PDP is a fairly new concept in WI. We have just finished our first 5 year cycle of teachers becoming recertified using this process. How is the PDP process an improved process over the current 6 credit requirement every five years?
The PDP is an improved process over the 6 credit requirement every five years because it has to be tied to evidence of its success. One stage of the PDP process is to have sustained and verifiable evidence that supports professional development. The evidence keeps teachers motivated to constantly seek evidence of positive student growth and how it is related to their PDP goal. The credit process never had any follow up work that was applied directly to student progress. The teacher may have tried some of the new techniques or different theories learned in the class, but there wasn’t a collection of supported evidence. Another reason why the PDP is an improved process is because it involves direct collaboration with the teacher’s district and other mentors. In the 6 credit format, teachers were not required to collaborate with anyone about the success or failure of their new plan. In the PDP format, the teachers are required to submit their goals and findings to their PDP team to give advice about how to make sure all students are benefitting from your goals. This insures that teachers are applying their skills and goals directly to the classroom and not just in papers or in theories. The goals need to reflect positive student growth so they have more of a direct impact on the student’s development.
The PDP system is a process rather than a task. The PDP involves many steps of the scientific method including establishing a problem, forming hypothesis, designing an experiment, collecting data, analyzing the data, making a conclusion, and sharing the results. Just as the scientific method is an evolving process so is the PDP. The PDP is data driven and will change as the data indicates it should. This makes the PDP more meaningful because the data provides evidence of positive ongoing changes. It also makes the PDP adaptable to personal needs. The ability of the teacher to formulate a plan that is specific to their circumstance increases relevance making the PDP better than the six credit model. Unfortunately the six credit system is based more on convenience rather than applicability. Many teachers take the easiest classes, classes that fit their time frame, or random credits that are accumulated because seminars they were required to attend could be taken for credit. The relevance of these courses has little to do with how they will make you a better teacher. Finally, the PDP has the critical element of evaluation and sharing of results. Having other administrators and experts analyze your data and conclusion makes the PDP very valuable to the instructor. True understand is gained through detailed defense and explanation of the PDP. This high level evaluation and reflection is missing from the six credit model.
The comment by Matt is very true. In his comment he states how the PDP is more adaptable in nature to the personal needs of the teacher. This is better because it can relate more to my class. If I took a class, there is nothing that says the information in the class will pertain directly to my class. Every class/school/district is different either on socially, economically, or maturity levels. To take one class may not have any direct impact on my students because it wouldn’t pertain to my situation. The PDP is developed by the teacher who has insight into their own personal situation. They know what needs to be improved better than a professor in a college. I also agree with Matt when he says defending the PDPs relevance or practicality against three people unfamiliar to your situation makes you become a reflective teacher. You know one day you will have to defend your goal, so it makes you more aware of what you are trying to do, thus focusing your efforts in the class to make improvements. I am not sure I agree that these people should be people that have no connection to your school or situation. How are they supposed to tell me what goal I should have or how to change my goal if they don’t know me or my school?
I appreciated (and was not surprised) to see the science teacher (Matt) make the comparison of the PDP process with the scientific method. It is a very appropriate way to think of the PDP, since one of the major goals of the process appears to be the gathering of data, both by the teacher in working on their PDP, and by the state of Wisconsin. PI34 came about during a period in education in which the focus was on accountability and standards, so it makes complete sense that the DPI would create a system in which they can achieve the goal of measuring teacher's performance against the standards created for just that purpose.
