PaidPDDiscussion

From LiteracyTentWiki

The Association of Adult Literacy Professional Developers, a network of professional developers across the country, is engaged in an on-going process of developing a platform of policies related to professional development. This platform would constitute a vision for professional development for which the whole field can advocate. AALPD invites discussion of this platform, in an effort to draft policies that represent the field's view. Please join the discussion by adding your comments in below or by subscribing to NIFL-AALPD. To subscribe, visit:
http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/discussions/nifl-aalpd/subscribe_aalpd.html

To add or edit text AleDirections
Back to PDandPolicies
Back to AleProfessionalDevelopment

[edit]

Introduction

Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1891] Supporting Teacher Change
From: <jataylor_at_utk.edu>, <csmith_at_worlded.org>

Colleagues:
This past summer, we had a discussion on NIFL-AALPD of the NCSALL research, "How Teachers Change: A Study of Professional Development in Adult Education." From that discussion of the research, many implications for policy surfaced. Given that one of three main purposes of AALPD and this discussion list is contributing the field's voice in shaping policy initiatives, we feel that it is important for the AALPD to begin to synthesize your "voices" about what policies, if implemented, would best support teachers to access professional development and to do their jobs well. We want to develop a list of positions on policies that can be advocated by us and by other organizations in the field (we would hope to incorporate such positions into policy platforms by, for example, the National Coalition for Literacy, an organization that advocates for supportive legislation and funding in our field).

About a month ago, we posted a short survey on the list, asking you about paid professional development release time in your program and state. We will be posting those results here on Monday, January 17th.

This winter and spring, we will be posing questions for us as a field, to think about, along with corresponding aspects of the professional development research. Eventually, after discussing many more issues about professional development and working conditions, AALPD will develop a draft position/policy statement, and present it to our members for discussion, possibly at the COABE AALPD pre-conference in May 2005 in Anaheim. We hope this process can move our field forward in advocating for policies that support teachers to get the professional development they need and do the best job possible.

We hope you will participate in upcoming discussions of what you think fair policies might look like that would support professional development and teacher working conditions for adult basic education, literacy and language teachers.

More to come,

Cristine Smith
Chair
Association of Adult Literacy Professional Developers

Jackie Taylor
Vice-Chair
Association of Adult Literacy Professional Developers

[edit]

Policies and Paid Professional Development

Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1918] Policies and paid professional development
From: <jataylor_at_utk.edu>, <cristinesmith_at_comcast.net>

Colleagues:
We'd like to know your perspectives regarding what policies might be that support paying teachers for professional development. After hearing from you, we'll then frame up a position statement about paid professional development, and then move on to another professional development/working condition issue.

Question:
Based on your experiences, what do you think about every state having a policy of funding and requiring programs to provide 2.5% of a teacher's annual paid hours as paid professional development release time?

Background:
The NCSALL Professional Development Study found that teachers who had more annual paid professional development release time attended the professional development activity for more hours, and those who attended for more hours demonstrated more change after having participated. Thus, this research at least suggests that paying practitioners for the time they spend in professional development is related to how much they learn and change as a result of that professional development. So, if we are to advocate for paid professional development release time, what's a fair and reasonable policy for doing that, given scarce resources in our field?

One possible position is that every teacher in the field, no matter how part-time, should be compensated, at their regular working hour rate, for the time they spend in the professional development they attend. One way to do this would be to set a minimum percentage of time for funded professional development, say for example, 2.5% of paid hours. (For a full-time teacher working 40 hours a week for 40 weeks, this would be equivalent to 40 hours a year of paid professional development release time, or 5 full days. For a part-time teacher working 15 hours per week for 40 weeks, this would be 15 hours a year. Teachers who work less than 15 hours per week would also receive a minimum of 15 hours per year.) What do you think?

Please post your comments, opinions, alternate proposals, etc., to this list over the next 9-10 days. Then we will synthesize what we have heard and develop a draft position statement about paid professional development release time.

We look forward to hearing from you,

Cristine Smith, Chair, AALPD
Jackie Taylor, Vice-Chair, AALPD

Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1920] FW: Policies and paid professional development
From: vh10_at_txstate.edu

Friends and Colleagues,

Working conditions of adult literacy teachers is a matter near and dear to my heart.

