After formulating their vision for an effective staff development system, the Planning Team members took their ideas back to colleagues for reactions and further input. Over a three-month period, they employed an array of strategies to inform and involve as many practitioners as possible in the thinking process.

The second phase of the planning process required each team member to draft a model, from their own perspective, of a staff development system that could effectively meet practitioners' needs for knowledge and skill development. Each proposed system also needed to respond qualitatively to the team's collective vision. (A "system" was defined as the network of services, programs, projects, or individuals that would provide or support staff development opportunities. The term "model" referred to a sketch, diagram, or other depiction of their proposed system.) To accomplish this task, Planning Team members drew upon their knowledge of staff development gained

• from studying the statewide staff development evaluation report
• from reading a number of theoretical pieces written by leading staff development researchers
• from reflecting on their own experience, and
• from exploring staff development issues with colleagues.

At the second retreat, team members presented their models. Ultimately, these 30 models had to be compressed into one that would best serve the staff development needs of all adult educators. The team's approach to this task included looking not only for the recurring ideas but also for the innovative and the progressive -- ideas offered by even just one visionary practitioner which could potentially alter significantly the ways we approach our professional development.

While negotiating among the various proposed staff development systems, we were struck by the consistency of some particular suggestions. Using practitioner-designed learning plans to frame professional development activities was an idea that occurred throughout most of the systems. Using technology to link practitioners and programs was suggested by most everyone. Also, the systems consistently reflected a shift in how staff development activities were supported. Specifically, everyone recognized the value of staff development organized on the state and regional levels -- the Resource Center, Cluster Training, the summer conferences, and the newsletter. Most, however, recommended that primary, support for professional development occur locally.

After much negotiation the Staff Development Planning Team reached consensus. They recommended to the Office of Adult Education that the following components of a staff development system have the greatest potential of meeting the learning needs of adult educators in Virginia:

• practitioner advisory boards
• state-level staff development specialist
• new practitioner training
• learning plans for all practitioners
• local support for learning plan activities
• regional professional development centers
• regional workshops *
• Research Network *
• statewide newsletter *
• electronic communication link among practitioners and programs
• state resource center with on-line access
• summer institutes
• management institute for administrators **
• intensive topical institutes modeling the National Writing Project
• colleges and universities
• professional organizations

* The Planning Team considered whether or not these activities might more effectively serve practitioners if they were organized regionally rather than on the state-level. Until regional professional development centers become a reality, they suggested maintaining the current structures.

** Planning for a Management Development Institute is occurring simultaneously by a team of program administrators. The MDI represents a promising addition to the network of staff development opportunities and is therefore included here with the planning team's recommendations.

In the final phase of their work, the Planning Team began to explore the implications of their ideas. Numerous questions arose, including, "What should be the content of new practitioner training? Who should decide what new practitioners need to know? What kind of support do practitioners need to be successful with learning plans? What kinds of activities should go on in a regional Professional Development Center? How should these be funded and staffed? What does a summer conference look like in an inquiry based system?"

The planning team members organized themselves into investigation teams. Then they developed action plans for researching these and other issues over the next three months. Their strategies included:

• examining project reports from other state adult education programs
• interviewing practitioners in other states who had relevant experiences to share
• consulting academicians and other researchers who were interested in the same issues
• reviewing the current literature and research on these topics
• studying how other professions such as health care, social services and business approached these same issues.

The investigation teams considered the broad base of information they accumulated. They wrote papers collaboratively and presented these to the state office staff at their third retreat in the spring of 1993. The papers and presentations included specific and practical recommendations for implementing their proposed staff development plan. The formal planning process concluded, these documents provide a continuing resource for state decision-makers.

In the following section of this report, each component of the proposed staff development system is described in some detail. Progress towards implementing the ideas, as of July 1, 1994, is noted in italicized text.