In my latest blog post, I contrast two types of professional development approaches. The first is a shame-based model that focuses on black and white thinking and sends the message that we are doing everything wrong. The second is a nuanced-based approach centered on empowering teachers through affirming, equipping, and challenging educators to change our practice.

A Professional Development I Attended

I recently keynoted a conference focused on student agency and self-direction. I typically have multiple sessions afterward but this time, my sessions were the day before, so I had the chance to learn from a broad mix of current classroom teachers, professors, coaches, and researchers. 

At one point, a teacher and and researcher shared some small tweaks they had made to their current classroom approaches based on brain science. I was struck by the language they used. 

“I wouldn’t say I had been doing things the wrong way before but I will say that this strategy feels more effective for me and it more closely aligns to what I now understand about creativity and working memory.” 

The session was deeply practical but it also tied back to a scientific understanding of the brain. And yet, science here was all about exploration. They often asked, “Why do you think that world work?” Or “What questions does that stir up for you?” 

I filled up pages of notes with small tweaks I plan to make in my own practice. But I was also struck by something deeper. Both of these presenters honored the expertise of their attendees. They showed intellectual humility as they told stories. They asked questions that sparked curiosity and wonder. 

I left feeling energized. I wanted to learn more about the topic. But I was also confident. I had several new strategies I could use with a deeper understanding about why they worked. My mind was racing with specific changes I wanted to make to an upcoming course I’ve been planning. 

I contrast this to a different professional development I also attended. 

 

Everything You’re Doing is Wrong

I will be the first to admit I don’t know the deepest ins and outs of phonics. I nerd out on literature and reading. I love seeing how the brain processes language (it’s odd, for example, that my wife has almost a full movie playing in her head while she reads and I get random, momentary flashes of images). 

I also nerd out on linguistics. I love the history of the English language and why, for example, we have the word “do” in a way that makes little sense. I once read a 2000 word article about why we lost the third person plural (think ustedes in Spanish). One of my favorite books is still Highly Irregular. 

In other words, I was excited to join this session. Again, I’d had the chance to give the keynote at this conference, so this was a moment I could take some notes and learn about the instructional side of phonics-based reading. 

The person leading the session began by asking, “How many of you have listened to Sold a Story?” 

I tried not to roll my eyes too hard but it might have happened. That hit piece of a series lacked nuance. It felt fear-based in a way that veered toward moral panic. 

As a former middle school reading intervention teacher, I am convinced that there are many reasons students struggle to read. I used to use multiple screeners (including both a phonics screener and a fluency test) in a school district that focused on the science of reading. If the main issue was phonics, they would meet with our reading intervention specialist and get explicit, standardized instruction. 

But the challenges with reading were complex. Some students lacked the background knowledge and vocabulary to understand a text. Others had low reading endurance coupled with a lack of focus. Many of my students didn’t understand complex sentences and actually hadn’t mastered the more advanced verb tenses (like the past perfect progressive tense). You get the idea. 

The presenter then shared that he had become a parent advocate for Science of Reading after listening to that podcast and realizing that school had failed his dyslexic son. “I won’t sugar coat this. It was the teacher’s fault. I know that makes some folks feel uncomfortable but this is a national crisis. The truth matters more than your comfort level.” 

He then compared the way teachers had been teaching phonics to the discovery of germ theory and the well-intentioned doctors who killed patients by not washing their hands. “That’s what we are doing with children.” 

From there, he moved into the Mississippi Miracle (which is a bit more complicated because they actually have accountability structures, including having students repeat third grade if they aren’t proficient). 

He shared a framework for teaching phonics and then modeled how one of those lessons would work in a second grade classroom. The model made sense but it kind of felt like what I’ve seen a lot of teachers already doing (the very ones he said are “failing to teach phonics” to their students). I still took notes. Because I’m in a state with a huge early literacy push, I definitely want to know more about this topic. 

However, I looked around the room and I could see that teachers were defeated. The message was clear. Everything you’re doing is wrong. I’m going to share the correct way with you right now. When we’re done, you need to change your practice and embrace this new way of doing things. 

I want to be clear here. There are certain practices that are harmful to children. I grew up in a school where paddling was still in place. Not a fan of that approach. I would argue that certain aspects of how children were taught reading have been harmful as well. But . . . not all of it. Furthermore, teaching students to master phonics and fluency will not be a fix-all for reading. The reading crisis is also an attention crisis that requires deeper learning centered on deeper attention. 

I attempted to push back with this presenter after the session was over. I asked questions about the nuances of the actual research and he said, “It feels like you’re advocating balance and balanced literacy is what got us into this mess.” 

But this experience has me thinking about why the “you’re doing things all wrong” approach fails in professional development. 

 

What is Shame-Based Professional Development?

Shame-based professional learning is an approach that uses guilt, fear, and a sense of inadequacy to push teachers toward changing their practice. It’s often connected to a sense of moral panic. AI is evil. You’re not teaching phonics right. Teachers aren’t collaborating and making data-driven decisions so they need to be in tight learning communities that use our protocols. 

