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 iBCDqfU08262; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 08:52:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 08:52:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <BAY4-F161BE7DB7092FF221FB599C5AA0@phx.gbl> 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: "George demetrion" <gdemetrion@msn.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1799] Tom's Midrash X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 3203 Lines: 63 Andrea, I tend to agree with your reading of Tom's intent, though I didn't think of that until you had mentioned it. The assumption that there is no correlation between professional development and the improvement of programs and the enhancement of literacy among students is both absurd and comical as you state. As I think through your analysis, perhaps the broader intent of Tom's message is his challenge to the PD community to (a) make sure that that connection is the central focus of its work; (b) provide convincing evidence that there is a decent, and even compelling correlation between PD and program/student improvement. Those who have posted in response have drawn out some of the ways in which the two are connected and one would like to hear Tom's reflections on those several posts. The extent to which, how and what changes in PD content and delivery (and how do we come to know) are needed are among the broader issues that require considerable probing and refinement. The hope here is that the critical dimensions of Tom's discernments does not lead to a too easy skepticism, but toward the contribution of pointing out what some of the issues/problems are and offering even some hypothetical steps toward problem resolution. The matter of what counts as evidence is also another consideration. Not all PD initiatives can be necessarily (nor need be) effectively documented, particularly if we look at PD as an ongoing source of support. For example, a volunteer tutor comes into my office, discusses a particular learning issue of a student. We listen to each other, probe the matter, come up with a provisional solution that may or may not be efficacious in a particular situation. For my own contribution, I draw on whatever I have learned over the years. The tutor draws on her own areas of expertise and informed experience. This type of low-voltage intervention happens frequently in programs and is rarely documented (who would have time to do it?). Yet, I would argue, as others have, that this is a valid influence of PD, though far from a direct connection between attending a workshop and having a direct impact. To be sure, the latter can and does happen, but not necessarily, nor frequently (?) on a direct, easy to measure basis. Perhaps PD needs to be viewed as part of a broader educational and acculturation process in which in any given situation we draw from the storehouse of what we have learned in the resolution of a particular problem. In what ways can Rabbi Tom's sometimes caustic probing contribute to the building of the Kingdom of Literacy that he aspires so much to achieve? What additional texts does his own inspire and provoke? George Demetrion >From Andrea (snippet) I took Tom's question as comical, because it was absurd, how he put it, which I am reasonably sure he knows. In Jewish terms he would be a writer of midrash, tales told to explain and exploit a space in a piece of biblical writing where an explanation is obviously needed yet none is forthcoming from the authorities. Tom is a very close reader of text. For the holidays! Thanks for your post, very informative. Andrea
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:00 EST