If faculty surveys show support but uncertainty about reaching at-risk students, which PD strategy should the principal pursue in collaboration with the faculty?

• A. Linking individual teacher growth plan goals explicitly with the instructional goals of the initiative
• B. Providing a generic, one-size-fits-all PD session
• C. Implementing mandatory PD without teacher input
• D. Replacing PD with self-study modules

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is to connect professional development with teachers’ growth goals and the school’s instructional aims so that PD translates into concrete strategies for reaching at‑risk students. When the growth plan goals are explicitly tied to the initiative’s instructional goals, teachers have clear, measurable targets and see how their professional learning will impact student outcomes. This creates ownership, makes support more targeted, and gives the principal reliable ways to monitor progress and provide feedback. In practice, this means PD is job-embedded and data-informed, focusing on specific instructional practices that help at‑risk students succeed, and it fosters collaboration between the principal and faculty to adjust approaches based on evidence.

By comparison, a generic one-size-fits-all PD session lacks relevance to individual classrooms or the specific needs of at‑risk students. Implementing PD without teacher input can erode buy-in and ignore classroom realities. Replacing PD with self-study modules removes the collaborative problem-solving and ongoing support that help teachers adapt strategies for at‑risk learners.