The study itself was based in a rural southern school of 720 students and 62 teachers...During professional development days, nine teachers were asked to present a program that focused on a particular effective teaching practice in which they excelled based upon the evaluations, both formal and informal, of the campus administration" (Hickey & Harris, 2005: 4).It was thus a school-specific professional leadership plan, not one connected to a lager leadership theory or methodology of teaching, hence, the article contends, its greater usefulness to practitioners. It also acted as a facilitator of greater collegiality amongst educators.
The sessions also had quantitatively and qualitatively-based feedback evaluation surveys. "In evaluating the experience, 63.4% of the teachers had positive feelings about professional development when teachers were used within the district to share expertise" and expressed positive feelings about being led by peers...
The district decided, as a result of this experimental change, to instate peer-based professional development into the current mode of curriculum critique and professional development, as well as providing outside consultants.
The problem with the article lies in its lack of specificity. What types of changes were proposed by the outside consultants, and why were the internal opinions of the teachers' superior, rather than such outside consultant? The lack of specificity gives a lack of credibility to the changes, as it is only based in cited statistical evidence, not in actual demonstrations of how the school's culture was reformed. Furthermore, although the teachers may have had positive thoughts and feelings about the experience, no data was collected as to the student's improvement, as a result of exposure to new techniques, or even if teachers adopted the techniques of their peers.