I’ve experienced these PD sessions ranging from a keynoter who shouted at us for being out of date and irrelevant to a workshop presenter who suggested that a teacher who was concerned with a violent student and consistent room clears was “advocating for educational apartheid.” 

Shame-based PD often begins with the assumption that teachers are doing things wrong and need to be corrected. Rather than building on existing expertise, it focuses on failures and shortcomings. The underlying message is that if you truly care about students, you’ll abandon your current approach and embrace the new one. No questions asked. Just do it. Now. 

And while this might create a sense of urgency, it can also leave teachers feeling defensive, defeated, or overwhelmed rather than curious and empowered to grow.

I want to make a quick distinction here. This isn’t about feelings. I’m not advocating for being delicate with teachers. Feeling uncomfortable isn’t the same as feeling ashamed.

Sometimes good professional development should make us uncomfortable. We should confront evidence that challenges our assumptions. We should acknowledge when a beloved strategy isn’t working. We should recognize when our instructional decisions have unintended consequences for students. That’s part of being intellectual humble and having a growth mindset. 

But there’s a difference between challenging someone’s thinking and attacking their professional identity. When you challenge a teacher, you say, “Here’s something you might need to reconsider.” It’s an invitation. 

Shame says, “Here’s what’s wrong with you.” This is an attack rather than invitation. It goes from, “you might want to make some changes” to “you did something morally wrong.” If you compare teachers to doctors who killed patients, that’s always going to lead to shame. 

The first can lead to curiosity, reflection, and growth. The second can lead to defensiveness, withdrawal, or compliance without genuine understanding.

 

Why a Shame-Based Approach Fails

I want to share a few reasons why this shame-based approach ultimately fails in professional development. 

 

1. It focuses on the wrong kind of motivation. 

Shame-based professional development focuses on using guilt avoidance as a way to change the teaching practice. But this type of motivation doesn’t tap into deeper intrinsic motivation. A teacher basically says, “I’m going to do ______ so I don’t feel bad about myself.” It’s often connected to compliance as well. So, teachers are implementing strategies grudgingly. 

By contrast, empowered PD focuses on something called identified regulation and integration. This is where you try new strategies based on your sense of identity, values, and professional goals. This type of motivation leads to long-term lasting change and you’re more likely to continue attempting new strategies when you face small moments of failure. 

For reference, here is the motivation continuum based on Self-Determination Theory. 

 

One of my key takeaways from my dissertation was that self-efficacy was critical (the belief that you can do something) but identified regulation and integration proved to be the most critical factors in implementing PBL when faced with challenges. However, shame-based approaches work against this type of motivation.  

 

2. It fails to grasp the nuances of instructional strategies.

When I think about the first PD session I attended, I was struck by the sense of nuance involved. It wasn’t “this strategy is good” and “this strategy is bad” so much as “let’s talk about when each strategy works best in connection to our brains.” It was nuanced. 

I contrast this to the science of reading expert. I was told, quite clearly, that there was one major issue in reading instruction and it was a failure in teaching phonics. Anything else was a distraction from an almost puritanical focus on phonics. 

And I get it. Phonics are great. Addictive even. We should maybe get hooked on phonics, no? But a hill I will die on is that humans are complicated and truth is nuanced. 

 

3. It frames any resistance as being “harmful to children.” 

When I suggested to the “science of reading” (air quotes because he largely ignored a ton of the nuanced science on how our language actually works) consultant that there are a myriad of reasons middle school students are behind on reading, I was told that any sense of nuance or balance was a form of harming children. 

When you make the implication that teachers are child-abusers, I’m done with you. When teachers are working tirelessly to do what’s best for children, I have no patience for a barrage of shame in the name of PD. 

 

4. It doesn’t account for change fatigue.

I have been at the university level for eleven years. I don’t pretend to know what teachers have experienced in the last decade (though I try to listen to my current and past cohort teachers on a regular basis). 

But I’ve seen teachers navigate the rise of smart phones and the era of distractions, the shift toward gentle parenting, the culture wars, COVID, the lockdowns, budget battles. You get the idea. 

I feel like teachers are experiencing a certain change fatigue right now. So, when the message is, “everything you are dong is wrong and you need to change your practice yet again,” it’s not surprising when teachers brace against this. They want some sense of stability and the frequent “change all that your doing” can start feeling arbitrary, even when some of their new practices are research-based.

 

5. It fails to create psychological safety.

If we want teachers to embrace new strategies, it needs to feel safe. They need to have the ability to try new things without feeling punished for it. But shame has a way of chipping away at this safety. There’s a visceral response where you say, “I’m not okay and I don’t belong here.” 

If we think about the Five Stages of Psychological Safety, we can’t have teachers challenging their own practice if they don’t have those initial spaces of inclusion safety and learner safety. 

Shame-based approaches fail to tap into the very real need for deeper psychological safety. They actually undermine the very safety we need in professional learning spaces.  

 

6. It undermines teacher agency and professional judgment.

When professional development frames a particular strategy as the only acceptable approach, teachers become technicians who implement someone else’s prescribed solution rather than professionals who make informed instructional decisions.

