PD or not PD

Geoffrey Fletcher's commentary in the March, 2007 issue of THE Journal is a great read. His article focuses on professional development offered for technology integration, or the lack thereof. "Educators give lip service to professional development, but they don't spend money on it," one vendor is quoted as saying. Her thought as a vendor is that schools want the training for free like they do with textbooks. "They said textbook publishers give free training, [so] the technology guys should do the same," says one tech coordinator.

According to Fletcher's research from Market Data Retrieval, PD spending in the United States classrooms hovers between 5 to 8 cents for every dollar spent on technology. Recently, after increasing the demands on schools for improving student technology literacy, the federal government turned around and cut the educational technology budget in a huge way. So where are our priorities as a world power? In technology preparation and funding, I would say we have become a developing country.

Why do I bring this up? As educators we all know there is never enough PD on technology, and cost is but one of the factors. Time is another. Then again, for us to have time, it costs money to either offer stipends, comp time, or quality subs in the classroom to allow us to attend. No, the reason I bring this up is that the Long Range Plan for Technology adopted by TEA says that 30% of the total district budget on technology needs to be spent on professional development. That means thirty cents for every dollar spent on technology in your district will go toward offering (hopefully) quality PD with technology topics. The focus is a 24/7 PD offering to allow educators and administrators the chance to learn when it is convenient. What I see is districts either creating new positions for curriculum developers or stipends for tech savvy staff to develop it after hours.

Have you tried taking PD with this type of presentation? Maybe it is downloadable modules or online coursework with an asynchronous discussion setting. Or it could be a video online where you answer some questions at the end and then print out a certificate. ATPE has piloted a program on their site where you read articles online and then answer questions and then print a certificate. This is great for those who have to renew their certification every five years and need alternative ways for PD credits.

David Warlick and others have discussed a personal learning network (PLN). It is your own design in your area of interest where you challenge yourself through reading and interacting with your peers. You choose the sources as well as the times you interact. Blogs, RSS aggregators, and podcasts are important in this area to help you out. While there is no proof of your work here other than your improved performance as a professional, TEA still allows this style of PD to count toward your PD requirements for certificate renewal. While I have a lifetime certificate, I still choose to have a vast PLN made up of great educational thinkers like Will Richardson, Miguel Guhlin, David Warlick, Jennifer Wagner, Wes Fryer, Eddie, BWP bloggers, ..

I guess I am posting on this to flesh out my thoughts as to what is already going on as well as hopefully get feedback from others about their learning preferences in this arena. BWP offers top notch, in-person professional development. We are in the process of designing online PD offerings. How would you prefer to receive it? Do you need the deadlines of a time length, syllabus-based course offering? Or do you prefer the ability to log-in and out when it is convenient, work at your own pace, do some type of summative activity for proof, and then print your certificate of completion?

The one thing we cannot create for educators is time. We can make any PD offering you need. We can even offer it in differing formats. We just need to know what you find the most convenient and purposeful to you and how you would like to access it.

Be thankful Texas is finally taking the lead in long range planning in technology. The forethought to mandate funds (albeit not new money) toward professional development will only serve to benefit educators as a whole. If we are benefiting the teachers, the kids are going to reap the rewards. That is what this is all about, right?

Technology is a great tool. But, like most of the tools in my garage, if they are not used they are useless. We must provide the training necessary for teachers to efficiently and effectively utilize what the district is providing (and a few things you can get for free on the Internet).

By the way, with our move toward digital and online textbooks, are the tech companies going to change their feelings on providing free training to accompany adoptions? Or will they just jack their cost of the product and act like the training is free (like textbook companies do). Either way, it needs to be offered. I recently had this same thing happen with a new technology my district adopted. While it was provided free through the state technology materials adoption list, the company wanted $1500 a day for training. In a district my size (needing only 8 staff members trained) and limited funds anyway, I told them thanks but no thanks. Our district did not have that budgeted. I would do the best I could to figure it all out and train our staff. Is that the best method? No way. It is financial survival. But in the end common sense prevailed. The company realized that for us to get the full potential of the technology to be able to brag about it to others, they needed to provide the training using their own folks. So they did. For free. Just saying.