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 j3HFreG12476; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <s2624d1c.066@mail.jsi.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: "Andy Nash" <andy_nash@worlded.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:2046] PD policies X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.1 Status: O Content-Length: 2276 Lines: 43 Jackie, Before the new discussion begins on student leadership in PD, I'd like to chime in on a few of the proposed PD policies. Regarding the policies related to teachers (the expectation that they participate in PD, that they be evaluated, etc.), I think we should consider including program administrators and counselors in that recommendation. Many administrators are hungry for PD (on supervision, for example), as well, and their decisions certainly impact the extent to which teachers can implement new ideas. On #11, which is about PD for professional developers, I agree with others that a course about research-based principles of effective PD doesn't quite capture what's necessary. For example, it wouldn't help us get at core PD concerns, such as reflecting on our assumptions and practices through the prisms of race, class, culture, and gender (as Susan suggested), and it wouldn't help us understand the application of research and theory to practice, which is at the center of our work. For that, I think we might want to edge toward a policy of expecting professional developers to get back into the classroom periodically. I fully support access to varied kinds of PD (#9). For all the bad press that single-session workshops get, I think they serve a particular function in terms of inspiring practitioners to try new techniques that can lead to greater changes. I remember, for example, getting excited about using photographs in my teaching and then that leading to a variety of projects, better integration of skills, etc. Finally, some folks have recommended that evaluation of PD be linked to student outcomes. This feels dangerous to me, as there are too many intervening factors (out of our control) that affect whether or not effective professional development is transferred to practice. For example, a program might choose to organize a single workshop about a topic even though we have recommended a series or a study circle. Or we might do PD about the use of authentic materials but the program directors continue to use their materials budget to buy only textbooks. I believe we should be evaluated for the direct impact of our work, but not the indirect impact. Thanks for inviting this discussion, Andy Nash NELRC/World Education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:33 EST