Research School Network: The Professional Development Paradox: Part 1 Is CPD really making a difference in your organisation?

Is CPD really making a difference in your organisation?

We know that better professional learning leads to better teaching, but knowing this has not solved the problem.

A substantial body of evidence shows that high-quality teaching is one of the most powerful levers for improving pupil outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged learners (Sutton Trust, 2016). Research by Kraft and Papay (2014) further demonstrates that teacher effectiveness improves more rapidly in schools where professional development (PD) is deliberately designed and well supported. Earlier work by CUREE (2009) similarly highlights professional learning as one of the leadership activities most closely associated with sustained improvements in classroom practice and pupil outcomes.

Taken together, this evidence makes one thing clear: developing a coherent, evidence-informed professional development offer, one that provides a genuine, career-long entitlement to teacher learning, is no longer optional. It is an urgent system priority.

The ​“Wicked” Problem of Delivery

Yet despite this consensus, the impact of internal CPD often falls short of its promise. The Teacher Development Trust (TDT) has recently described the delivery of professional development as a ​“wicked problem”, shaped by competing pressures, local contexts, and deeply embedded habits:

​“Too often, professional development is viewed as a transactional process – a series of sessions, inputs, or workshops delivered to teachers with the expectation that they will change what is potentially deeply ingrained in their practice.” Teacher Development Trust, Didagogy Report (2025)

This diagnosis resonates across the sector. Too much CPD remains event-based and compliance-led, prioritising attendance, coverage, or accountability over genuine professional growth. In these conditions, professional learning risks becoming something that is done to teachers rather than designed for them.

There is no single blueprint for solving this problem. Context matters. What works in one school or trust may not translate neatly to another. However, recent practitioner-led work offers helpful direction. The CPD Leaders’ Forum, a grassroots network of trust and school-level professional learning leaders, has developed guidance using six intersectional lenses to help leaders design change that is purposeful, culturally aligned, and sustainable. Six contextual lenses provide a much-needed framework for forensically interrogating assumptions, clarifying priorities, identifying challenges, and, essentially, answering the question of how right is the culture in the organisation to receive this new thing?

The six lenses are: 

When considered alongside the Education Endowment Foundation’s (EEF) implementation guidance and professional development framework, this work provides a robust, evidence-informed roadmap for professional learning at scale.

So why, despite all of this, do so many internal CPD systems still fail to deliver meaningful change?

The Design Problem in Internal CPD

There is a growing recognition that internal CPD, while often well-intentioned and contextually rooted, frequently misses the mark for the very professionals it is intended to serve. The issue is rarely a lack of commitment or effort. More often, it is a lack of intentional design.

Research consistently shows that we default to pupil-centred instructional models when developing teacher expertise, overlooking the fact that adult learning requires different conditions: structured coaching, opportunities for collaboration, expert facilitation, and sustained feedback (EEF, 2021; TDT, 2005). When these conditions are absent, professional development becomes informational rather than transformational.

If internal CPD systems are to genuinely serve staff rather than simply meet organisational or accountability requirements, we must invest in the craft of professional learning itself.

The Active Ingredients of Change

To move beyond transactional models, we need to focus on what actually makes professional development effective. The EEF’s Effective Professional Development guidance identifies 14 mechanisms often described as the ​“active ingredients” of successful PD. These mechanisms are grouped across four interconnected areas:

1. Building Knowledge

Managing cognitive load, sequencing learning, and revisiting prior understanding.

2. Motivating Teachers

Setting clear goals, building collective efficacy, and using credible sources.

3. Developing Teaching Techniques

Modelling, rehearsal, practice, and formative feedback.

4. Embedding Practice

Action planning, reflection, self-monitoring, and sustained support over time.

The most impactful professional learning programmes do not simply tell teachers what to do. They deliberately combine these mechanisms to support the slow, complex process of changing classroom practice.

However, understanding the ​‘active ingredients’ is only half the battle. Both the EEF and the Trust CPD Leaders’ Forum remind us that teacher habits do not change through exposure alone; they form over time through deliberate rehearsal and feedback.

As leaders, we must ask: are we supporting teachers to reach mastery? Habit re-architecture takes time and repetition, and it becomes increasingly complex to sustain. It is suggested that between 20 and 60 repetitions are needed for new habit formation (Mccrea, 2024). This raises a challenging question for our internal systems: are we providing repeated, supported opportunities to apply new strategies, or are we moving on to the next ​‘priority’ before the previous one has even begun to take root?

The EEF’s Effective Professional Development guidance and their A School’s Guide to Implementation are clear — practice is a vital mechanism. Without time for modelling, rehearsal, and feedback, we aren’t designing for growth and expertise; we are simply delivering information.”


Join us for Part 2 where we will be exploring the ​‘Professional Development design gap’ and potential solutions.