This is particularly ironic when the goal is to create classrooms that promote student agency. 

We cannot expect teachers to cultivate agency in students when we deny them agency in their own professional learning.

 

7. It creates compliance rather than commitment.

Teachers might implement a strategy because they feel pressured, guilty, or afraid of being labeled ineffective. But compliance isn’t the same as genuine commitment. If we think about the continuum of learner agency for students, we need the same approach with teachers.

Meaningful instructional change requires teachers to understand why something works, believe it addresses a genuine need, and develop the capacity to use it effectively. Shame might generate immediate action without producing lasting change.

 

Empowered PD

I contrast shame-based PD to empowered PD. I started this blog post with a story about an amazing conference session I had been a part of. It was built with an underlying assumption that we were professionals with expertise. We would learn new ideas through curiosity. We would tie those with practical strategies we could actually use. But we would also wade into the discomfort of new ideas and challenging some of our beloved yet ineffective strategies. 

As a professor, author, and speaker, my goal is to empower teachers to empower students. When I plan out professional development, my goal is to focus on three core areas. I want participants to be affirmed, equipped, and challenged. 

 

1. Affirm: Building on Existing Expertise

When I was a kid, if a teacher called home, the child was in trouble. As a teacher, I witnessed a shift toward parents playing the role of advocate and teachers taking the blame for everything from student misbehavior (why weren’t you more engaging?) to student test scores (why are your students failing?) to attendance (why didn’t you build better relationships?). At a larger cultural level, I’ve seen pundits label teachers as lazy and claim that they are indoctrinating students. 

It’s no wonder that teachers feel beat down. The job is already challenging and even exhausting. That’s nothing new. But the incessant shaming is taking an even greater toll on teacher retention and well-being. 

This is why professional development needs to be affirming. The message (both explicit and implicit) needs to be, “we honor your expertise.” We need to value teacher experience and contextual knowledge. We need to recognize their content knowledge and pedagogical expertise. 

A few guiding questions I like to have teachers consider are:

• What am I already doing that I can build on?
• What strengths do I bring to this new approach?
• How does this connect to what I already know about effective instruction?
• What parts of my current practice are worth keeping?
• How does this connect with what I already know about my students?

 

2. Equip: Developing New Skills and Understanding

Professional development should ultimately impact our practice as educators. This is where we learn new strategies and practice protocols that we can use with students. But it’s also where we figure out why these strategies work and when we might want to use them. It’s not simply “getting a new tool for the toolbox.” It’s about determining when you choose to use specific tools and why. 

A few guiding questions I like to have teachers consider are:

• How and why does this strategy work?
• When is the best time to use it?
• What would this look like in my own classroom?
• What small change could I make to my existing practice?
• What tools, resources, or support would help me implement this effectively?
• How will I know whether it’s making a difference?

3. Challenge: Questioning Assumptions and Growing

Professional development should be affirming and practical but it’s also a chance for us to grow and expand our understandings as we transform our practice. But this requires us question our assumptions and tackle some of our misunderstandings. This is a chance to show intellectual humility as we recognize that certain research has emerged and we need to grow. 

A few guiding questions I like to have teachers consider are:

• Where is the nuance in this reality? What paradoxes might exist? 
• What assumptions might I need to reconsider?
• Where might my current approach be falling short?
• What does the evidence suggest I should do differently?
• What might I need to stop doing to make room for something better?
• What questions do I still have?

 

We Need All Three: Affirm, Equip, and Challenge

If we are affirmed but not not challenged, they won’t change their practice. As professionals, we need to hear hard truths that make us uncomfortable. We need to know that certain beloved practices simply don’t work. We need to make modifications based on emerging research. Similarly, if we are affirmed but not equipped, we end up with shallow inspiration. It feels good but it won’t impact practice. 

If we are equipped but not affirmed, we often hear and implied message that what we are doing things the wrong way. We get this set of practical strategies without any recognition that we are already doing many of those very strategies. This makes it harder to integrate new strategies, protocols, and ideas into our existing professional expertise. Similarly, if we are equipped without being challenged, we simply end up with more things added to our plate without any need to transform our practice. 

If we are challenged without being affirmed, it’s often a form of shaming. In these moments, we might get defensive and dismiss the new learning outright. This is often what teachers mean when they say, “We’ve done this before. Trust me. Nothing new under the sun.” Other times, we feel defeated. So you’re telling me everything I’ve done is wrong for the last decade? Similarly, when we are challenged without being equipped, we are left hearing all about the problem and perhaps a vague sense of the solution without having anything tangible we can integrate into our existing teaching practice. 

But when these three work together, we are curious. We can be confident (because of the affirmation) while also finding new strategies to add to our learning (because of the equipping) yet we are also challenged to transform our practice and innovate. 

In the end, if we want teachers to empower students, they need to be empowered to own their learning as well. We need to actively avoid shame-based professional development that tells teachers that their entire practice is harmful and obsolete. 

Side note. I ​did a whole series on providing voice and choice for teachers in professional development​.

And, yes, I made a sketch video for it!