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 KAA10439; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:47:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:47:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <31.69ed447.267f8b7b@aol.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: PDRNRI@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1075] No Subject
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Status: O
Content-Length: 7271
Lines: 153
Hello everyone,
Here's the first part of my summary of our Study Circle. Sorry for the
delay; it's grant writing season here in RI, so everything else takes a back
seat.
This post summarizes our first meeting. It is a bit long. I'll post a
summary report at the end of the four meetings; you may wish to skim this and
wait for that. I know, though, that some folks on this list who've
expressed an interest in how our circle works as a means of developing EFF
awareness will be interested in following the group's progression of thought.
It should be pointed out that the planned progression of work for the
four-meeting process was to focus first on standards reform ( mostly, the
Rhode Island process) in general before turning the focus to EFF. EFF was
not a focus in the first meeting, so it didn't feature prominently in our
discussions. Our main focus was to take a look at our goals for the circle
and our main concerns/questions about standards. We also brainstormed the
strengths an weaknesses of our own state's standards development process.
Our meeting time was cut short by a last-minute, unavoidable scheduling
conflict, and we didn't have time to get into our first readings in depth.
The readings I had selected for the first meeting were an abridged version of
Ivor Pritchard's Judging Standards in Standards-Based Reform (available at
www.ecs.org), Sondra Stein's Focus on Basics article Equipped for the Future:
The Evolution of a Standards-Based Approach to System Reform, and Regie
Stites' FOB article, A User's Guide to Standards Based Educational reform. Th
ese readings, in particular Stites and Pritchard, formed the basis of much
of the discussion from our second meeting (Dr. Stein's article figures more
directly in meeting three discussions).
In our first meeting, we developed a pretty clear picture of what we wanted
to do and what we felt we needed to know to improve our standards development
process. We shared specific concerns about EFF and about the weaknesses in
RI's approach to standards. These needs and concerns emerge in the notes
that follow. A summary of brainstorm lists is followed by a summary of our
discussion (Bold parentheses are clarifications; other parentheses are from
my original notes).
A. Study Circle Goals
1. To learn more about EFF, especially addressing:
*interest in assessment (how to get at it)
*sense that EFF is too wordy right now; so far it hasn't been very
useful or practical. Is it useful or just an intellectual
exercise?
* it's interesting but does it help me?
2. To clarify and develop the RI standards
B. Pressing Questions/Concerns about Standards
1. How to provide staff development on using standards in relation to
practice
2. whose standards are they(who owns the process/how does that impact what
is being measured)?
3. What of OTL Standards? How can we have performance standards without
levelling the playing field? We've been forced to model on K-12, but the
shoe doesn't fit (K-12 aims for OTL standards)
4. To understand the relationship between standards, curriculum development
and practice and - in this period of increased pressure for qualitative
accountability - how we can use EFF content standards as a basis for
authentic assessment.
Notes from discussion on questions and concerns:
A major concern raised in the discussion was our state's need to address OTL
standards. Interestingly, this discussion did not resurface in meetings two
or three. That may be the resutlt of a study circle design that did not
anticipatye such a discussion. I'll create an opportunity to return to it in
the fourth meeting and see what happens.
The point was made that in the face of limited funding, OTL standards would
emphasize quality over quantity. One particpant argued that while the
dialogue (on OTL) is legitimate, attempts to educate all stakeholders
regarding this concept haven't succeeded.
It was then pointed out that Massachusetts has been sucessful in establishing
OTL standards, including standards for class size, hours, and practice.
Also pointed out was the fact that TESOL is working on program standards,
addressing key concerns such as who's teaching.
The point was then made that in Rhode Island, nothing is being done to
address OTL. Another participant commented that Massachusetts required an
intensive, decade- long advocacy effort to pave the way for its standards.
It was added that with the adult ed. environment in Rhode island being what
it is, these issues cannot or will not be addressed any time soon. It was
suggested part of OTL standards has to be standards of public support. The
state's current funding levels per student suggested that public support was
very low.
C. The Strengths in Our State's Standards Development Process (brainstorm)
1. It brings us together around these issues of quality (program, curriculum,
teaching)
2. The people involved have a practical knowledge of what goes in to putting
them together
3. There has been consensus. No big arguements.
4. many people involved; broad representation
5. We have had support from Bob Mason (DOE) and (State) Senator Parella
6. We have responded to the needs of our students
7. we've tried to keep the standards clear, concise, to the point
8. we've addressed only the most critical issues
D. Weaknesses in Our State's Standards Development Process (brainstorm)
1. There wasn't a thorough review of standards (Note: there was some debate;
an materials from other states had been studied)
2. The EFF Standards weren't available
3. We're unclear about what Performance Standards are
* we don't have a standards vocabulary that we're comfortable with
* we've been flailing around with this
* no levels
4. There's been an inattentiveness to the issues of "formalization" or
institutionalization"
5. There's been an inattentiveness to cognitive, cultural and social
barriers (Note: not clear as to whether thes are "barriers" to
performance?)
6. No sense of what will come of this
7. Lack of support, connection to what may come from DOE
Key comments from discussion on strengths/weaknesses:
The discussion shifted from OTL to our group's need to define performance
standards (a chunk of our work which was bumped to the second session in
the second session focused on defining content/performance standards - more
to come on this).
*The strengths give us the tools to handle the weaknesses. We work well as a
group. *We're building a (practitioner) community knowledge base around
these issues.
*There is a student -centered interest at the basis of this - a more holistic
type pof approach to the process is desired.
*We've got a standards format developed, but there is a lot more that needs
to be put into it.
*We need to develop the state's standards into something useful, holistic,
with connections to real kinds of progress.
Please feel free to post questions if you wish for the group to
clarify/reflect further upon anything. Again, the work will shift more
toward EFF itself as the circle unfolds...
David Hayes
NCSALL PDRN Rhode Island
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:13 EST