. Johnson began with an oft-cited African proverb: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” “The first step,” she said, “is to first get very focused on key priorities. Districts looking to make changes should adopt no more than three to five core priorities and do those things very well.” She suggested education researcher and professor Tony Bryk’s research oeuvre in improvement science as a helpful tool.

Brown said that Learning Forward’s professional learning plan and innovation configuration map templates have been helpful to organizations that want to be systematic about approaching change. School districts that are not working at the district level to improve the way they learn and serve learners will struggle to promote improvement at the school and classroom levels. Finally, he said, “engaging deeply and collaboratively on key problems of practice using a clear and specific process is an effective way to define a problem, as well as to develop, implement, and improve on possible solutions.”

Finally, we asked Brown and Johnson what they believed was the most interesting kernel of information or insight from the report series. Brown said he wonders how often leaders with “bold visions for effective professional learning systems actually begin with their vision and goals before digging into what professional learning systems should look like and how they should improve.” This, he observed, seems essential to effective improvement. Johnson said she values the effort to develop simple, clear definitions of the quality indicators. She observed that a “common language for quality that permeates an education organization can mean the difference between a well-intended reform and true improvement.”