The 6-credit system was seriously flawed. Whether the original intention was to reassure a public concerned with the quality of teaching and education, or to create a system of lifelong learning and accountability for the state's teachers, it unfortunately mutated over time into something else entirely. While some of my colleagues and I have taken coursework over the years that have added to the licenses we hold and made us more valuable to our employers and our students, others have contributed to the negative image much of the public has about teachers by taking easy courses just to "get the credits in," often at the last minute. Many teachers are also shameless in their flaunting of the loopholes in the 6-credit system; I have actually had teachers offer me all of their papers and coursework so that I could get an easy "A" in a summer course to renew my license, rather than take something that would improve my teaching skills. In short, the old system allowed for maintenance of the status quo, making it possible for teachers to continue teaching the way they have always taught and bide their time until retirement, taking the minimum credits required to renew the license. The new PDP process, on the other hand, creates an environment in which constant improvement and growth is expected, and it requires the teacher to provide proof of the achievement of goals. The public should love this system, as it ensures that teachers are not resting on their laurels, but are always working toward improvement, which can only be good for students. School administrators are aware under the PDP system that their young teachers are continuing to add to their knowledge and skill base, and the teachers themselves have documentation of their accomplishments and a system to track their progress as an educator. Having said all of this, I feel it necessary to point out that any system is only as good as the administration of it. I have several colleagues working through the PDP process for the first time that feel completely lost in the system. They report not feeling supported by the DPI or the school district. Their questions of DPI personnel have gone unanswered, as the folks in Madison still don't know exactly how the entire process works and literally cannot answer some of the queries. District personnel are often untrained in how to support PDP teachers and some refuse to help. I hope that my friends are in the minority of teachers experiencing this phenomenon.
The goal of the old, 6 credit/5 year system was to improve the knowledge of the teachers and ensure that they were being life long learners. Originally, teachers were excited about the system because it allowed them to kill two birds with one stone. Not only did they get to take credits to extend their license, but it also allowed them to move up on the pay scale. They were furthering their careers, becoming better teachers, and extending their licenses.
However, later in their careers, taking 6 credits was more about money and efficiency. Teachers were looking for cheap, easy ways to get their credits, irregardless of how it improved them as educators. The DPI realized that their veteran teachers were leveling off in terms of their effectiveness.
The PDP process also aims to develop life long learners, but what sets this process apart is that it also impacts the learning of the students in the classroom. Teachers now need to make a goal for their students and describe how they plan to meet that goal. The goal needs to be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time specific). Teachers need to learn, research, and experiment with best practices in education. They have to guarantee that their students are being impacted by their growth.
This is what sets the PDP process apart from the 6 credit system. Now, DPI is killing two birds with one stone. They are seeing educators who are growing and continuing to be life long learners AND they are guaranteeing the improvement in student learning.
I believe the major improvement of the PDP process over the old six credit requirement is the level of accountability for actual growth in the classroom. The old system of requiring credits to be earned did little to ensure that the teacher was actually improving as a teacher. The new system has a much greater chance of actually ensuring that teachers are becoming more effective in the classroom. The teacher must take time to evaluate themselves on the teaching standards, develop goals and a plan to meet those goals. Another level of accountability is the team of educators that must approve the plan and monitor the process. While these levels of accountability require more work from the teacher it does help ensure that a teacher is actually improving their teaching. Taking six credits over five years did nothing to hold teachers accountable for actually improving their teaching. I like the added accountability, I just wish the process could be simplified for teachers that are already extremely busy.
Reflecting on the new PDP process and how it relates to the six year five credit system, it is easy to see how beneficial the new PDP process is in comparison to the old method. The 6 year/ 5 credit system was started with the best of intentions. Administrators wanted to ensure that teachers were continuing their education and truly becoming lifelong learners. In the beginning, teachers would take courses that reflected what they believed would help them become a better educator. This in turn seemed to satisfy all parties…the administrators who were trying to make teachers accountable for updating their license, the public who felt confident that educators were updating their education, the teachers who wanted to continue updating their license, and the students who would benefit from what the teachers were learning throughout the credit course limit.
Unfortunately, problems and flaws in the system began to arise with the six year/five credit system. Many of the credits that teachers were taking weren’t necessarily relevant to what they are teaching or doing in their classrooms. There is virtually no follow up after the credits are taken and teachers aren’t accountable for reflection on what they have learned and there is no guarantee that they will use the new knowledge they have gained. In addition, instead of using the credit system as an opportunity to enhance their knowledge in current practices to support the learning of their students, many teachers viewed it as a burden/ task that. The credits were even done at the last minute with little to no collaboration with peers or their own self-reflection.
Fortunately, the PDP system was developed which alleviates many of the frustrations and flaws that were found in the credit system. The PDP was developed as a tool for educators to update their license with the use of a variety of methods. These include everything from taking current courses, attending staff developments, self-reflection, analyzing data, setting goals, and implementing new ideas directly into current classroom instruction. The PDP incorporates all of these areas to help educators develop a goal that is important to their students and classroom needs. The plan allows educators to explore and accomplish their goal in a variety of ways while being accountable to administrators and colleges throughout the whole process. As a result, the PDP ensures that the teacher will truly grow as an educator and the students will benefit as a result.
