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 iBCKOeU10971; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:24:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:24:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <002d01c4e088$4856aaf0$08d7c043@ReflectionPool> 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: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king@verizon.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1803] Re: Is all pd "good" pd? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 7573 Lines: 159 Eileen: The teachers who go through the Masters program here at National University (and other college programs) get paid more by their institution when they finish. The (right) assumption is that if they go through a systematic 10-course program, at a qualified institution, with qualified teachers who don't pass students on a lark, then their further education will have a direct (and indirect and comprehensive) effect in the classroom. The whole thing hinges on the value of increasing one's education and immersion into a field that no one can possibly know <everything> about. Though there are many extant problems in education, I doubt that making detailed connections between such PD and specifics of a student's "outcome" is either necessary or even possible. As I suggested before, trying to forge such a connection as Tom suggests (and I agree with those who think it is absurd <for the most part>) would only telescope a field of meaning that would be fraught with oversight and distortion, and would dislocate the locus of judgment away from the site where the problems emerge. That being said, I think you are right that one-shot workshops probably do little or any good--except for teachers who themselves have a long-term plan about their own education--but that the responsibility for such judgments and decisions about PD belong in the program manager and/or the principal (in K-12 or schools boards) who can see what is needed and who take a long-term and systematic view of the matter <at their sites> and those who fund such teacher development. Again, the suggestion in Tom's note is that there can be some twice-removed system set up for PD (divorcing PD from the emergent needs on-site and per-student) and that a direct connection between PD and student "success" can be regularly drawn. I agree with Eileen that one-shot methods are not the way (though better than nothing, and better than no funding for PD at all) can and should. However, we are talking about consciousn and historical human beings here, and not an education factory. See the quote from Tom's note below. Am I wrong to "hear" that Tom is suggesting that PD is pretty much worthless, OR that teachers should be pushed, pulled and molded until they fulfill the "goal" of directly, "lead(ing) to more enrollments, or perhaps better retention, or maybe greater learning, or increased gains on standardized tests, more people reporting they reached personal goals, and so forth." Thus PD is to be either banished or it must be able to be shown to be <directly> connected to the following: >From an earlier note from Tom Stitcht: "For those interested in better understanding assessment and measurement concepts such as standardized tests, criterion-referenced tests, and norm-referenced tests, competency-based tests, etc. within the context of adult basic education or English as a Second Language education I have prepared a report entitled: Testing and Accountability in Adult Literacy Education: Focus on Workplace Literacy Resources for Program Design, Assessment, Testing, & Evaluation (1999) [ Thomas G. Sticht ] The report goes well beyond workplace literacy and is relevant to assessment in any adult basic skills education. Chapter 4 of the report is entitled: Testing and Accountability in Adult Literacy Programs in the Workforce Education Act of 1998 and it discusses standardized tests, norm-reverenced tests, criterion-referenced tests, competency-based measurement, using norm-referenced tests as criterion-referenced tests, use of grade levels in adult literacy assessment, problems of "negative gain" and what to do about it, issues of "general" versus "specific" literacy, item response theory and what it means for assessment, reliability and validity, and other concepts and issues in testing and assessment in adult literacy programs. It can be downloaded for free by cutting and pasting the following lengthy internet address into your browser's location finder: http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/search/search_results.asp?oid=1&bDate=2002&search_type=2&PageNo=12&search_string=S&language_type=1&pagesize=10&last=&First=&language_select=&numcount=1&lid=&subject=&bool1=&bool2=&search_select=&search_select2=&general_keyword=&general_keyword2=&keywords=&logic=&year_start=&year_end=&edate=&all=&cko=&publisher=&dateless= Tom Sticht Regards, Catherine King ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 11:54 AM Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1800] Is all pd "good" pd? > 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