For an instructor who has worked in the field for
quite a few years by now, and after reading most of
the comments posted by colleagues, administrators,
professional developers, and researchers three items
stand out:

a) Practitioners are given opportunities to apply
research to their own practice.   (from standard #5)
b) PD is available in varied formats such as face to
face and on line workshops, courses, study groups,
sharing groups, university based classes, self study,
technicals assistance, program based work, etc. (from
standard #6)
c) Time for practitioners to develop a professional
development plan with access to professional
development that supports the plan and supportive
monitoring by supervisors of staff professional
development plans (from standard #11).

The components above seem to tap into two related
themes that have been consistently connected and in
some cases described thoroughly in the postings:
FUNDING AND TIME

In their very interesting postings, David Rosen and
Emma Bourassa described their experiences with change
and learning.   It was really compelling to read about
David's experience in the Philippines and Emma's in
Mexico because in both instances what triggered change
were quite long journeys into unknown environments
that probably lent themselves to a profound (if I may
use the word) reflection on education.   David Rosen
added the idea of "an intellectual itch" as another
reason to search or to challenge even our own notions.

Although the term is not defined, and I doubt it can
be measured in standardized ways, professional wisdom
might emerge more naturally, and with the commitment
that a sharing practice carries with it (in terms of
research, reflection and overall preparation) as
stated in standard  #11. 

The standards are not specific with time regarding
face to face workshops.  My experience is that when a
workshop actually triggers that intellectual itch or
curiosity, or when it has great quality I will try it
in class.  Follow ups are always great, though.   

A dream that is stated in standard #6 and is connected
to standard #5: Would the horizons of adult education
change if universities supported staff in continuing
education and in community colleges by providing lower
tuition for adult educators?  This would be a nice
prescription.

Nadia Quiroz-Colby      

 




 regarding the AALPD standards 
--- Andy Nash <andy_nash at worlded.org> wrote:


> Hello,

> These questions and comments will be very helpful

> for guiding revisions

> to the PD standards, although I want to echo the

> sentiment that whatever

> AALPD creates will only be useful if it is revisited

> and contextualized

> by the “stakeholders” in each state system. 

> What’s valuable about

> standards is that they prompt a conversation about

> quality – what it is

> and how we know it when we see it – and that

> it’s this conversation that

> builds ownership and buy-in to a common vision. The

> challenge is to make

> sure that the next “generation” of practitioners

> get to join this

> conversation rather than be handed down a static set

> of expectations to

> meet. 

> 

> I also want to add a reminder that before AALPD

> drafted standards, it

> drafted a set of policies designed to ensure that

> quality PD would be

> supported by the funding and infrastructure it

> requires

> (http://aalpd.org/priorities_pdpolicies.htm).

> Standard #11 (which states

> that effective PD “is based on a set of policies

> that support

> practitioners’ access to quality professional

> development”) is our

> attempt to make this linkage very explicit.

> Separating the standards

> from the policy document creates the potential for

> the abuse (unfunded

> mandates) that Ira, Katie, and others have

> mentioned. 

> 

> As I look at Standard #11 again, though, I’m

> noticing a different cause

> for concern - the indicators (and the related

> policies in the policy

> document) speak to the working conditions of

> teachers but not the

> working conditions of professional developers. It

> strikes me that an

> organization representing the interests of

> professional developers might

> want to reconsider this! (See

>

http://www.mcae.net/QualityWCStandardsandIndicators0207fin.pdf

> for the

> MA Coalition for Adult Education’s Standards for

> Quality Working

> Conditions – also focused on teachers but a model

> we could draw from.) 

> 

> Finally, just a couple of points of clarification:

> - The Standards are intended to describe a coherent,

> quality PD system,

> so I agree with Wendi that individual PD activities

> will not meet every

> standard. 

> - The Indicators are examples of what implementation

> of the Standard

> could look like, not prescriptions. Local

> negotiation and interpretation

> of what those Indicators should be would make for

> very rich PD. 

> 

> Please continue the critique!

> Andy Nash

> anash at worlded.org

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Adult Literacy Professional Development mailing list

> professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov

>  

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings,

> please go to

>

http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/professionaldevelopment

> 

> Email delivered to thecolbys at prodigy.net 

>  

> Professional Development section of the Adult

> Literacy Education Wiki 

>

http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Adult_Literacy_Professional_Development