I appreciate what Amy said about the system only being as good as the administration of it. The new system definately has greater potential to ensure teacher growth, but I think it is a system that is too complicated and makes it too difficult for both the teacher and administrator. As an administrator I am already extremely busy and having to sit on these teams would take more time than I would have to give.
Zach questioned the wisdom of requiring team members to be outside of your school system. I can see his point, because every school has unique qualities that would make it difficult for an outsider to know the relevance of the goal. However, I can also see why it would be good to have at least one person from the outside. It offers a level of accountability to an outside source. Some schools could begin to take shortcuts and not take the time to carefully evaluate the goals and progress that is being made and simply begin to go through the motions and not get as much out of the process. Does anyone know why it was decided to do it this way?
Steve I can understand your frustration and I also agree with Amy when she says the program is as good as the administrator of the system. Steve this does not always mean the school administrator but maybe lead educators directed by the school district. With great coaches that can help the teachers identify their strengths and weaknesses will help the PDP process even more meaning full. Allyson’s said it well in her post, when she says it allows teachers to be accountable to the administrators but also be able to explore and grow in their needs.
Steve I think you answered your own question on why it was decided to have an outside person. It was in hopes to keep the schools from slacking off and not holding the teachers fully accountable. The outside eyes would question the process and ask for proof. Remember it is just like getting ISO creditability. The teacher sets the goals, the advisor just make sure they are met.
PDP, Professional Development Plan… That is exactly what it is, a plan. The plan changes and moves with the growth of the professional. The individual plan is what makes PDP a powerful tool. This is what makes this system much more powerful than the 6 credit 5 year plan. Growth that meets your needs and meeting the districts needs. Six credit systems does not keep the teachers accountable for growth and not saying that all teachers abused the system and took basket weaving 101, or shared materials from classes they have taken with other educators, but it was all things that happen and are not spoken about in the open. PDP is not one size fits all and it will strengthen and reinforce each teacher in the areas they are weakest.
The PDP is an improved process over the 6 credit requirement every five years because it has to be tied to evidence of its success. One stage of the PDP process is to have sustained and verifiable evidence that supports professional development. The evidence keeps teachers motivated to constantly seek evidence of positive student growth and how it is related to their PDP goal. The credit process never had any follow up work that was applied directly to student progress. The teacher may have tried some of the new techniques or different theories learned in the class, but there wasn’t a collection of supported evidence.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason why the PDP is an improved process is because it involves direct collaboration with the teacher’s district and other mentors. In the 6 credit format, teachers were not required to collaborate with anyone about the success or failure of their new plan. In the PDP format, the teachers are required to submit their goals and findings to their PDP team to give advice about how to make sure all students are benefitting from your goals. This insures that teachers are applying their skills and goals directly to the classroom and not just in papers or in theories. The goals need to reflect positive student growth so they have more of a direct impact on the student’s development.
The PDP system is a process rather than a task. The PDP involves many steps of the scientific method including establishing a problem, forming hypothesis, designing an experiment, collecting data, analyzing the data, making a conclusion, and sharing the results. Just as the scientific method is an evolving process so is the PDP. The PDP is data driven and will change as the data indicates it should. This makes the PDP more meaningful because the data provides evidence of positive ongoing changes. It also makes the PDP adaptable to personal needs. The ability of the teacher to formulate a plan that is specific to their circumstance increases relevance making the PDP better than the six credit model. Unfortunately the six credit system is based more on convenience rather than applicability. Many teachers take the easiest classes, classes that fit their time frame, or random credits that are accumulated because seminars they were required to attend could be taken for credit. The relevance of these courses has little to do with how they will make you a better teacher. Finally, the PDP has the critical element of evaluation and sharing of results. Having other administrators and experts analyze your data and conclusion makes the PDP very valuable to the instructor. True understand is gained through detailed defense and explanation of the PDP. This high level evaluation and reflection is missing from the six credit model.
