Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6S10PP23980; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:00:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:00:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <c.884ad9a.26b23472@aol.com> Errors-To: rgspacone@aol.com Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Rgspacone@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1128] RI/EFF study circle meeting #3 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 107 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: RO Content-Length: 6460 Lines: 151 Date: 7/27/00 8:49:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time Sender: PDRNRI@aol.com Subject: RI/EFF study circle meeting #3 Hello, Everyone: Here's a summary of meeting three of the NCSALL PDRN/RI study circle on EFF and Rhode Island State Standards development. In this meeting, the focus was principally on initial participant response to learning about EFF through the assigned readings outlined in summaries of meetings 1 and 2. At first, the discussion focused on the EFF Content Standards book (Certain sections were assigned; practitioners were encouraged to read others as possible. Most studied all of the book). Most participants did not respond favorably to the book. Calling it "Wheels upon Wheels", they criticized the book for spending too much time describing how EFF arrived at its standards and not enough time discussing where practitioners could go with them. In general, participants suggested that they would be better served by a publication that attached the standards to "ways in which teachers are using them" in a more accessible way. It was pointed out by one that the publication made the process of developing EFF clear, and admired the process for its aim at inclusiveness and at developing tools to use to give practice defined ways beyond traditional literacy standards and assessments. Another attractive feature mentioned was EFF's attention to "learning to learn", interpersonal and decision-making skills as well as communications skills. Most agreed with this. Several, however, questioned EFF's practicality. One participant wondered how readily such "soft" skills might be measured and called the standards "too broad." Another agreed that it didn't seem practical to look at "sixteen standards, each with four parts" for each student in a class twice a year. It was also pointed out that many of the standards seemed difficult to apply to basic literacy classes. In summary, the discussions focused largely on what one participant called the failure of researchers to bridge the gap between research and practice. In essence, practitioners argued that the current EFF product was not as useful as it might be because it was difficult to bring into the classroom. A short exercise followed in which participants were asked to write several brief statements beginning with "EFF standards are..." on sticky paper. They were then asked to place their comments into columns under sticky papers labeled +, O, and -- (symbolizing positive, neutral and negative statements). The lists follow: EFF standards are: + Both cognitive and action based Designed to target learning-to-learn Related to student goals and what students want from returning to school Related to roles adults play O similar to SCANS - Difficult for practitioners to apply and use in class (Some parts are) extremely difficult to measure A turnoff for many teachers Trees vs. forest (can see EFF but not students) Limited in scope Not specific but generalized Needlessly complicated (The manual is) wordy (The manual is) visually confusing Overly complex Much ado about ? Looking quickly at these ideas, it might be suggested that participants seemed to favor the purpose behind EFF and admired what EFF aims to do. The problem, it seems, lies largely with the inaccessibility of the new Content Standards Publication and with the amount of work that would be required to bring the standards into the classroom (participants were reminded that the work of developing performance measures and assessment processes lies ahead for EFF). A final exercise asked participants to assess both EFF and Rhode island's standards according to criteria developed by Marc S. Tucker in an article titled "The State of Standards: Powerful Tool or Symbolic Gesture?" Tucker divides his criteria into three categories: criteria about legitimacy, about meaning, and about practicality. As Tucker's piece was written primarily to address the K-12 movement, practitioners were invited to respond appropriately to criteria which they felt were not applicable. To keep this report brief, I will highlight only the EFF-related findings of this exercise. The full results will be available in appendix in my forthcoming report to NCSALL. Here are the criteria a majority of practitioners agreed were met by EFF: The EFF standards... -represent a broad consensus achieved through the participation of the public, educators, school officials, and community leaders. - (the process of developing and implementing the standards) reflects voluntary adoption by the community. - related performance standards and assessments will challenge all students- including the disadvantaged and those who are already doing well- to do their best. - provide for the equitable treatment of all students - are being implemented through a reasonable process of design, development and refinement -provide valuable opportunity for the integration of interdisciplinary approaches - reflect both relevant research and common sense regarding student development and learning Here are the criteria a majority of practitioners agreed were not met by EFF: The EFF standards... - (...based reform) (does not) promise to raise student performance across the board - (do not) represent a reasonable evaluation of the time commitment required for students to attain them - (do not) contribute to a coordinated system which includes curricula, performance standards, assessments, and teaching standards - (do not) balance the mastery of important facts, ideas, and key terms with the kind of intellectual and practical skills needs in order to fully understand and practice the activities of the subject. * - (do not) identify the knowledge necessary for students personal lives, careers, and civic and cultural activity. * - (do not) reflect the essential elements and practical significance of the subject matter being taught - (do not) promote public understanding and support. *it was mentioned that these two criteria were addressed by EFF standards, but not specifically enough. In meeting four, we wrapped up our discussion of EFF (with the benefit of a few more weeks of reading) and turned our attention to developing study circle products that would benefit both EFF and the RI development processes. I will post a summary of this meeting soon. David Hayes NCSALL PDRN/Rhode Island
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:14 EST