Feedback on AALPD Standards
From LiteracyTentWiki
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1761] Re: Experiences with PD Standards
From: Wendi Maxwell WMaxwell at cde.ca.gov
Date: Thu Nov 29 14:04:24 EST 2007
We have not articulated formal PD standards in California although, as
you noted, we do have guiding principles. Development of standards in
our state is a highly complex process involving input from several
hundred school districts, community colleges, and CBOs, formal State
Board actions, open hearings, legal opinions, etc., therefore standards
development is not something that is undertaken quickly. We are
beginning a conversation that parallels the one on this list. I will be
using the discussion topics to guide our progress. It's wonderful to
have this dialogue as a model.
David asked for feedback on the proposed AALPD standards. I think the
standards themselves are mostly very good and very appropriate. Good job
everyone that worked on them! The indicators however, are sometimes a
little overly prescriptive for our state and not always something that
can be accomplished on a broad scale. I think they would work very well
as indicators for our local programs. (I've always considered indicators
to be examples rather than requirements, so for the most part, the
standards themselves take care of the majority of issues for me.)
I must chime in on Standard #11 which talks about paid professional
development time. 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.
Standards 1 - 10 all seem strong, however I don't think you can
appropriately expect all PD activities to meet all standards. Let's
think about the various kinds of activities we have - one shot
workshops, linked workshop events, conferences, symposia, downloadable
materials, online courses (both asynchronous and self-paced), regional
collaborations, in service training within a school or college, coaching
and mentoring, networking groups, study circles, learning communities,
etc. 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.)
Another example. For instance (#6), there are still valid roles for the
one-shot workshop, especially when you're trying to establish a common
recognition of the importance of specific practices. The same holds true
for self-paced online courses, downloadable documents, etc. (A teacher
may be ready to learn a little bit about something, but not yet ready to
incorporate that knowledge into their practice.) Likewise the idea that
everything contributes to a learning community (#9) is very nice but not
always needed. Teachers also seek out information for their own
individual career development - not necessarily aligned to the goals of
the community within their school.
All those concerns
primarily address David's question ":Should all
standards apply to all activities?" Answer - you should always evaluate
your PD activity on all the standards, however if your activity doesn't
meet all the standards, it doe not necessarily mean it's the wrong thing
to do.
The bigger question is "Do you like the standards? Are they too
restrictive? Are they too general?" I think the standards are great,
except #11, which I don't think is actually an indicator of effective
professional development. It's an indicator of effective program
management - different thing. I think the standards are appropriate, are
challenging, and are realistic. Not too hard, not too soft, as
Goldilocks said, "just right."
Wendi Maxwell
Education Programs Consultant
Adult Education Office
California Department of Education
1430 N Street, Suite 4503
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1762] Re: ProfessionalDevelopment Digest, Vol 26, Issue 34
From: Yankwitt Ira (79K755) IYankwitt at schools.nyc.gov
Date: Thu Nov 29 14:33:28 EST 2007
I very much appreciate the spirit of Cindy's post. Back in May, I
changed jobs from directing the state-funded professional development
project for New York City, to overseeing professional development
initiatives for NYC's largest program. The program I now work for (the
NYC Dept. of Education's Office of Adult and Continuing Education) has
over 400 teachers and nearly 800 classes citywide. I think the PD
Standards are both visionary and comprehensive. At the same time, as my
job has changed from thinking about professional development systems at
a macro level to thinking about professional development implementation
at a program level, the PD standards have gone from unqualifiedly
inspiring to somewhat frightening. My concern is that unless the
adoption of the Standards is preceded by an increase in funding for
professional development infrastructure and resources, they will go from
being a blueprint for systems-building to simply another accountability
burden for local programs.
Ira Yankwitt
Director of Program Initiatives
Office of Adult and Continuing Education
NYC Department of Education
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1763] Re: ProfessionalDevelopment Digest, Vol 26, Issue 34
From: Kate.Brandt at mail.cuny.edu Kate.Brandt at mail.cuny.edu
Date: Fri Nov 30 10:57:03 EST 2007
I want to second Ira on this. I've been a staff developer for the CUNY's
adult literacy programs for a number of years, so obviously I believe that
staff development can make a difference. In the funding structures we
currenly operate in, however, in which being an ABE/GED instructor
requires no formal training and is not compensated by benefits or a living
wage, the idea that each teacher can have an individual PD plan seems "pie
in the sky." Before such standards could be adopted, we'd have to work to
make sure that there's funding to support them. Otherwise, as Ira
pointed out, these could become simply another under- or non-funded
accountability measure.
I also have some questions about the standards. What is "universal
design?" And exactly which evidence-based teaching practices will we, as
staff developers, be expected to pass on to teachers?
Thanks,
Kate Brandt
ABE/GED Staff Developer
City University of New York
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1765] Re: ProfessionalDevelopment Digest, Vol 26, Issue 34
From: Caren Fairweather cfairweather at misn-ny.org
Date: Fri Nov 30 11:44:35 EST 2007
In response to Ira' and Kate's emails, below, in the mid-90's NYSED was
looking into creating a portfolio system to credential adult literacy
teachers (since NYS has no degree or certification in Adult Literacy).