ReplyDeleteThe comment by Matt is very true. In his comment he states how the PDP is more adaptable in nature to the personal needs of the teacher. This is better because it can relate more to my class. If I took a class, there is nothing that says the information in the class will pertain directly to my class. Every class/school/district is different either on socially, economically, or maturity levels. To take one class may not have any direct impact on my students because it wouldn’t pertain to my situation. The PDP is developed by the teacher who has insight into their own personal situation. They know what needs to be improved better than a professor in a college. I also agree with Matt when he says defending the PDPs relevance or practicality against three people unfamiliar to your situation makes you become a reflective teacher. You know one day you will have to defend your goal, so it makes you more aware of what you are trying to do, thus focusing your efforts in the class to make improvements.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I agree that these people should be people that have no connection to your school or situation. How are they supposed to tell me what goal I should have or how to change my goal if they don’t know me or my school?
I appreciated (and was not surprised) to see the science teacher (Matt) make the comparison of the PDP process with the scientific method. It is a very appropriate way to think of the PDP, since one of the major goals of the process appears to be the gathering of data, both by the teacher in working on their PDP, and by the state of Wisconsin. PI34 came about during a period in education in which the focus was on accountability and standards, so it makes complete sense that the DPI would create a system in which they can achieve the goal of measuring teacher's performance against the standards created for just that purpose.
ReplyDeleteThe 6-credit system was seriously flawed. Whether the original intention was to reassure a public concerned with the quality of teaching and education, or to create a system of lifelong learning and accountability for the state's teachers, it unfortunately mutated over time into something else entirely. While some of my colleagues and I have taken coursework over the years that have added to the licenses we hold and made us more valuable to our employers and our students, others have contributed to the negative image much of the public has about teachers by taking easy courses just to "get the credits in," often at the last minute. Many teachers are also shameless in their flaunting of the loopholes in the 6-credit system; I have actually had teachers offer me all of their papers and coursework so that I could get an easy "A" in a summer course to renew my license, rather than take something that would improve my teaching skills. In short, the old system allowed for maintenance of the status quo, making it possible for teachers to continue teaching the way they have always taught and bide their time until retirement, taking the minimum credits required to renew the license.
ReplyDeleteThe new PDP process, on the other hand, creates an environment in which constant improvement and growth is expected, and it requires the teacher to provide proof of the achievement of goals. The public should love this system, as it ensures that teachers are not resting on their laurels, but are always working toward improvement, which can only be good for students. School administrators are aware under the PDP system that their young teachers are continuing to add to their knowledge and skill base, and the teachers themselves have documentation of their accomplishments and a system to track their progress as an educator.
Having said all of this, I feel it necessary to point out that any system is only as good as the administration of it. I have several colleagues working through the PDP process for the first time that feel completely lost in the system. They report not feeling supported by the DPI or the school district. Their questions of DPI personnel have gone unanswered, as the folks in Madison still don't know exactly how the entire process works and literally cannot answer some of the queries. District personnel are often untrained in how to support PDP teachers and some refuse to help. I hope that my friends are in the minority of teachers experiencing this phenomenon.
The goal of the old, 6 credit/5 year system was to improve the knowledge of the teachers and ensure that they were being life long learners. Originally, teachers were excited about the system because it allowed them to kill two birds with one stone. Not only did they get to take credits to extend their license, but it also allowed them to move up on the pay scale. They were furthering their careers, becoming better teachers, and extending their licenses.
ReplyDeleteHowever, later in their careers, taking 6 credits was more about money and efficiency. Teachers were looking for cheap, easy ways to get their credits, irregardless of how it improved them as educators. The DPI realized that their veteran teachers were leveling off in terms of their effectiveness.
The PDP process also aims to develop life long learners, but what sets this process apart is that it also impacts the learning of the students in the classroom. Teachers now need to make a goal for their students and describe how they plan to meet that goal. The goal needs to be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time specific). Teachers need to learn, research, and experiment with best practices in education. They have to guarantee that their students are being impacted by their growth.
This is what sets the PDP process apart from the 6 credit system. Now, DPI is killing two birds with one stone. They are seeing educators who are growing and continuing to be life long learners AND they are guaranteeing the improvement in student learning.
