Welcome to the debate. So today we are turning
our lens toward a ritual that is, I think, as
universal as it is contentious. The training
day. Whether you are a structural engineer, a
nurse, a teacher, or an architect, you, you know
the drill. You log into a webinar. Or you sit
in some fluorescent lit seminar room to clock
the hours you need to keep your license valid.
But we have to ask, is this engine of professional
development actually driving economic adaptation
and public safety? Or is it, as the data might
suggest, just a massive bureaucratic box checking
exercise? Right. It's the question. I mean, it's
the question everyone asks themselves about what
40 minutes into a mandatory PowerPoint presentation.
And I think we need to be very precise about
what we are discussing here right out of the
gate. We aren't just talking about learning and
the broad, you know, liberal arts sense of expanding
your mind. We are talking about professional.
development, or PD. The literature specifically
defines this as learning that emphasizes praxis.
Right. And for the listeners, praxis is the crucial
concept here. It isn't just theory, it's the
practical application of that theory in a workspace.
It is the bridge between what you learned in
university and what you actually do on a Tuesday
morning when the pressure is on. Exactly. And
my argument today is going to be that while praxis
is the goal, The whole industry of professional
development has completely lost sight of it.
I'll be arguing that we have commodified learning
into units and credits, and the evidence, specifically
systematic reviews, suggest this model is largely
ineffective at actually improving how people
do their jobs. We are creating a marketplace
of certificates rather than a culture of competence.
And I am going to take the position that formalized,
mandated professional development is the essential
scaffold of a modern economy. I mean, we cannot
rely on informal osmosis to maintain safety standards
in high stakes fields like health care or engineering.
I will argue that the metrics, the hours, the
units, however imperfect, are the necessary regulatory
framework that forces labor markets to adjust
to the future of work. is that we are confusing
compliance with competence. You mentioned the
future of work, but let me drop the most significant
piece of evidence from the source material right
now. The Campbell Collaboration published a systematic
review in 2019. They looked at the entire landscape
of continuing professional development to see
if it actually changed outcomes. And it is a
controversial review, to be sure. It's a damning
review. They found, and I'm quoting here, Little
evidence of the effectiveness of continuing professional
development. That is a direct quote. So we've
built this massive global infrastructure of continuing
renewal units and professional development points
requiring millions of hours of human time. But
the evidence that it actually changes professional
behavior is, well, it's thin to non -existent.
The system focuses entirely on inputs. How long
did you sit there? Rather than outputs, did you
actually gain a skill? See, I think that is a
cynical and, frankly, a dangerous reading of
the landscape. You are citing one review, okay,
but you are ignoring the sheer necessity of standardization
in, you know, a mass society. Let's look at the
reality of professional licensor. We aren't just
talking about corporate retreats where people
do trust falls. We are talking about the military.
We are talking about the Nursing and Midwifery
Council in the UK. We are talking about structural
engineers. When a patient goes into surgery or
a family drives across a bridge, they are relying
on the fact that the professionals involved have
engaged in continuing professional education.
You want to know that their license represents
current knowledge, not just what they learned
in college 20 years ago. The World Bank's 2019
World Development Report was very clear on this.
PD is the primary mechanism for labor markets
to adjust to technological change. Without a
mandate, the pressures of the daily job crowd
out learning entirely. The mandate creates the
space for learning. But space for learning and
actual learning are two different things. And
this is where I think your argument falls apart.
on the mechanics of that mandate. If this was
really about safety and adaptation, there would
be a coherent standard. But the material highlights
the sheer inconsistency of these mandates. Take
the United States education sector, for example.
The requirements for teachers are all over the
map. In Arkansas, you need 60 hours of documented
professional development annually. In Indiana,
they don't count hours. They count CRUs, continuing
renewal units. You need 90 of them. In Massachusetts,
it's 150 PDPs, professional development points.
In Georgia, it's PLUs, professional learning
units. You're listing acronyms, but those acronyms
represent time and effort. Whether you call it
a CRU or a PDP, it represents a unit of engagement
with the profession. They represent a lack of
consensus. If this were a science, if we actually
knew what it took to maintain praxis, there would
be a standard. Instead, we have bureaucratic
fiefdoms inventing their own currencies. A PLU
in Georgia and a CRU in Indiana are just arbitrary
exchange rates for a teacher's time. It turns
lifelong learning into a game of alphabet soup,
where the goal is to collect the points, not
to master the craft. I disagree that variation
implies arbitrariness. Different jurisdictions
have different needs and different ways of tracking
engagement. But I want to address your claim
that this is just a game. You're ignoring a fundamental
distinction in the literature between IPD and
CPD. Okay, break that down for us. IPD is initial
professional development. That is what you do
to get your license to become an autonomous professional,
as the Institute of Structural Engineers would
put it. That has a finish line. You do the work,
you pass the test, you get the stamp. But CPD,
continuing professional development, is maintenance.
