6.4 Setting Measurable Growth Goals and Evaluating Professional Development Impact
Key Takeaways
- Competency 5 requires educators to determine relevant and measurable professional development goals based on educator and student needs, and to analyze the implementation of professional development experiences and their application to teaching and learning.
- Guskey's five levels of professional development evaluation move from participant reaction through participant learning, organizational support, use of new knowledge and skills, to student learning outcomes.
- Levels 1 and 2 are the easiest to measure and the least predictive; Level 4 (actual classroom implementation) is where most professional development fails.
- Joyce and Showers found that theory, demonstration, and practice produce knowledge and skill but very low classroom transfer, while adding in-classroom coaching raises transfer dramatically.
- A measurable professional growth goal names the instructional practice, the evidence of implementation, and the student-learning indicator that would show the practice worked.
6.4 Setting Measurable Growth Goals and Evaluating Professional Development Impact
Two Competency 5 skills are covered here:
- Skill 1: "Determine relevant and measureable professional development goals to strengthen the effectiveness of instruction based on educator and students' needs."
- Skill 6: "Analyze the implementation of professional development experiences and application to the teaching and learning process."
Both skills share one idea: professional learning is judged by what changes in the classroom and in student outcomes, not by attendance.
1. Writing a Measurable Professional Growth Goal
A goal that cannot be checked is not a goal. Every defensible growth goal contains three parts.
| Part | Question it answers | Weak example | Strong example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Practice | What will I do differently? | "Improve my questioning." | "Use a planned sequence of three text-dependent questions ending in an inference question in every close-reading lesson." |
| Implementation evidence | How will anyone know I did it? | None stated | "Lesson plans show the question sequence; two peer observations and one video record wait time of at least three seconds." |
| Student-learning indicator | What would change for students if it worked? | "Students will do better." | "The percentage of students scoring 3 or 4 on the inference rubric rises from 41% to 65% by the end of the quarter." |
Grounding the goal in data
The blueprint says goals must be based on educator and students' needs. That means the goal starts from evidence, not preference:
- Student data: which standard was weakest across your classes on the last common assessment?
- Observation data: what did your evaluator or peer coach identify?
- Self-assessment: which practice do you avoid because you are least confident in it?
A goal chosen because a workshop was available, rather than because data pointed to it, is the classic misalignment the FTCE tests.
2. Guskey's Five Levels of Professional Development Evaluation
Thomas Guskey's model is the standard framework for Competency 5, Skill 6. The levels are hierarchical: each depends on the one below it, and evaluation must be planned backward from Level 5.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| GUSKEY'S FIVE LEVELS OF PD EVALUATION |
| |
| LEVEL 1: PARTICIPANTS' REACTIONS |
| Did they find it useful? (exit survey) EASIEST |
| |
| LEVEL 2: PARTICIPANTS' LEARNING |
| Did they acquire the knowledge and skill? |
| |
| LEVEL 3: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND CHANGE |
| Did the school provide time, resources, and alignment? |
| |
| LEVEL 4: PARTICIPANTS' USE OF NEW KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS |
| Is the practice actually happening in classrooms? |
| |
| LEVEL 5: STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES |
| Did student learning improve? HARDEST |
| |
| PLAN BACKWARD (5 -> 1); EVALUATE FORWARD (1 -> 5) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Level | Typical evidence | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Reaction | Exit survey ratings | Treated as proof the training worked |
| 2 Learning | Demonstration, simulation, quiz, artifact | Learning without a plan for use |
| 3 Organization support | Schedule audit, resource allocation, leadership follow-through | The practice conflicts with an existing school policy or schedule |
| 4 Use | Classroom observation, lesson artifacts, coaching logs, self-report validated by observation | The most common breakdown point |
| 5 Student outcomes | Assessment data, work samples, engagement and behavior data | Measured too soon or without a Level 4 check |
[!IMPORTANT] The tested error: concluding a professional development initiative was effective because participants rated it highly (Level 1) or because a follow-up quiz showed they learned the content (Level 2). Neither predicts classroom implementation. Equally tested: concluding an initiative failed based on student data (Level 5) without first verifying at Level 4 whether teachers ever implemented the practice. A practice that was never implemented has not been tested.
3. Why Implementation Fails: Joyce and Showers
Bruce Joyce and Beverly Showers studied which training components produce actual classroom transfer. Their finding reshapes how schools should structure professional learning.
| Training components included | Knowledge gained | Skill demonstrated in training | Transfer to classroom practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theory and explanation only | Substantial | Minimal | Near zero |
| Theory plus demonstration | Substantial | Moderate | Very low |
| Theory, demonstration, and practice with feedback | Substantial | Substantial | Still low |
| All of the above plus in-classroom coaching | Substantial | Substantial | Large |
The practical implication tested on the exam: a one-day workshop with no follow-up support is unlikely to change practice regardless of quality. When a stem asks what would most improve a district initiative, the correct answer typically adds sustained, job-embedded follow-up — coaching, peer observation, or collaborative planning cycles — rather than more or better presentation.
4. Characteristics of Effective Professional Learning
| Characteristic | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| Content-focused | Tied to a specific subject and grade band, not generic pedagogy |
| Active learning | Participants do the work, analyze student artifacts, and rehearse |
| Collaborative | Job-embedded team structures rather than isolated attendance |
| Models and modeling | Participants see the practice performed by someone credible |
| Coaching and expert support | Individualized follow-up in the participant's own classroom |
| Feedback and reflection | Structured cycles rather than one-time evaluation |
| Sustained duration | Multiple contacts across months, not a single session |
5. Analyzing Implementation in Your Own Practice
A self-audit that mirrors Guskey's Level 4:
- Artifact check: does the new practice appear in my lesson plans, materials, and assignments?
- Frequency check: in how many of the last ten lessons did I actually use it?
- Fidelity check: am I using the essential components, or a diluted version that omits the part that made it work?
- Obstacle check: what specifically stopped me — time, materials, schedule, confidence, or a conflicting expectation?
- Evidence check: what student evidence would show whether it is working, and have I collected any?
Fidelity is the step teachers most often skip. A discussion protocol used without its required preparation time, or a writing routine used without the feedback cycle, is not a weaker version of the practice; it is a different practice, and it should not be evaluated as though it were the original.
6. Connecting the Goal to Florida's Evaluation Cycle
Florida districts operate personnel evaluation systems under section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, that combine instructional practice measures with student performance measures. Individual professional development plans and deliberate practice growth plans, covered in Section 6.2, are the local vehicle for the goal-setting described here. The alignment the exam expects: the growth goal, the professional learning selected, the implementation evidence, and the student-learning indicator should all point at the same instructional problem.
A district reports that its new literacy initiative was successful because 92 percent of teachers rated the training sessions as valuable and a follow-up quiz showed strong knowledge gains. Using Guskey's framework, what is the most accurate evaluation of this conclusion?
A school offers an excellent one-day workshop on a new questioning strategy. Three months later, classroom observations show almost no use of the strategy. Based on the Joyce and Showers research, which addition would most increase transfer to classroom practice?
Which professional growth goal best meets the Competency 5 requirement that goals be relevant and measurable and grounded in educator and student needs?