I believe the major improvement of the PDP process over the old six credit requirement is the level of accountability for actual growth in the classroom. The old system of requiring credits to be earned did little to ensure that the teacher was actually improving as a teacher. The new system has a much greater chance of actually ensuring that teachers are becoming more effective in the classroom. The teacher must take time to evaluate themselves on the teaching standards, develop goals and a plan to meet those goals. Another level of accountability is the team of educators that must approve the plan and monitor the process. While these levels of accountability require more work from the teacher it does help ensure that a teacher is actually improving their teaching. Taking six credits over five years did nothing to hold teachers accountable for actually improving their teaching. I like the added accountability, I just wish the process could be simplified for teachers that are already extremely busy.
ReplyDeleteReflecting on the new PDP process and how it relates to the six year five credit system, it is easy to see how beneficial the new PDP process is in comparison to the old method. The 6 year/ 5 credit system was started with the best of intentions. Administrators wanted to ensure that teachers were continuing their education and truly becoming lifelong learners. In the beginning, teachers would take courses that reflected what they believed would help them become a better educator. This in turn seemed to satisfy all parties…the administrators who were trying to make teachers accountable for updating their license, the public who felt confident that educators were updating their education, the teachers who wanted to continue updating their license, and the students who would benefit from what the teachers were learning throughout the credit course limit.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, problems and flaws in the system began to arise with the six year/five credit system. Many of the credits that teachers were taking weren’t necessarily relevant to what they are teaching or doing in their classrooms. There is virtually no follow up after the credits are taken and teachers aren’t accountable for reflection on what they have learned and there is no guarantee that they will use the new knowledge they have gained. In addition, instead of using the credit system as an opportunity to enhance their knowledge in current practices to support the learning of their students, many teachers viewed it as a burden/ task that. The credits were even done at the last minute with little to no collaboration with peers or their own self-reflection.
Fortunately, the PDP system was developed which alleviates many of the frustrations and flaws that were found in the credit system. The PDP was developed as a tool for educators to update their license with the use of a variety of methods. These include everything from taking current courses, attending staff developments, self-reflection, analyzing data, setting goals, and implementing new ideas directly into current classroom instruction. The PDP incorporates all of these areas to help educators develop a goal that is important to their students and classroom needs. The plan allows educators to explore and accomplish their goal in a variety of ways while being accountable to administrators and colleges throughout the whole process. As a result, the PDP ensures that the teacher will truly grow as an educator and the students will benefit as a result.
I appreciate what Amy said about the system only being as good as the administration of it. The new system definately has greater potential to ensure teacher growth, but I think it is a system that is too complicated and makes it too difficult for both the teacher and administrator. As an administrator I am already extremely busy and having to sit on these teams would take more time than I would have to give.
ReplyDeleteZach questioned the wisdom of requiring team members to be outside of your school system. I can see his point, because every school has unique qualities that would make it difficult for an outsider to know the relevance of the goal. However, I can also see why it would be good to have at least one person from the outside. It offers a level of accountability to an outside source. Some schools could begin to take shortcuts and not take the time to carefully evaluate the goals and progress that is being made and simply begin to go through the motions and not get as much out of the process. Does anyone know why it was decided to do it this way?
ReplyDeleteSteve I can understand your frustration and I also agree with Amy when she says the program is as good as the administrator of the system. Steve this does not always mean the school administrator but maybe lead educators directed by the school district. With great coaches that can help the teachers identify their strengths and weaknesses will help the PDP process even more meaning full. Allyson’s said it well in her post, when she says it allows teachers to be accountable to the administrators but also be able to explore and grow in their needs.
ReplyDeleteSteve I think you answered your own question on why it was decided to have an outside person. It was in hopes to keep the schools from slacking off and not holding the teachers fully accountable. The outside eyes would question the process and ask for proof. Remember it is just like getting ISO creditability. The teacher sets the goals, the advisor just make sure they are met.
ReplyDeletePDP, Professional Development Plan… That is exactly what it is, a plan. The plan changes and moves with the growth of the professional. The individual plan is what makes PDP a powerful tool. This is what makes this system much more powerful than the 6 credit 5 year plan. Growth that meets your needs and meeting the districts needs. Six credit systems does not keep the teachers accountable for growth and not saying that all teachers abused the system and took basket weaving 101, or shared materials from classes they have taken with other educators, but it was all things that happen and are not spoken about in the open. PDP is not one size fits all and it will strengthen and reinforce each teacher in the areas they are weakest.
ReplyDelete