And maintenance never ends. You don't brush your
teeth once and say, well, I've achieved dental
hygiene. Professional knowledge decays. Technology
advances. The system of CRUs and PDPs, as annoying
as you might find the acronyms, is the only way
regulators can verify that a professional hasn't
let their skills rot. It is the dental checkup
of the professional world. Maintenance is a nice
metaphor, but let's look at how this system asks
people to brush their teeth. You seem to imply
that the system creates high -quality learning
environments, but the incentives are structured
for passivity. You claim the system promotes
safety. I argue the system promotes the path
of least resistance. The source material brings
up the Irish model for teachers, and I think
this is the smoking gun for my argument. In Ireland,
CPD certificates can be traded in for extra personal
vacation days, EPV days. Well, that is a specific
incentive program designed to encourage participation
during the summer break. No, look at the mechanism.
It's a revelation of value. When the system literally
treats learning as a currency to buy time off
work, it undermines the intrinsic value of the
skill. It becomes a transaction. I will suffer
through this course provided by the Actualize
Academy so I can get a day at the beach. If I
am a rational actor, am I going to choose a difficult,
rigorous course that challenges my worldview?
No, I am going to choose the easiest, fastest
way to get my certificate and my vacation day.
The structure you defend actively discourages
deep learning because it rewards the certificate,
not the competence. I think you are cherry -picking
one incentive scheme to dismiss a global infrastructure.
Let's actually look at the quality argument,
because you are assuming that PD is just passive
listening or easy credits. The source material
explicitly defines ideal professional education
as intensive and collaborative. It doesn't just
say, go watch a video. It talks about the case
study method. This isn't passive. You put the
professional in the role of a decision -maker
facing a complex problem, maybe a structural
failure or a medical triage situation, and they
have to work through it. It talks about lesson
study, which is a profound practice where teachers
systematically examine each other's teaching
to solve practical dilemmas. It talks about reflective
supervision, which is critical in social work
and nursing, to process the emotional and technical
burden of the job. Those methods sound fantastic.
I love the case study method. But let's be real.
How many of the 150 PDPs in Massachusetts are
gained through lesson study versus sitting in
a large auditorium listening to a keynote speaker?
That brings me to the agency of the professional.
The framework for deep learning exists. These
methodologies, reflective supervision, lesson
study, are valid ways to earn these credits.
If a structural engineer chooses to fill their
required hours with passive webinars, well, that
is a failure of the individual, isn't it? Not
the concept of PD. The system offers the tools
for praxis. It is up to the practitioner to pick
them up. That is an incredibly convenient argument.
The system is perfect. The users are just using
it wrong. But does the system accredit based
on that quality? This brings us to the regulatory
necessity you mentioned. You talked about the
Nursing and Midwifery Council and the various
institutes. We have these bodies, the CPD Standards
Office, the CPD Certification Service. They exist
to quality assure the content. But I challenge
the idea that this oversight equals effectiveness.
The Campbell Collaboration Review didn't say
CPD is ineffective unless it's accredited. It
found little evidence of effectiveness, full
stop. But what is the alternative? No oversight?
The alternative is realizing that the bureaucracy
that stamps approved on a training course is
often just checking for administrative compliance.
Did you list the learning objectives? Is the
instructor qualified? Not whether the course
actually changes behavior. You are confusing
the stamp of approval with the transfer of knowledge.
I think you are underestimating the rigor of
these bodies. In fields like nursing or engineering,
Formal and informal professional development
is a matter of licensure. You strictly cannot
practice without it. If we dismantle this requirement
because you think the accreditation is bureaucratic,
we remove the safety net, we remove the mechanism
that forces a nurse in North Dakota or a structural
engineer in London to at least engage with new
safety protocols. You might call it a checkbox,
but that box represents a minimum standard of
public safety. It is the floor. Not the ceiling.
And I am suggesting that the floor is rotten.
We have better ways to ensure safety than counting
hours. The material lists superior methods that
are much harder to measure than the ones you
like. It talks about mentoring, which provides
structured opportunities for reflection and observation.
It talks about communities of practice, which
is shared inquiry among peers. It talks about
consultation to address immediate on -the -job
concerns. These are relationship -based. You
can't easily quantify mentoring into 60 hours
of verifiable data for the Arkansas Department
of Education. So the system defaults to what
is easy to measure, courses and units, rather
than what is actually effective, which is mentorship
and community. We prioritize what is countable
over what counts. That is a compelling philosophical
point, and I don't disagree that mentorship is
powerful, but we have to deal with the reality
of scale. Mentoring and reflective supervision
are incredibly resource -intensive. They require
a one -to -one ratio or something close to it.
When you are dealing with an entire state's teaching
corps or a nation's nursing staff, you need scalable
solutions. You cannot provide a personal mentor
for every single professional in the country.
