Evaluating Staff Development Programmes: Measuring Success

Running a staff development programme takes time, effort, and money. But how do you know if it actually worked? Did teachers gain new skills? Are they using those skills in the classroom? Without a clear evaluation process, even the best-designed training can become a box-ticking exercise with little real impact. Evaluating staff development programmes is what separates meaningful professional growth from wasted resources. It helps schools and institutions understand what’s working, what isn’t, and where to invest next.

Why evaluation matters in staff development 🔗

Evaluation is more than just handing out a feedback form at the end of a workshop. According to Thomas Guskey, a leading researcher in professional development evaluation, it is the systematic investigation of merit or worth – a focused, intentional process of collecting and analysing information to determine the value of a programme. Too often, schools skip this step entirely. Many educators see evaluation as an afterthought – something costly and time-consuming that takes attention away from planning and implementation. But without evaluation, there is no reliable way to know whether training has led to genuine improvement in teaching and learning.

The stakes are real. Districts invest heavily in professional learning. One study found that the Philadelphia School District spent nearly $162 million on professional learning in a single school year, including training for teachers and release time for coaches. With budgets under pressure and accountability demands rising, schools need to demonstrate that their staff development programmes are delivering tangible results – not just attendance certificates.

Key evaluation questions: did the training meet its goals? 🔗

The first step in any evaluation is to ask a straightforward question: did the programme achieve what it set out to do? Every training initiative should begin with clearly defined objectives. Whether the goal was to improve classroom management, integrate technology into lessons, or adopt a new curriculum framework, the evaluation should directly assess whether those goals were met.

But it’s not enough to ask just one question. Effective evaluation digs deeper. Here are the critical questions to consider:

Were the objectives clear and relevant? Sometimes training fails not because of poor delivery but because the goals were vague or misaligned with teachers’ actual needs. Evaluation should check whether the programme’s aims matched the professional challenges teachers face daily.

How engaged were the teachers? Teacher engagement during training is a strong early indicator of potential success. If participants found the content irrelevant, the delivery boring, or the logistics poorly managed, they’re unlikely to apply what they learned. Measuring initial reactions helps programme designers understand whether the experience was meaningful from the participant’s perspective.

Did teachers actually learn something new? Engagement alone doesn’t guarantee learning. It’s possible for someone to enjoy a workshop without gaining any new knowledge or skills. Evaluation must assess whether participants acquired the intended competencies – through demonstrations, reflections, or assessments – not just whether they had a pleasant experience.

The Kirkpatrick model: a proven framework for evaluation 🔗

One of the most widely used frameworks for training evaluation is the Kirkpatrick Model, first introduced in 1959 by Donald Kirkpatrick. The model breaks evaluation into four levels, each building on the one before it:

Level 1 – Reaction: This measures whether participants found the training engaging, relevant, and well-organised. It’s typically assessed through post-session surveys or feedback forms. While this level is easy to measure, it only captures surface-level satisfaction.

Level 2 – Learning: This goes a step further and measures whether participants gained new knowledge, skills, or attitudes as a result of the training. Pre- and post-assessments, simulations, or practical demonstrations can be used here.

Level 3 – Behaviour: This is where evaluation becomes more meaningful – and more difficult. It examines whether participants are actually applying what they learned back in their classrooms and workplaces. A teacher may understand cooperative learning in theory but never use it in practice. As the research highlights, there is often no significant correlation between knowing something in a training room and actually applying it on the job.

Level 4 – Results: This measures the broader outcomes – improvements in student achievement, reduced behavioural incidents, or other key performance indicators. This level provides the most valuable data but is also the hardest to measure directly.

A common mistake many institutions make is stopping at Levels 1 and 2 and assuming that application and results will follow automatically. They rarely do without deliberate follow-up and reinforcement.

Guskey’s five levels: tailored for education 🔗

While the Kirkpatrick model is widely used across industries, education researcher Thomas Guskey developed a five-level model specifically designed for professional development in schools. The five levels are:

Level 1 – Participants’ reactions: Did teachers find the training worthwhile? Was the material relevant and the facilitator effective?

Level 2 – Participants’ learning: What new knowledge and skills did they gain?

Level 3 – Organisational support and change: This is a unique addition that the Kirkpatrick model lacks. It asks whether the school or institution supported the implementation of new practices. For example, if teachers are trained in cooperative learning but the school’s grading policy ranks students against each other, the organisational environment effectively undermines the training.

Level 4 – Participants’ use of new knowledge and skills: Are teachers applying what they learned in their day-to-day practice?

Level 5 – Student learning outcomes: Did the training ultimately improve student learning, behaviour, or well-being?

Guskey emphasises that while the evaluation moves from Level 1 to Level 5, planning should work in reverse – start with the desired student outcomes (Level 5) and design backwards. This ensures that every element of the programme is aligned with the end goal of improving student learning.

Methods of assessment: feedback sheets, self-reports, and classroom observations 🔗

Feedback sheets 🔗

Feedback sheets (sometimes called “smile sheets”) are the most common and easiest evaluation tool. Distributed at the end of a training session, they ask participants to rate aspects like content quality, facilitator expertise, relevance to their work, and overall satisfaction. They’re useful for capturing immediate reactions and identifying logistical issues – Was the room comfortable? Was the schedule manageable? – but they have clear limitations. A positive reaction doesn’t necessarily mean that learning happened, and participants may rate sessions favourably out of politeness rather than conviction.

