PD List Colleagues:

Below is a summary of the AALPD professional development standards
discussion. Please review and let me know what I may have missed, where
I could better capture any of the views shared, or anything else you'd
like to add. Send your comments to me by Tuesday, December 18, at:
jataylor at utk.edu 

 

The working draft summary can also be found by visiting:

 

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

 

A final version of the complete discussion summary will be posted on the
NIFL Web site:

 

 
http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/discussions/professionaldevelopment/07QStandar
ds.html

 

Jackie Taylor, PD List Moderator, jataylor at utk.edu 

 


Quality Professional Development and the AALPD Quality Professional
Development Standards 


-- A three-part discussion hosted on the Adult Literacy Professional
Development List

November 12 - December 7, 2007
Part I: What makes quality professional development? Adult Literacy
Professional Development List Subscribers shared their interests in
discussing quality PD, identified characteristics of quality PD, and
shared their experiences that changed their practice.
(http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Summary:_PD_Experiences). They
explored questions such as:

*	What has helped you make a shift in your thinking and acting-a
PD experience or combination of experiences that you felt has helped you
to improve your practice? 
*	What are characteristics of quality professional development? 
*	How do you know it when you see it? 

Part II: AALPD then disseminated a draft of quality professional
development standards [[2]
<http://www.aalpd.org/AALPDStandardsandIndicatorscombined11-06-07.doc> ]
and indicators. The moderator asked subscribers to reflect on the
quality characteristics generated by list subscribers, and to review the
AALPD draft Quality PD Standards and reflection questions to prepare.

Part III: A week later, subscribers discussed the draft AALPD Quality PD
Standards. Based on this important discussion and discussions in various
professional development venues, AALPD will finalize the draft and it
will be sent to the AALPD Membership for an up or down vote. The final
version will be placed on the AALPD Website, and will become the
foundation for a self-assessment tool to advance quality professional
development in our field. Themes and questions discussed about PD
standards on the Adult Literacy Professional Development List are
summarized below.


 


Part III Discussion Summary


Springboard for customizing Quality professional development (PD) in
programs and states

The AALPD draft standards provide a basis for program-based and
state-wide dialogues for building a system of quality professional
development. The standards are meant to inform systems thinking and to
be revisited and adapted by systems. As Andrea Nash stated:

 

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.

 

 

Purpose of Indicators

Some participants felt that the indicators may not apply to their unique
situations, or that in some instances, they were "overly-prescriptive."
So what is the role of the indicators? 

 

The indicators are examples of any particular standard, and AALPD does
not intend for them to prescribe practices. Amy Trawick suggested
pulling out specific recommendations (like 'using problem-solving
approaches') and creating a separate document of "recommended practices"
if the intent is to highlight certain practices above others.

 

 

Not All PD Should Meet All Standards

The standards describe a coherent, quality PD system. Therefore, as both
Nash and Maxwell noted, individual PD activities will not meet every
standard.

 

As Maxwell described:

 

Different standards are going to be more meaningful for different types
of PD activities. We want to make sure that we don't dilute the value of
a particular style of activity or learning by making it adhere to
standards that may not be appropriate for that style. (For instance,
in-service programs designed to orient a teacher to a particular school
probably don't need standard #8 - program, community, and state level
collaboration - as much they do standard #9 - building a learning
community.)...You should always evaluate your PD activity on all the
standards, however if your activity doesn't meet all the standards, it
does not necessarily mean it's the wrong thing to do. 

 

 

Funding and Advocacy

Can standards become unfunded mandates?

Several participants expressed concerns over PD standards becoming
unfunded mandates in an already substantially under-funded and
over-stretched field. Ira Yankwitt, Kate Brandt, and others raised
questions such as:

 

*	What can we do to ensure that there is an infusion of funds
prior to implementing standards? 
*	What can we do to validate and professionalize adult literacy
and provide teachers comparable opportunities for salaries, benefits,
paid PD release time, etc.? 

 

Nash reminded participants 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.

 

 

Are PD Systems Responsible for Ensuring Teacher Access to Professional
Development?

 

Standard #11: Professional development that improves instruction and
learning for all adult learners: Is based on a set of policies that
support practitioners' access to quality professional development. 

 

Indicators:

(a)                                          Staff are supported by the
following:

                                 i.      paid professional development
time

                               ii.      paid substitutes to allow for
participation

                              iii.      paid planning time for
instruction 

                             iv.      at least monthly staff meetings to
share their voice in decisions for their program

                               v.      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

 

Participants explored whether and to what extent Standard #11 should be
a part of the draft AALPD PD Standards.

 

On the one hand, Maxwell noted that Standard #11 reads as a program
management standard and thus is not one for which the PD system is
responsible:

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the best practice would be for teachers to
have paid release time. I don't see this however, as a professional
development standard. It's a program management standard - just like
other business practices. CA has public employee collective bargaining
agreements. All teachers in our state adult schools (app. 12,000
teachers) are required to hold valid teaching credentials - adult
education teachers included. Most school districts negotiate wage and
benefit packages with the union representing their teachers. Release
time for professional development is a negotiable item, just like health
insurance or retirement benefits. If you're going to add standards on
management practices (release time, livable wage, benefit package, full
time employment, grievance or arbitration system), you open up a whole
can of worms that the PD system is not responsible for, and cannot
implement. For us, standards would have to focus only on the content of
professional development systems, not the employment agreements between
employer and employee. 

