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 hBFDndm15830; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:49:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:49:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <000501c3c311$e6285890$0b00a8c0@DDQPYT21> 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: "Art LaChance" <arthur@ellijay.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2621] Re: The state of standards X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 3159 Lines: 101 It sounds like we haven't reached the stage where we realize that in order to teach a child to use those reading, language, and math skills effectively we have to move beyond simple rule memorization into the realm of ensuring the child, or adult, 'understands' how to use and interpret our language. Proficiency can be measured and it can be taught, only not via the methodology(s) or philosophy(s) currently employed by our public school system(s). How is it that adult literacy efforts which are uncertified can teach those who were labeled as 'difficult to teach' and subsequently ignored ? Thanks for the info Meta. Art Art LaChance Gilmer Learning Center Ellijay, GA ----- Original Message ----- From: <MWPotts2001@aol.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 4:06 PM Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2620] The state of standards > Colleagues, > > The following article, from the PEN Weekly NEWSBLAST for 12/12, 2003 > describes the state of standards for K-12 in several states. The issue seems to be > that proficiency doesn't necessarily mean proficiency, and the levels of > proficiency are not consistent across the country. No kidding? > > Well, perhaps they should take a look at the EFF Standards and the pathways > to consistency and proficiency from the adult education perspective. > > > THE STATE OF STANDARDS > > The federal No Child Left Behind act (NCLB) has required each state to set > > proficiency levels in mathematics and reading to categorize students as > > proficient or not. This legislation requires each state to set its own > > proficiency levels, but does not specify how these levels should be set, > > or what the definition of "proficiency" should be. This provides states > > with a great deal of autonomy, but raises questions concerning the > > consistency and comparability of proficiency results from different > > states. The Northwest Evaluation Association has recently completed a > > comprehensive, 14-state research report on state education standards, > > which confirms the concern of many regarding the current disparity in > > educational standards. While the detailed results vary from one study to > > the next, examination of the results from all studies leads to three > > general conclusions: (1) Proficiency standards among states differ enough > > to cause dramatic differences in the percentage of students categorized as > > proficient, even if the students have exactly the same skills; (2) > > Proficiency standards within individual states differ across grades enough > > that they may provide teachers with inconsistent proficiency indications > > for a large percentage of students; (3) Proficiency standards between > > subject areas within and across states differ enough that they may provide > > schools with inconsistent information when comparing proficiency of > > students in reading to proficiency of students in mathematics. Read an > > executive summary of the report findings at: > > http://www.young-roehr.com/nwea/ > > All the Best, > Meta Potts, Moderator, 4-EFF List > Glen Allen, VA > mwpotts2001@aol.com > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:14:48 EST