I particpated on the statewide work group. And, as I recall, as Ira
suggests, the lack of funding to support professional development was a
main reason the project came to a screeching halt. In New York, the
lion's share of Adult Literacy instructors are part time employees. In
many cases they are not covered by the same employee benefits as full
time public school K-12 teachers, who get pay increases or steps upon
completing a Masters' Degree, attaining permanent certification, etc.
So I guess I am adding details to Kate and Ira's missives - And I need
to pose the question: what must we do to validate and professionalize
adult literacy and provide teachers of it comparable professional
opportunities, including salary and benefits, time off for professional
deevlopment, etc. The obvious partial answer is to create a mechanism
for funding public adult literacy education. Can't say I have an answer
to that one!
Caren Fairweather
Executive Director
Maternal-Infant Services Network
Central Valley, NY
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1764] Re: Speak up NOW please about theAALPDdraft standards
From: Amy Trawick atrawick at charter.net
Date: Fri Nov 30 11:50:46 EST 2007
The latest edition of TCRecord contains a reprint of an article by Alisa Belzer and Ralf St. Clair entitled:
Back to the Future: Implications of the Neopositivist Research Agenda for Adult Basic Education
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=11915.
It struck me as relevant to the current discussion about the AAPLD standards because of standards #1 and #5, which address the use of research in professional development. I think the whole notion of providing pd in "research-based" instructional approaches is a complex one, considering:
- 1) the scant research that exits;
- 2) the types of research that "count," and
- 3) how we as professional developers tend to talk (or not talk) about research.
Thus, I especially like standard #5 and think it would be a great contribution to the field. I do wonder if there is an implied right answer involved in some of the indicators. For instance, 5c reads "Practitioners are encouraged to examine research critically." 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?
This issue of specificity gets at one that the committee is interested in getting feedback on--so just a few thoughts on that. To me, the standards don't really read as standards to reference in terms of a specific training/pd opportunity but in reference to building/enhancing a PD system. I envision the AAPLD standards being used much like many sets of "national" standards (e.g., EFF; IRA/NCTE; NCTM)--as a go-to document that systems use in developing their own standards. I would not expect nor encourage a system to just "adopt" the standards in whatever form AAPLD ultimately provides. Instead, I would expect and encourage systems to use them to inform their thinking when developing their own PD system. Thus, I tend to think it is a good idea to go a little broad--because wrestling internally with how the system interprets certain standards/indicators fosters ownership and customization to the local context. And, because I see the standards as being useful for the whole system, I see #11 as being relevant (someone else had pointed out that this is a management issue), although I would turn each lower-case Roman numeral into its own indicator.
In general, I think the document does a good job of remaining flexible, but sometimes, as someone else pointed out, it gets very specific. For example, 1d specifically states, "Prepares instructors to address new content through varied teaching strategies, including a problem-solving approach." The last part seems more specific than the indicators usually are. Why is a problem-solving approach mentioned specifically, as opposed to a participatory approach or a contextualized approach or some other? I also wonder about the use of the term "universal design", specifically. It may be okay, especially if there's a glossary as a supplement, but it also dates the document (it's a "hot" term/approach right now but could be replaced with something similar down the road). 11.a.iv. is very specific with "monthly staff meeting"--maybe "regular staff meetings" would be better. And all of THIS ties to the question of are these "standards" or "guidelines." You might even add "recommendations" to that question. If there is a desire to forward a certain approach to teaching and research--in addition to pd--the document could be accompanied by another "Recommendations" document. Wouldn't that be fun to write:).
Thank you to everyone on the committee. I think this is quite a meaty document, and I so appreciate your work on it!
Amy
Amy R. Trawick
North Wilkesboro, NC
atrawick at charter.net
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1769] AALPD standards and policies
From: Andy Nash andy_nash at worlded.org
Date: Sun Dec 2 17:17:30 EST 2007
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
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1770] Re: AALPD standards and policies
From: Nadia and Kevin Colby thecolbys at prodigy.net
Date: Sun Dec 2 22:47:22 EST 2007
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
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1779] Re: AALPD: Please post feedback by Dec. 7th
From: mev at litwomen.org mev at litwomen.org
Date: Thu Dec 6 10:39:37 EST 2007
I haven't had a chance to read all the posts, so I hope my comments
are not duplicative...but...
hmmmm - how to say this...
I know we want the standards to be relatively broad stroke -- and I
think including UDL is important (and often overlooked). But I'm a
little concerned that in all our speak of "all learners," varieties
of approaches and methods and building collaborations, adult learning
priorities, etc., we maybe diluting too much.