I think your proposition to pay teachers for hours spent on professional development - at their hourly rate - is a good one. And I think that 15 hours is a good minimum number of hours. In Texas, teachers in the WIA- supported adult education system are required to have a minimum of 12 hours of professional development (actually, the number of hours varies, depending on the status of the teacher, and could be a bit higher). Further, how and whether teachers are compensated is a local program decision. For instance, some teachers may attend the required professional development and receive a stipend that is significantly below their hourly rate.

Of course, some administrators are hesitant to "take money away" from instructional costs because they are afraid their "numbers" (hours of instruction - part of the formula on which funding is based - and possibly also test scores) will go down and render them less competitive when applying for funds.

However, if all programs were required to support professional development in this way, no one program would be at a "competitive disadvantage" when they paid teachers for professional development time.

And, there's anecdotal evidence (at least) that suggests that programs that support professional development in this way are just as competitive, sometimes more so, than programs that do not.

This makes sense because, presumably, working conditions affect teacher satisfaction which affects various teacher behaviors that affect a variety of student variables (including student retention) that are related to student success.

For more clarification, please see the comments I added to - embedded within - the text below.

Vicki

Victoria Hoffman, PhD
The Education Institute (TEI; formerly Center for Initiatives in Education)
Central Region Project GREAT
Texas State University-San Marcos
601 University Drive
San Marcos, TX 78666

vh10_at_txstate.edu
Vicki’s Office 512-245-9046
TEI Office 512-245-2438
TEI FAX 512-245-8151

Subject:[NIFL-AALPD:1924] Re: Policies and paid professional development
From: Varshna Narumanchi-Jackson (varshna_at_grandecom.net)

Jackie,

As Vicki Hoffman noted, the State Board of Education in Texas requires 12 hours of PD for experienced (2+ yrs) or certified teachers and 24 for new teachers (less than 2 yrs). In my current position, I do not teach and do not practice any licensed or regulated profession that requires on-going skills maintenance or development. PD is offered at the discretion of my employer and for the benefit of the organization. This is not to say that I am denied PD!

PD, however, in the case of lawyers, teachers, doctors, or others is part of the regulation of their profession. As a hospital administrator, I could not post a job description saying that I am looking for unlicensed doctors, because the state won't allow me to have unlicensed doctors practicing medicine. I have to write a job description that says licensure is required, and I have to ask for proof of the licensure. Doctors maintain their license by documenting on-going, creditable PD. Hospitals pay for the PD -- and malpractice insurance -- because they require it as a condition of employment. I would argue that that the SBOE places a similar burden on directors of adult education programs with the 12/24 hour rule; as a result, programs are legally required to pay for that time.

Now, as a teacher, I can go work for a program that isn't funded by money that the SBOE administers and not worry at all about 12 or 24 hours. Then I may find myself in the condition I am in now -- at the discretion of my employer and for the benefit of the organization. But many I know have made this decision because they have been forced to give up pay (by attending PD on a night they would normally be teaching on) or by giving up a Saturday! I have even heard teachers threatened with the prospect of not being rehired for the following semester/year because attendance at PD events was spotty. What motivation! The teacher has everything to lose (tonight's income and a future income) while the program has nothing to lose -- they didn't spend a dime either way! The irony is even more delicious when one takes into account the qualify of most in-services that count towards the 12/24 rule.

K-12 teachers are mandated to have xx number of PD hours annually, and guess who pays for that time? So, no, I could not support a blanket 2.5 percent policy. I also have to argue against setting a 2.5 percent limit because, in my opinion, states (and some directors) will see that as the upper limit, not the lower limit. It creates an artificial psychological threshold that states may not feel they should cross.

Varshna Narumanchi-Jackson
Austin, TX

Subject:[NIFL-AALPD:1925] Re: Policies and paid professional development
From: Victoria Hoffman (vh10_at_txstate.edu)

Friends and Colleagues,

So, Varshna, your argument, at least for Texas, is:

  • local programs in Texas are already legally required to pay for

professional development that falls under the 12/24 State Board of Education Rule (whether they do or not)

  • that a 2.5% policy would not change the requirement to pay for the 12/24

hours of professional development that already exists (though is not always followed)

  • and that a 2.5% policy might be "harmful" because it might limit the

professional development that local programs are inclined to pay for.


