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 iBCHtIU09568; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 12:55:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 12:55:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <BAY22-F9BD30EF785CA20BD62CF7CFAA0@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: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1800] Is all pd "good" pd? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 2849 Lines: 50 Andrea, You said, "Of course teacher education/advancement/development, however you want to call it, 'works.'" There is no "of course" about it. Professional development actually varies in quality (gasps of disbelief!) and I think it belittles the efforts and accomplishments of people who have battled the system and managed to get some high quality professional development efforts in place to lump that with the one-shot workshop approach and reduce it to "of course" or reduce Tom's question to an absurdity. Shame on you, too, George ; ) --end of lecture. The articles I cited, others I didn't cite, and my own experience all support what Catherine said about pd that is about teacher learning, that is internally-driven, and that responds to the needs of the individual, class, or program and develops over the long term being the most effective. I have read many posts here that describe responsive, long-term, effective professional development; I know there are people providing it. I've participated in it myself, and on occasion provided it. But do you really believe that all professional development is like that? I think it is still the case that most often pd is provided with one-shot workshops and--new buzzword?--symposiums (symposia?) where the focus is the information the pd administrators want presented, not necessarily what teachers need/are interested in, and not on their actual learning, which can never be encompassed in a single such meeting. I've actually had professional developers tell me they know that one-shot workshops are not very effective, but that's all they have the budget for, so that's what they're going to do (never mind that they could do the long term stuff if they knew how to use online learning or if the budget were allocated so that there were pd "change agents"* --even a couple of hours a week--within programs, but I guess they don't want to professionally develop themselves in that direction). I say, if that's how professional developers are going to keep spending their budgets, then, like Tom, I want to see the evidence that it works--and not in the form of end-of-day evaluations of how much teachers liked the workshop, or what they intend to do. I want to see evidence of how the learning is applied and what the improved outcomes for students are. Otherwise, give that money straight to the programs and let them pay teachers a stipend for the time they spend in meaningful learning that they will use to further improve in an area that's important to them, and is much more likely to lead to improved results for students. *For more on the effectiveness of the "change agent" approach I mentioned parenthetically, look for Saylor, P. & Kehrhahn, M. (2003). Teacher skills get an upgrade. Journal of Staff Development, 24(1), 48-53. Eileen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:01 EST