A single CPD approach won’t work everywhere, and that’s the point.
One of the privileges and challenges of working across a trust is that no two schools are quite the same. Cultures, contexts and staff teams vary, sometimes dramatically, even between neighbouring schools. So why do we so often expect a single CPD model to be the answer?
The truth is, CPD doesn’t work like that.
Now let me say this upfront: I’ve never been a trust lead for CPD. I don’t sit in your meetings, juggle your spreadsheets, or have to navigate the joys of aligning a dozen schools on INSET day content. So who am I to tell you what to do?
Well, maybe I’m not here to tell you. Just to nudge a little. To share what I’ve learned from research, conversations, and writing Unlocking Teacher Development. If it helps you rethink or refine your approach, great. If not, you can blame the armchair eduauthor and carry on as you were. No harm, no foul.
Why standardisation is tempting
From a trust-wide perspective, standardising CPD can seem like the most logical route. It brings the promise of consistency, quality assurance and economies of scale. It’s much easier to measure impact and support all schools when the input is uniform. If one school is getting great results with instructional coaching, why not replicate it everywhere?
There’s also the question of accountability. Standardisation helps leaders feel in control. It creates the appearance of fairness and equity: every teacher, regardless of setting, receives the same offer. For newly formed trusts, it can seem like the quickest way to assert shared values and a common culture.
And I get it. It looks like the smart option.
But here’s the rub: standardisation often delivers compliance, not commitment. Without commitment, things look like they are changing on the surface, but quickly fall back, when you move on.
Culture eats strategy for breakfast
Before any CPD can take root, the right cultural conditions need to be in place. Chapter 1.1 of Unlocking Teacher Development looks closely at how leaders shape, and are shaped by, the culture they operate in. If we try to transplant a model from one school into another without considering this, we risk misunderstanding the very problem we’re trying to solve. Leaders across trusts have to resist the lure of standardisation when it means ignoring nuance.
As the Teacher Development Trust rightly states:
“Developing a culture of professional improvement is an essential precondition for the effective implementation of any policy or intervention.” (TDT, 2021, p. 4)
Without such a culture, even well-designed CPD risks falling flat.
Motivation isn’t one-size-fits-all either
Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan) reminds us that autonomy, competence and relatedness are key drivers of motivation. But we shouldn’t mistake ‘autonomy’ for laissez-faire. Some staff thrive with freedom; others flourish with clear scaffolding and a shared sense of direction. The best CPD doesn’t assume, it investigates. It supports teachers to internalise professional values, not just comply with them.
Again, context is key. As the TDT report explains:
“Even where a particular policy or practice is evidence-informed and shows promise, it must still be implemented with sensitivity to the specific context.” (TDT, 2021, p. 7)
Trust leaders are well-placed to champion CPD that focuses not on compliance, but internalisation. That might mean adapting a centrally-supported strategy with clear messaging and tools, but giving space for schools to implement it in a way that makes sense locally. It will also require carefully messaging of the values and principles of the professional development process to allow teachers with differing needs to align themselves. This is how we bridge the gap without undermining motivation.
Start with the problem, not the programme
Unlocking Teacher Development outlines a simple shift in mindset that leaders can adopt when planning CPD: move from being technique-led to being problem-led. That is, focus on what’s not working for students first, and only then seek the best solution for that particular issue in that particular place.
This approach supports adaptation without sacrificing accountability. You still evaluate impact, but you do so with the humility to know that your chosen strategy might need to evolve.
The TDT reinforces this point:
“Top-down attempts to drive improvement are often unsuccessful unless accompanied by meaningful investment in the capacity and motivation of school staff.” (TDT, 2021, p. 6)
CPD cannot be something done to teachers. It must be something developed with them.
A few guiding principles for MAT-wide CPD
If you’re designing CPD across a trust, here are a few principles drawn from the book that might help:
- Centralise the “why”, localise the “how”: Ensure every school understands the purpose behind trust-wide CPD priorities, but give them the autonomy to implement according to context.
- Avoid fads, but embrace simplicity: Provide shared language and models (like I/We/You) not as scripts, but as frameworks to think and talk with clarity.
- Platform the early adopters: Behaviour spreads as a complex contagion. Highlight what’s working within your trust and let strong practice snowball across schools.
- Trust your leaders to lead: If you’ve got strong Heads of T&L in each school, give them the tools and time to evaluate, adapt and implement CPD in a way that sticks. Shift towards a coaching model to support and challenge them.
Final thought:
Standardisation offers simplicity. But simplicity without sensitivity won’t improve teaching. The best MATs don’t clone their CPD strategy across schools, they cultivate it by sharing best practice and the cultural conditions that make it work. That takes trust, time, and a deep understanding of how people, not just policies, change.
I might not run a trust, but I’ve spent years studying the mechanics of professional growth. Unlocking Teacher Development doesn’t give a formula, it gives a framework and the freedom to use it wisely.
What is your experience of Trust-wide CPD? Have you had to push a square CPD peg into a round cultural hole? How did it turn out?
As a teacher how does it feel?
Reference:
Teacher Development Trust (2021). A Culture of Improvement: Reviewing the research on teacher working conditions.
Adam Robbins Education 
Leave a comment