Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id UAA07970; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:22:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:22:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <s947e8b0.004@jsi.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Andy Nash" <andy_nash@jsi.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1070] Re: Summit draft X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Status: O Content-Length: 3583 Lines: 20 Ronna and all, As June 30 is rapidly approaching, I want to get back to the Summit Action Agenda discussion, even though I*m finding the eight strategies difficult to respond to. But first I want to understand how our discussion here will be used. Are you sending a summary of our postings to NIFL? Are we trying to find consensus, or just sharing our thinking so that individuals can fill out the feedback form on their own? In case our discussion is being sent somewhere, I want to chime in that I think it*s important that the vision/goal be the development of a system rather than some measure of what people know and do (which, I think, is the distinction between Sondra*s and Jane*s versions: *Every adult will have access to adult and family literacy services that assist them in gaining the skills required to access needed information, take independent action, etc.* versus *Every adult will possess the knowledge and skills required to access needed information, take independent action, etc.**) I*m not sure how we could evaluate the latter version, given that the level of knowledge and skills needed would vary for each contextualized situation. I think it would be more useful to be held accountable for the creation of a system that is prepared to implement EFF in the fullest sense. As for the eight priority strategies, I find them difficult to address because they start from a lot of assumptions (which rest in the foundation paper that we*re not supposed to comment upon!!). So, I*ll just name my three primary concerns with the whole document. 1. These are all strategies that practitioners and programs are expected to implement. There is no related role for funders and policy-makers to support this work. 2. EFF, which could give this list of strategies some coherence, is almost absent from the document. If EFF were included, as a way to organize an adult education system that reflects adult lives and purposes, it would address most of these strategies, as well as some others (implementing authentic, performance-based assessments that are aligned with instruction and provide meaningful information to all audiences, for example). 3. There is a great under-representation of ESOL in the document. Just as most people still picture a man when they think *fire fighter,* I think the framers of this draft envision ABE learners when they talk about a *literacy system,* even though their definition of literacy includes speaking English (but not listening). Over half the students in the *adult literacy system* are English Language Learners (ELLs). Many are quite literate in their own languages and do not see themselves as *literacy* students. The range of educational backgrounds, though, is enormous. ELLs also need help in making a cultural transition, support in learning to navigate U.S. systems (as do many native-born Americans), and a forum for figuring out how to respond when they are faced with racism, discrimination or xenophobia. To ensure that ELLs do not continue to be overlooked in this document, they would need to be mentioned, specifically, in several of the strategies. For example, the strategy about including learners* perspectives would need to include action steps such as, *accommodate participation and feedback in students* native languages* in order to seriously expand this beyond an ABE item. I hope I haven*t gone too far afield from our assignment. Let*s get some more ideas out, in these last remaining two weeks, so that more EFFers can make their views known. Andy Nash NELRC/World Education EFF staff
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:12 EST