The unit system allows us to deploy knowledge
at scale, and I would argue that mandates are
often what kickstart that internal motivation
to find those mentors. You seem to view mandates
and real learning as mutually exclusive. I argue
they are complementary. How so? How does forcing
me to sit in a room make me want a mentor? Because
the mandate creates the ecosystem. The source
lists the reasons people engage in PD. Yes, it
lists comply with professional regulatory requirements.
But right alongside that, it lists interest in
lifelong learning and a sense of moral obligation.
Look at Australia. The government -funded National
Health Information Service, HealthDirect, profiles
organizations like AusMed. This is funded because
the state recognizes the value of an educated
workforce. The external mandate creates the market
where resources like AusMed can exist. If you
remove the requirement, the funding dries up,
the courses disappear, and even the intrinsically
motivated professional has nowhere to go. The
mandate builds the library. The motivation gets
you to read the books. I see it differently.
I think mandates often kill the joy of learning.
When you take a moral obligation, which is a
beautiful internal drive to be better, and you
force it into a compliance framework, it just
becomes a chore. You mentioned the case study
method earlier. That works because it is engaging.
But if I am just trying to hit my 10 PLUs for
the year in Georgia, I am not looking for engagement.
I am looking for completion. Real growth happens
through what the text calls technical assistance
and coaching. These are things that happen on
the job. They are embedded in the work. Real
learning is when you are struggling with a specific
patient or a specific blueprint, and you get
consultation to help you solve it right then
and there. That is praxis. Sitting in a room
to hit a quota is just schooling. But we cannot
design public policy based on the hope that everyone
will seek out coaching in the moment of crisis.
We have to design for the aggregate. I want to
return to the concept of the future of work.
The World Bank report emphasizes that labor markets
have to adjust. We are living through a period
of rapid technological shift. Automation, AI,
new medical technologies, these things are moving
faster than university curriculums can update.
If we don't have a formalized system for this
adjustment, for retraining and upskilling, we
leave workers behind. You praise on -the -job
learning, but that assumes the job stays the
same. What happens when the job changes fundamentally?
What happens when a radiologist needs to learn
about AI diagnostics? On -the -job coaching can't
teach you a completely new paradigm. You need
external formalized instruction. You need the
units. You need the skills. And my point remains
that the units are a poor proxy for the skills.
You are assuming that because someone has the
unit, they have the skill. They are an imperfect
proxy, yes. But they are the currency of adaptation.
Without them, there is no accountability. If
we strip away the CRUs and the PDPs, how do we
know who has learned the new AI protocols and
who hasn't? The alternative isn't no accountability.
It's shifting accountability to outcomes. How
do you measure outcomes in a vacuum? You measure
them through performance. Reflective supervision,
which is in the text, evaluates the performance
of employees through inquiry. That is an outcomes
-based approach. Did you handle this case well?
Did the bridge hold up? Did the students learn?
Those are better questions for a regulator to
ask than, did you attend the seminar? But again,
that requires a supervisor with the time and
skill to ask that question for every employee
every year. That is a luxury most systems don't
have. This is why we have the medley of different
professional development providers mentioned
in the text. It allows for scale. And frankly,
I think you are selling the professional short.
Most people do not want to be incompetent. They
use these hours, these CRUs and PDPs to genuinely
try to improve. The structure provides the pathway.
I doubt the intent of the professionals. I think
most people want to be great at their jobs. I
doubt the efficacy of the pathway we force them
onto. When the Campbell Collaboration says there
is little evidence of effectiveness, we have
to listen. We are pouring time and money into
a bucket with a hole in it. And I would argue
the bucket is better than having no water at
all. But we could just fix the bucket. That's
my point. We could move toward those mentorship
models if we stopped spending all our resources
on the alphabet soup of credit tracking. I think
we have reached the core of our disagreement
here. It comes down to whether you believe a
flawed system is better than no system. To summarize
my position, while the system of professional
development is not perfect, the structure of
IPD and CPD is the essential scaffold that holds
up professional standards in modern society.
We cannot abandon the requirement for nurses,
engineers, and teachers to verify their learning
just because the metrics like hours and points
are imperfect. The moral obligation to be competent
requires a regulatory framework to ensure it
happens, and that framework is the only thing
allowing the labor market to adapt to the future.
And I maintain that we are confusing the map
with the territory. We need to move away from
counting hours, whether they are CRUs, PDPs,
or PLUs. and toward the collaborative, reflective
practices like mentoring and lesson study that
actually change behavior. The evidence suggests
that our current obsession with compliance is
not delivering competence. And until we admit
that, we are just trading certificates for a
peace of mind that we haven't actually earned.
We are prioritizing the appearance of learning
over the experience of learning. It is certainly
a topic that every professional faces eventually.
Usually annually. about a month before the deadline,
in a panic. Indeed. So we invite you, the listener,
to look at your next mandatory training session.
When you are sitting there, logging your time,
ask yourself, is this building praxis or is it
just another unit? And are you there to learn
or are you there to protect your license? Thank
you for joining the debate.