Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i0MJTeI28141; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:29:40 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:29:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <57EBF4E0.59BFED4A.0AB94E44@aol.com>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: AndresMuro@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:927] Re: examining the effectiveness of professional development
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0
Status: O
Content-Length: 1812
Lines: 15
Hey Deborah: Just as with Eileen, I agree with most of what you say. However, Jackie asks: what data do we have that shows that PD is effective. So, we need to determine what is the definition of effective. For the government, "effective" means more completion based on WIA/NRS outcomes. If we take this as the definition of effectiveness, there is no data that says that doing "X" has direct impact on "y". In other words, we don't have anything documented that says that: the evidence suggests that if people do "X", while teaching, there is a 10% increase in GED graduation. Nor we have something that says: If programs and/or administrators provide this or that, there is a 15% increase in retention, completion, etc. This would be very difficult to do, because isolating the variables is very tricky. Also, nobody is funding this type of professional development.
So, there is absolutely no evidence that shows that all the cool stuff that was done in El Paso with the TEA funds is any better or worse than what we do in my program, or any other program.
In fact, I think that the professional development that we do in our program is better than all the PD that TEA has been doing. This is not because we are any better than TEA, but because we are not tied to WIA/NRS. So, we don't limit our PD to things that will improve WIA/NRS outcomes. The contradiction here is that everyone knows that WIA/NRS is meaningless. However, since everyone is tied to this they have to do PD to improve something that is already meaningless.
I agree that professional development should not be reduced to this. However, in the past, every time that the topic emerged, PD was questioned in these terms. Reason being that the government expects this.
Andres
go here: www.geocities.com/andresmuro/art.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:36 EST