 

However, Trawik noted:

 

...because I see the standards as being useful for the whole system, I
see #11 as being relevant ...although I would turn each lower-case Roman
numeral into its own indicator.

 

Another subscriber suggested creating two categories of standards,
separating out content from access issues.

 

Nash's about standard #11 is appropriate here as well. The reason why
standard #11 was included was an explicit attempt to make the linkage
between professional development policies and standards, so that quality
professional development has the funding and infrastructure needed to
support it and to avoid abuse (unfunded mandates).

 

 

Working Conditions

Nash noted that both the AALPD Professional Development Policy
Recommendations and the draft AALPD PD Standards speak to teachers'
working conditions but not those of professional developers. She
suggested that AALPD should develop working conditions standards for
professional development staff: 

 

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.)

 

 

Culture Shift-Quantity Outcomes, Quality Investment

A Rhode Island PDC colleague suggested an obstacle within our culture to
implementing quality professional development standards:

 

I don't believe that standards are inherently 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. 

 

 

Diversity

Participants reiterated the need for standards to "manifest sensitivity"
to issues like values, ethics, and diversity. Namely, they described the
need for standards language to encompass professional development that
helps practitioners fully include and teach the historically
disadvantaged, oppressed populations that adult literacy serves.

 

As Mev Miller described:

 

I don't think that "PD providers use differentiated instruction to meet
the needs of all learners" really gets at this...but in addition to UDL,
I'd like to see some additional language that explicitly refers to PD
that assists and supports practitioners learn more in depth about
diversities, recognize and address privileged learning environments and
also to handle & mediate conflicts that arise among students and
practitioners....so that we can truly and meaningfully get to the
broader stoke sentiments of "all learners" and "variety of methods."

 

Kate Nonesuch requested specific references in standards for "...needs
and strategies around violence; it's a question of really making UDL
'universal.'" Otherwise, she shares, "...the important realities of our
lives and our work would get lost, or purposefully left out."

 

 

Word Choice

Participants suggested variations on using words to convey intended and
unintended meanings. On the one hand, "improves" could imply a deficit
approach to professional development. On the other-who does not have
room for improvement? As Allan French noted, "Professional athletes who
have completed spectacular seasons will be the first to tell you that
there is still room for improvement in their performance." Further,
words like "advance" could imply lagging behind. Use caution in word
choice without diluting the issues.

 

Keep the standards succinct. As Jeff Fantine noted, those that are "too
wordy" become confusing and tend to tackle too much.

 

 

What Do We Mean by Research and Professional Wisdom?

 

Standard #5: Professional development that improves the instruction and
learning for all adult learners: Enhances practitioners' abilities to
evaluate and apply current research, theory, evidence-based practices,
and professional wisdom.

 

What do we mean by research?

 

5c reads "Practitioners are encouraged to examine research critically."
Trawick noted:

 

In some systems, this could mean checking to see if the research is
experimental or quasi-experimental with random sampling. If it isn't, it
doesn't count (or not as much). In other systems, it could mean
realizing the strengths and contributions of various kinds of research,
recognizing characteristics of quality for each, and making judgments
accordingly. Is it the intent to leave the interpretation of research
open by the system?

 

Additionally, Johan Urvin suggested that the PD standards should capture
all that we know through research about the effectiveness of
professional development. For example: he states that the standards
should capture: 

	*	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)


Further, what do we mean by professional wisdom? Does it imply
expertise? Or do we mean beliefs and values? How relevant is the latter
if it's not backed by research?

 

 

PD Competencies vs. Quality Standards

 

Urvin asked:

 

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.

 

The AALPD Quality Standards focus on the system level, not the
individual level. The American Institutes for Research (AIR) developed
the PRO-NET Professional Development Coordinator Competencies, looking
specifically at the skills and knowledge individuals need to have to be
effective in their roles as professional developers at the state,
regional or local levels.  The competencies address the question, "What
would make a PD staff person/coordinator successful in his/her job?" 

 

http://www.calpro-online.org/pubs/pdccsiiaep_73.pdf

 

The Appendices include:

 

*	Professional development coordinator competencies and sample
performance indicators 
*	Professional development coordinator self-assessment tool 

 

The self-assessment tool uses a four-point Likert scale for the
individual to rate how relevant a competency is to the PD program, self,
and whether the competency is a goal for the PD staff's own professional
development.

 

Renee Sherman suggested ways that programs and states can use the
competencies:

*        Hiring staff

*        Conducting performance reviews

*        Self-assessing individual work

*        Planning professional development

*        Developing PD staff certification

 

 Further, she states that

 

...the two [competencies and standards] are connected for a quality
professional development system requires that professional development
staff is competent.  The existence or lack of competency can effect the
overall professional development system.

 

Funding and Time

Nadia Quiroz-Colby noted themes of funding and time throughout the
dialogues. She connected participants' experiences with professional
development that leads to change with these two themes. How do these
standards tie to the experiences shared in Week One of the Quality PD
Discussions?

 

Participants' Experiences With Change as Compared to the AALPD Draft
Quality PD Standards

 

Jackie Taylor added a column to the standards table, creating a matrix
of standards, indicators, and participants' experiences with change as
it might align to one or more aspects of each standard. This illustrates
where AALPD may have "hit the mark" and where the AALPD may need to
revisit as they finalize the draft AALPD Quality Standards.

 

http://wiki.literacytent.org/images/5/5e/Draft_Standards_with_Experience
s.doc

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/professionaldevelopment/attachments/20071213/3ae36d5f/attachment.html