Too Much Teacher Training Questioned

Some argue that excessive teacher training may not be beneficial. That statement is one I never imagined making, given that I oversee a firm dedicated to enhancing educators’ professional development. But it has been on my mind since reviewing the most recent Education Scorecard report. The study, conducted by economists from Dartmouth, Harvard, and Stanford, challenges the common narrative about American student performance. Declines in NAEP reading and math scores for grades 4 and 8 began around 2013—not after the pandemic. The data suggests a deeper issue: the kind of training districts are funding.

Student progress has stagnated despite record investments in teacher professional development. The study argues that the problem is not the quantity of training but its quality. Most districts rely on short-term training models: workshops, webinars, and one-time courses. These are scalable and easy to measure, but they rarely lead to lasting learning. The key factor is what happens after the training. Without follow-up, coaching, or structured support, even the best workshops fail to translate into classroom improvements.

The Education Scorecard highlights 108 districts that have achieved real gains in math and reading since 2022. One standout is the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), which improved reading achievement for grades 3 through 8 by about half a grade level. DCPS’s strategy centered on two key approaches: adopting a proprietary K-5 English curriculum and offering stipends for specialized literacy training. The stipends allowed teachers to commit time to training, but the replicable lesson is not the budget—it’s the principle. Sustained, reflective support after initial training matters more than the event itself.

AI is changing this equation. For the first time, continuous support between sessions for teachers is becoming affordable at scale. Tools powered by AI can provide structured coaching without requiring districts to hire more coaches. This shift challenges the field’s decades-long focus on in-person events. The question now is which districts will adapt—and what they’ll prioritize in their PD budgets to fund learning, not another workshop.

The current debate over Title II-A, the federal program funding educator professional learning, shows the stakes. The administration’s budget proposal suggests reducing it, but organizations like Learning Forward advocate for a 10% increase. The argument isn’t whether to fund teacher development—it’s what kind of development deserves funding. The evidence is clear: effective training requires investment in what happens after the initial event. The change is now affordable. The question is: which districts will flip the ratio?