Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j0HKRcn10523; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:27:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:27:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <41ED9311@webmail.utk.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: bingman <bingman@utk.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1916] Accountability catch-up X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Infinite Mobile Delivery (Hydra) SMTP v3.62.01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Status: O Content-Length: 2104 Lines: 33 This is a somewhat belated response to a thread from a week or so ago. I’m not sure I am a social scientist, but I have thought about the questions you all have been exploring in the accountability thread ever since I decided as a county program coordinator (in the previous century) that our program should use a standardized test to measure the effectiveness of our program and then saw the effects on both students and teachers when some students did worse on a post-test. The more recent work I did with NCSALL included the papers Marie referred to and also some work with local programs reported in NCSALL Report # 20. In that action research project three programs developed ways to measure or document their progress and proposed to their states that these be used for accountability reporting (this was early WIA). The states were interested, but did not in the end agree to use these approaches. We did however develop a guide for developing local outcomes documentation that can help programs be accountable to their own constituents even if the documentation is not acceptable to their primary funder. The guide is called How Are We Doing? and can be downloaded from NCSALL at http:/ /gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall/teach.html I do not have or know of a checklist or tool for using student interviews for accountability purposes that will meet federal guidelines. However, the work that EFF has done provides tools that could be used both for accountability as defined by our current system (learning gains by level) and accountability re. learners’ and programs’ varied goals. The EFF Assessment Resource Collection found at http://eff.cls.utk.edu/ describes the performance continua and level descriptors for the EFF Standards. Performance measures based on the continua can be used to determine progress (or level gain) on a variety of literacy skills. Look at the Guides and the ARC Library for the level descriptors for eleven of the 16 EFF Standards and for information on how they were developed and how they can be used to design as well as assess learning.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:30 EST