What do YOU want from Professional Development

...and is what you want necessarily what you need?

We all know what VIT wants.  VIT wants you to have 20 hours of relevant PD per year to maintain your registration (or 100 hours in 5 years of course). That's a no brainer.  Other states and countries have their own requirements. 

We recently started a side project where we invited feedback from a large number of people, both CRTs and others who could provide valid insights into the activity.  This project involved a Network activity and our reflections on why it was necessary.  While this is still in the works it has raised an interesting side-topic that I've been meaning to get around to for a while now.

One comment in particular sums it up neatly:

I know I often see CRTs both sides of the border and tell them about the network, however many don't seem to think much about PD until registration is due.

Mind you, a good half of the replies raise the same issue one way or another and it's something I see quite frequently.  New member joining the Wodonga CRT Support Network because they are pushing against VIT's deadline for PD submissions and their hours have come up short.  Don't get me wrong, this is a natural turn of events and it's a large part of the reason why we are here!  People start looking for solutions to their problem when the problem presents itself and coming up short for PD is going to be a trigger that sets people off searching for solutions.

But what other reasons are there for PD and should you really stop at VIT's (or your own registering body's) required amount? 

There's some really interesting things to look at in the VAGO Report on CRT Arrangements.  Not only what it openly says but also what's there in an implied way.  It's a document mainly intended to identify the value of CRTs to the Victorian Education System, point out flaws in current arrangements and make recommendations on how to go about finding solutions to identified problems.  Today I'm not really worried about it's purpose so much as the sources it used to determine it's findings and the general overview they provide.

I've had a look at similar reports from other states and overseas.  The percentages often change but the basic story frequently remains the same.  By pulling the Report apart into it's implied facts a picture is painted.  Today's point?

"While the overall number of CRTs should be sufficient to meet government school needs, demand is increasing and regional variations in CRT supply and demand make it hard for some schools to hire suitably skilled and experienced CRTs."

 This implies a few very important things but the part I am interested in this time is the distinction that's made.  It's not just CRTs, it's "suitably skilled and experienced CRTs".

The only way they could know this?  By getting feedback from schools which is exactly what they did.  There's more than one reference to "Audited Schools" in the report too.  So by implication we can see how schools think in regards to CRTs.  They don't treat all CRTs with the same outlook.  They are observed, evaluated and given preference for hiring based on their levels of skill and experience.


The next fact to throw into this equation is that VIT requires each teacher to obtain 10 days of practice and 20 hours of professional development per year to remain registered.  

What they never really say is that these requirements ares the bare minimum that you need to obtain to remain a teacher. All fully registered CRTs are hitting this mark to remain registered just like any other Teacher.  It was still considered necessary to make the distinction between CRTs and "suitably skilled and experienced CRTs".

So we know, in black and white that's supported by evidence, that schools understand full well that being registered doesn't provide a level playing field.  The question is, just how much of a slope do they think it's on?  The answer to this question is in the VAGO report too.

Audited schools used less than half of the CRTs on their list regularly and removed poorly performing teachers from their lists.

Schools manage these lists carefully and your performance counts.  The audited schools used less than half of their CRTs regularly.  You need to get yourself in the upper half of that list if you want regular work.

Putting this together?  Your 10 days + 20 hours isn't even a passing grade.  They only use half of the CRT's on their list, they remove some from their list too and so less than 50% of CRTs get work in a manner that schools consider "regular".  

This report gives us a clear-cut reference to say the following;

Just qualifying for registration isn't enough.

VIT only decides whether or not you are allowed to teach.  They don't have any say in whether or not schools are going to pay you to do it.

So this begs the question "is just satisfying VIT's requirements the best way to go about deciding how much PD I should be getting"?

That, of course, is up to you to decide but there's definitely compelling evidence out there that says the answer is "no".

Regards,

Mel.