I agree that Texas programs are already legally required to pay for professional development. And I agree that a 2.5% policy would not change that requirement. My question is: How can local programs that do not pay for the required 12/24 hours be motivated to pay?

Victoria Hoffman, PhD
Central Region GREAT Center
The Education Institute (TEI; formerly Center for Initiatives in Education)
Texas State University-San Marcos
601 University Drive
San Marcos, TX 78666

vh10_at_txstate.edu
Vicki's Office 512-245-9046
TEI Office 512-245-2438
TEI FAX 512-245-8151

Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1930] Re: Policies and paid professional development
From: Varshna Narumanchi-Jackson (varshna_at_grandecom.net)

So, Varshna, your argument, at least for Texas, is:
  • local programs in Texas are already legally required to pay for professional development that falls under the 12/24 State Board of Education Rule (whether they do or not)
Agreed. However, I don't think TEA has ever articulated a policy. TEA's contractor for adult education, Texas Learns, may not have the authority to set policy.
  • that a 2.5% policy would not change the requirement to pay for the 12/24 hours of professional development that already exists (though is not always followed)
Agreed.
  • and that a 2.5% policy might be "harmful" because it might limit the professional development that local programs are inclined to pay for.
Agreed.
  • I agree that Texas programs are already legally required to pay for professional development. And I agree that a 2.5% policy would not change that requirement.
Glad to hear it.
  • My question is: How can local programs that do not pay for the required 12/24 hours be motivated to pay?
I'm not trying to dodge your question, but perhaps the issue is larger than our business. There is a strong reluctance to *train* employees because, I suspect, there is a fear that once they are trained, they leave. Experience and skills = greater opportunity and better compensation.
I had this discussion last night with a computer programmer. He knows certain programming languages but wants to get hired to work on projects that require him to learn something new -- personal growth, professional development, etc. He isn't getting any traction because every employer fears that once he has learned something new, he can leave and take the training (dollars) with him. I believe this is even more of a problem for jobs with skills that are highly transferable to other occupations.
If there are any adult education program directors reading along, I would like to learn:
A) what barriers --from federal or state policy-- exist that prevent you from budgeting for PD release time? If none exist in policy -- or there is no policy -- what gives you authority (or doesn't) in your grant application and award to pay for PD release time?
B) what programmatic barriers exist (e.g., interferes with class schedules, most instructors have full-time day jobs, high turnover rate)?
C) what staffing issues exist (e.g., rural nature of the community drives up compensation for PD & PD release time)?
In your PD needs assessment of adult education programs in the central GREAT region, Vicki, what barriers did program directors identify to accessing the PD that you provide? Was stipends for teachers one of the items identified?

Thanks, Varshna.

Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1938] Re: Policies and paid professional development
From: jataylor (jataylor_at_utk.edu)

Hello Vicki, Varshna, All, Thanks, both of you, for sharing your insights on whether or not to have a policy for paid professional development release time. There are lots of questions here to explore! I don't want to lose those. Perhaps we should start collecting questions and keep them in one place for revisiting throughout this discussion. I'd especially like to come back to the issue you raise about barriers to accessing professional development.

Varshna, given your description, I understand why you wouldn’t support a blanket 2.5% policy. State mandates without the money behind them only increases the burden on programs and teachers, and as Vicki pointed out, teacher satisfaction (or not) and how that unrolls in classrooms. What we would be advocating is for the state to fund programs specifically to pay teachers 2.5% of a teacher's annual paid hours as paid PD release time.

How might that policy work? A state would do the following if there were such a policy....The state would communicate to programs in the RFP they put out that programs must allocate 2.5% of each teacher’s total annual teaching hours for staff development, and the program director is to write that into the budget that the state will fund the program for. Then, the state funds the program’s budget, which includes the 2.5% for each teacher, and the program spends the money that way. And as Varshna noted, it would need to be clear that we are saying that the 2.5% is the bare minimum, not the maximum. So each state would have a policy for paid professional development with a minimum of 2.5%, they include it in their RFP and require programs to write it in their budget, and then they fund it.

Vicki, Varshna, would you still not support such a policy? Why or why not? What do others think?

I hope others will weigh into this discussion. I look forward to hearing from you!

Best,

Jackie Taylor
jataylor@utk.edu


To add or edit text AleDirections
Back to PDandPolicies
Back to AleProfessionalDevelopment

Retrieved from "http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/PaidPDDiscussion"