PD That No One Asked For

Low survey interest is a starting point, not an obstacle to override. I would begin with a five-minute needs assessment at the September faculty meeting: what research task do you already assign, and where do students struggle? Then I would design three 45-minute sessions inside contracted time, attached to existing department or faculty meetings rather than new ones. Session 1: a practical source-evaluation routine using two sources the teachers already use. Session 2: a short inquiry task teachers can run in one class period. Session 3: teacher-led sharing of what worked. I would offer choice: a whole-faculty version and a department-specific version. I would not lecture about standards; I would solve a classroom problem. To respect the contract, I would not require after-hours work; I would provide one-page materials and optional follow-up. I would recruit two teachers to co-plan and co-present, so the PD is not the librarian's show. I would document attendance, teacher feedback, and implementation.

Veteran skepticism is often about time and credibility, not resistance to technology. I would identify two or three respected teachers who already assign research and ask to co-teach one lesson, not to pilot my program. I would listen for their complaints about student work and build the first session around one of those complaints. I would avoid labeling anyone as a laggard. I would use short, low-risk invitations: a 15-minute department demo, a shared folder of ready-to-use materials, and an offer to grade a source-evaluation task with them. I would publicly credit early adopters in faculty meetings and ask them to present, not me. For the principal, I would explain that coalition-building takes longer than a mandate but produces more durable change. I would track which departments use the materials, not just attendance. If a veteran teacher says the library was irrelevant before, I would acknowledge that history and ask what would make it useful now.

By December, I would present leading indicators, not inflated claims about test scores. Evidence would include the number of teachers who used a library lesson, the number of classes that completed the source-evaluation task, student work samples scored against a simple rubric, teacher feedback, and a before/after check of one research skill. State test scores will not move by December, so promising they will would be dishonest. If participation is modest, I would say so and explain what the data show: for example, two departments engaged deeply while others did not, or teachers liked the materials but lacked time. I would propose a next step such as a department-level pilot or a bank of short tasks. The principal asked for visible results; visible does not mean exaggerated. A credible report with honest limits protects the program and gives us a basis for the next semester.