I am sharing thoughts from one of our Professional Development Center
(PDC) staff and myself below.
Johan
 
Uvin Comments
_____________
 

*	Are we talking about professional development standards and/or
professional development staff/facilitator standards? They are
different, I believe. I think we need a subset or different set that
deals with the standards that professional developers need to meet.
These will include subject matter knowledge (e.g., math PD facilitators
should know math at least at the Algebra II level),
facilitation/training skills, and attitudes. 
*	I have become increasingly concerned about the notion of
professional wisdom as separate from what we know from research. I know
this is a widely used construct. If it implies expertise, then I am fine
with it. If not, I am concerned that it is more about beliefs and values
and I am not sure how relevant those are any longer in the absence of
research that backs them up and given the outcomes of our adult
education programs. 
*	I suggest reducing the number of standards for professional
development -- as an intervention [as different from standards for
professional developers] -- to two categories: those supported by
research on effective professional development and those that deal with
access (the last set). I would appreciate a more elaborate version of
what is there for the latter set now. 
*	As for research on effective professional development, here is
what I think we know from effectiveness research on PD and the standards
should capture this, if they don't already. 

	*	Focus on daily activities 
	*	Active participation 
	*	Sufficient time for learning to take place 
	*	Sustained effort 
	*	Access to outside expertise 
	*	Group support 
	*	Collaboration 
	*	Focus on curriculum and assessment aligned with
curriculum 
	*	Focus on higher order thinking skills (as content of PD)

 
PDC Comments
_____________
 
This issue has been part of an ongoing conversation that we're working
to pull together by the end of the month.

speaking only for myself, and from what I sense from the field:



*	What are the most  important PD standards or  indicators from
your perspective?    
	

The 11 principles articulated are all important, and, to some extent,
interrelated.  Those that address practitioners' needs and strengths,
and foster interaction and learning communities are those that I would
see as being particularly important, but wouldn't say they are the most
important separate and apart from the other indicators.



*	What are the most  important standards to advance  PD in your
area/state? 
	
	Fostering a culture of respect for practitioners, and for their
ongoing learning and development.
	
	
*	What PD Standards  would be easy to implement?   
*	What would be hard  to implement?   
	


I don't believe that standards are inherent easy or difficult to
implement --  shifting the culture from one where the perception that
external accountability favors numbers and outcomes to the exclusion of
the enabling elements (time, resources, compensation) are obstacles that
need to be overcome.

The standards as written provide a useful basis for state-wide, or even
program-based discussion as adult educators move forward in growing
lasting means of fostering professional development.




*	Is there anything  missing? 
*	Is there anything  that isn't clear?  
	

*         Are the proposed standards too general? Which ones? All of
them?
*         Are they too specific, too prescriptive? Which ones?
*         The question of whether or not to have professional
development standards is still open. Are there good reasons not to have
them? Are there good reasons to have them? 
*         Do you think some or all of the proposed standards would
advance the field, help to improve teaching and learning? If so, which
standards would advance the field?


*	What would need to  be in place in order to make  these
standards possible?  
	

--------------------------
Johan E. Uvin
State Director
Office of Adult Education
255 Westminster Street
Providence, RI 02903
401.222.8950 

Confidentiality Notice: 

This e-mail, including all attachments is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me and
destroy all copies of this message.

 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/professionaldevelopment/attachments/20071206/addc0b87/attachment.html