I am especially concerned about #2. It seems the only conversation
about supportive environments underscores the need for Universal
design. (There have been a couple of questions about the definition
of universal design and the only "response" I've seen is the
reference to a CALPRO fact sheet.) But I don't believe the UDL will
necessarily get to the other critical realities of adult basic ed --
that we are working with populations disadvantaged by systemic
oppressions based on race, class, gender, sexualities, culture,
language, ethnicity -- as well as disabilities and age, etc.
I'm not sure what the language should be -- and I don't think that
"PD providers use differentiated instruction to meet the needs of all
learners" really gets at this. Perhaps the word-smithers can help
here -- 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."
and to #9 -- I would add "Resource Collections" -- those could be
lending libraries, websites, etc.
Mev Miller
WE LEARN
welearn at litwomen.org
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1781] Re: AALPD: Please post feedback byDec. 7th
From: jeffrey A fantine fantine at ohio.edu
Date: Thu Dec 6 14:38:34 EST 2007
PD Peeps:
I've been reflecting on the AALPD PD Standards, as many of you have, and
would like to share the following comments (I, like Mev, did not read the
entire discussion to date, so some of this may have been said already):
- 1. I think the committee did a great job of drafting these standards - probably because they are very similar to the PD standards developed by the National Staff Development Council and I've always liked theirs: <http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm>.
- 2. In the heading of the table under "standards," it reads "PD that improves the instruction and learning for all adult learners." I suggest, "PD that advances the field of adult education" or something other than the deficit model (in other words, not using the word "improves") - PD is necessary for any field, and it's never ending - so let's not suggest something is being done wrong by using the word "improves" - maybe something like, "PD that ensures appropriate adult education services are provided in order that all adult learners meet their goals." - or "equips," or "allows for" ...
- 3. My personal opinion is not to make them too wordy - which ultimately tends to make them confusing and attempt to tackle too much. I would suggest making them very short and explicit:
For example
Quality PD is PD that:
- 1. builds knowledge and skills.
- 2. is based on research.
- 3. is flexible, varied and ongoing.
- 4. is driven by data, relevant stakeholders, and a written plan.
- 5. accommodates all learners. (although this should be an indicator for #1 or #6 depending on what is meant here)
- 6. practices what is preached. (models adult learning theory)
- 7. is supported by leadership.
- 8. fosters collaboration.
Column 2 is where we should elaborate on each one of these with indicators. I may be the only one on this list that prefers fewer words, but as the saying goes, sometimes less is more...
If you do keep them relatively the same - I would consider combining #'s 3 and 4.
-J
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1782] Standards
From: Uvin, Johan Johan.Uvin at ride.ri.gov
Date: Thu Dec 6 16:18:21 EST 2007
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
From: Kate Nonesuch at mala.ca
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:43 PM
To: The Adult Literacy Professional Development Discussion List
Subject: RE: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1779] Re: AALPD: Please post
feedbackbyDec. 7th
I'm with you on this, Mev. I'm currently working with 10 other women on
a project to figure out how to change literacy practice in light of the
literacy research on the effects of violence on learning. I think UDL
is a useful idea in this context-a practitioner should assume that
some/many learners will be dealing with present or past trauma due to
violence, and that all of us live in a society that condones violence on
many fronts.
However, in order to be useful in my present context, principles of UDL
would have to include specific references to needs and strategies around
violence; it's a question of really making UDL "universal" and like you
I worry that important realities of our lives and our work would get
lost, or purposefully left out.
Kate Nonesuch
Career and Academic Preparation
Malaspina University-College, Cowichan Campus
222 Cowichan Way
Duncan, BC
V9L 6P4
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1788] Re: AALPD: Please post feedback byDec. 7th
From: French, Allan afrench at sccd.ctc.edu
Date: Fri Dec 7 16:51:22 EST 2007
Words are important for the sake of clarity of expression, and should be used properly (my current pet peeve is the universal overuse of the term "absolutely").
And I agree with Jeffrey Fantine that being too wordy can lead to confusion. But I also see that excessive attention given to "wordsmithing" can detract from an issue and make us overly worried about anything we say. Criticisms of the use of the term "lurker" is one previous example that comes to mind. In the case below, "improve" is seen as having a negative context, that something is wrong. I see "improve" as implying that something is not perfect, not static and can get better, and not one of these characteristics is normally deemed a criticism. Professional athletes who have completed spectacular seasons will be the first to tell you that there is still room for improvement in their performance. Moreover, the word "advance" could also imply that one is lagging behind. And on we go (or can't go) because we get mired in trying to be perfectly politically correct with each word used.
Submitted respectfully,
Allan French
ESL Instructor
South Seattle Community College
afrench at sccd.ctc.edu
Subject: [ProfessionalDevelopment 1789] Re: AALPD: Standards feedback
From: benard manyibe bmanyibe at yahoo.com
Date: Sat Dec 8 07:31:27 EST 2007
Jackie,
Perhaps what I am raising is contained in the universal design that you have severally mentioned. Nonetheless, professional development standards should explicitly manifest sensitivity to issues like values, ethics, and diversity. Benard
Benard Manyibe www.theyouthvisioninternational.org