Self-reports 🔗

Self-reports go a step further by asking teachers to reflect on their own learning and intentions. Common self-report questions include: What new skills did you gain? How confident are you in applying these skills? What obstacles might prevent you from implementing what you learned? Self-reports are valuable because they encourage reflective thinking. However, there’s a well-documented tendency for people to overestimate their own learning and ability to apply it. This is why self-reports work best when combined with other assessment methods rather than used in isolation.

Classroom observations 🔗

Classroom observations provide the most direct evidence of whether training has translated into practice. By watching teachers in action, evaluators can see firsthand whether new strategies and techniques are being used and how effectively they are being implemented. Research from the Cincinnati Public Schools’ Teacher Evaluation System found that well-executed classroom observations by trained professionals can reliably predict student achievement gains in both reading and mathematics. The key conditions for effective observations include using trained observers external to the school, applying a clear set of standards, and ensuring consistent scoring criteria.

Peer observation is another effective approach. When teachers observe each other’s classrooms, they can assess the alignment of course content with learning goals and evaluate whether new teaching strategies are being used in authentic settings. As Duke University’s Center for Teaching and Learning notes, peers – when properly trained – can gauge how effective teaching practices are in creating positive and equitable learning opportunities.

Long-term impact: assessing retention and application of skills over time 🔗

One of the biggest challenges in staff development evaluation is measuring what happens long after the training ends. A teacher might leave a workshop feeling energised and full of ideas, but will they still be using those strategies six months later? A year later?

Long-term evaluation is essential because real behaviour change takes time. According to the SAGE Evaluating Professional Development framework, it is unreasonable to expect that individual professional development activities will immediately result in changed instructional behaviour, improved learner performance, or new organisational practices. Meaningful change requires sustained effort, repeated practice, and ongoing support.

To assess long-term impact, evaluators should plan for multiple measurement intervals rather than relying on a single post-training assessment. Effective strategies include:

Follow-up observations conducted three to six months after training to check whether new practices have been maintained or abandoned. Longitudinal surveys that track teachers’ confidence and self-reported use of new skills at regular intervals. Student outcome data – including test scores, assignment quality, attendance patterns, and behavioural records – collected over an extended period to identify trends linked to the training. Teaching portfolios that allow teachers to document their evolving practice, collect evidence of student learning, and reflect on their professional growth over time.

The gap between short-term enthusiasm and long-term application is where many programmes fail. Without follow-up support – such as coaching, mentoring, or collaborative learning groups – teachers often revert to familiar habits. Evaluating long-term impact helps identify exactly where this breakdown occurs and what kind of ongoing support is needed.

Continuous improvement: using evaluation results to refine future programmes 🔗

Evaluation should never be a one-off event. Its greatest value lies in creating a cycle of continuous improvement – where each round of feedback informs the design of the next programme. This is the principle at the heart of both the Kirkpatrick and Guskey models.

Here’s how this works in practice. If feedback sheets reveal that a particular session was poorly received, the content or delivery can be adjusted for the next cohort. If self-reports show that teachers feel uncertain about applying a specific technique, additional hands-on practice or coaching can be built into the programme. If classroom observations reveal that a skill is understood but not being used, the problem may not be the training itself but a lack of organisational support – perhaps teachers don’t have the time, resources, or administrative backing to implement what they’ve learned.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Embedded Evaluation Model draws a direct parallel between evaluation and the continuous improvement process. It recommends that evaluators begin by defining the purpose and logic of the programme, then identify the questions the evaluation should answer, and finally determine the appropriate evaluation design. This ensures that evaluation is built into the programme from the start rather than bolted on at the end.

Schools that treat evaluation as a continuous process – rather than a final judgement – are better positioned to adapt their training to evolving needs. They build a culture where feedback is expected, reflection is routine, and improvement is ongoing. As research consistently shows, the institutions that see the greatest returns on their staff development investment are those that close the feedback loop: collecting data, analysing it, making changes, and then evaluating again.

Balancing qualitative and quantitative data 🔗

One final consideration in effective evaluation is the type of data being collected. Many schools rely almost exclusively on quantitative measures – test scores, attendance figures, completion rates. These are important but insufficient on their own. Quantitative data tells you what happened; qualitative data tells you why.

Qualitative methods – such as interviews, open-ended survey responses, reflective journals, and portfolio analysis – capture the nuances that numbers miss. They reveal how teachers feel about the training, what barriers they face in applying it, and what kinds of support they find most helpful. A balanced evaluation approach combines both types of data. This allows schools to not only measure the impact of training but also understand the processes and conditions that made that impact possible – or prevented it.

What do you think? How does your school or institution currently evaluate the effectiveness of its staff development programmes – and is it doing enough to measure long-term impact beyond the initial feedback form?

References

1. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/does-it-make-a-difference-evaluating-professional-development
2. https://ies.ed.gov/rel-northeast-islands/2025/01/tool-10
3. https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/the-kirkpatrick-model/
4. https://www.edsi.com/blog/evaluating-training-effectiveness-are-your-staff-development-programs-providing-value
5. https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/evaluating-teacher-effectiveness
6. https://ctl.duke.edu/resources/art-and-science-of-teaching/plan-and-refine-your-course/best-practices-for-teaching-observations/
7. https://www.teachingchannel.com/k12-hub/blog/evaluating-professional-development-programs/