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 j8SF6qG13852; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <001f01c5c43e$19fcedf0$3002a8c0@ben2ut66kkx7o3> 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: "Amy R. Trawick" <atrawick@charter.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:3037] Managed entry with EFF X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2313 Lines: 41 I've noticed that programs who adopt EFF's standards-based approach to teaching and learning find the need to re-think how adult education is delivered and supported systemically. One of the most immediate realizations is that standards-based teaching and learning--especially that grounded in both research related to *content* (i.e., reading, math, etc.) and research on *adult learning*, as EFF is--requires sophisticated approaches to instruction and informal assessment which are not easily supported by the open enrollment process that programs typically use. A first step then is coming up with systematic ways of setting goals and determining what students know related to various standards when they enroll. In order to give this goal-setting and assessment the time it deserves, and to support the instruction of students already in classes (by limiting the distraction of incoming students on a sometimes daily basis), some programs are moving toward managed enrollment/intake/entry. One model of such a program was developed several years ago in Knox County, TN. As I recall, the program developed a Learning Skills curriculum (http://cls.coe.utk.edu/pdf/learning-skills.pdf.) that students participated in during their first 4 weeks. This appeared to work well in an urban area (though I don't know what the status is at this point), but I've talked with folks who are looking for something shorter-term, for ideas that might work well in less-populated areas where classes meet for fewer hours a week and where meeting enrollment targets is an on-going issue. That said, I'm curious to hear from folks on the list who are transitioning or have transitioned to more managed entry processes, especially in less urban settings. What led you to that decision? What EFF tools, concepts, or approaches are you using? What's been effective? challenging? What problems have arisen and how have you solved those? Are you getting the results you wanted? Any experiences you can share would be helpful--both to me and to folks who have contacted me recently off the list. We're not looking for glossy models, necessarily, but ideas/processes/tools that hold promise and things we need to consider. Thank you! Amy Trawick North Wilkesboro, NC atrawick@charter.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:22 EST