Return-Path: <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fA82K8008402; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 21:20:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 21:20:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <000501c167fa$8d3302e0$8ca92a3f@computer> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "gdemetrion" <gdemetrion@msn.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:38] Re: question X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2975 Lines: 57 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dianna Baycich" <dbaycich@archon.educ.kent.edu> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 7:26 PM Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:37] Re: question > I've been thinking about the respones I received from my questions about > alternative assessments (I'm a slow thinker). > I better understand the reluctance to use alternative assessments when the > standardized tests are the ones that "matter". Do any of you think there is > a way to convince the folks who want the numbers that they are not getting > the whole picture of what we do? > Do you think the numbers game will change with the move toward EFF? > I'm interested to hear your thoughts. > Dianna B. > Hi Dianna: I think this is the critical issue in the current discussions between the Division of Adult Education and Literacy (DAEL) and NIFL over possible relationships between the NRS and the EFF standards. The challenge is whether and/or the extent to which the EFFers can influence those at DAEL to shift the metaphor of assessment from quantification to that of narration, critical analysis, multi-measures and sampling. If so (and that would be difficult), that would better allow the potential richness of the EFF performance indicators, supported by in-depth ethnographic evidence, to rise to the level of legitimacy that any "alternative" or "authentic" assessment needs to be thoroughly fleshed out. Otherwise, why bother, given the difficulty of the task to begin with in collecting such information and in presenting it in a public format. On the other hand, if the current NRS levels metaphor defines the floor of policy legitimacy, then the likely impact is a significant reductionism in the EFF performance indicators to a number (a rubric) in order to be quantified and aggregated for the alleged purpose of achieving the illusive quest for program comparability through a uniform reporting mechanism, which ignores the significant differences within programs and among students. I believe it is the political ideology intrinsic to such current policy discourse, which needs to be grasped and grappled with before any prospect of changing the metaphor which gives shape to what counts as legitimate assessment in the USA can come into place. I also believe that EFF holds the potential of articulating a powerful public philosophy grounded in the vision of the active citizen reconstructing self and and local institutions, laying the basis for a much more democratic political culture than which currently exists. It is this public philosophy, I contend, which can serve as the fulcrum point for the kind of political change that is needed in the land of literacy that can legitimize the types of, and approaches to, assessment, for which you, I, and many others ardently advocate. Such advocacy, though, will not come on the cheap. George Demetrion Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:33:24 EST