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 iAMHBuQ26689; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:11:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:11:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <681A95205B5ACB4AAD697401486AE7120471A3@hal9000.lvgh.prv> 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: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion@lvgh.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:747] NRS, etc. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 4798 Lines: 92 Hi Katrina, I believe each of the 6 levels, on reading, for example, has a short description of what ideally a student might be able to do at each level in terms of mastery of general reading abilities. Given the high level of generality the NRS seeks in aggregating already aggregate data (standardized state tests), it's practically impossible to link the NRS to specific contend standards. At best, the NRS provides an ideal of what students might work on in reading, or writing, or math, irrespective of specific context. However, as some of the links provided by Maria show, NRS developers have been hard at work in transforming this accountability framework into useful staff development models. I haven't had a chance to look at that work. Perhaps some of those who have can offer their insights. There is little doubt in my mind that inherent problems in NRS have been operative from its inception. On the one hand, in its stressing of objective, standardized, and uniform data through measurable quantitative data, it is linked to a quest for a high level of scientific verifiability. On the other hand, the NRS was a political instrument from the get go, in which, for example, little scientific validity (as far as I'm aware) went into the calibrations of the NRS with the various state level assessments. Tom Sticht has offered quite a penetrating critique in his various NLA postings, which might fall under the rubric of "no levels out there." Thus, as a political document, the NRS gives the illusion of scientific exactitude in which the reality belies the myth. I don't want to sound smug in saying this. There was a lot of political pressure placed on the field to come up with something workable in the politically conservative climate of the late 1990s, including much pressure to re-define adult education as a subset of workplace education. Those working in the field at the policy level did the best they felt they could to chart out some independent space for adult education, and without their effort, the field very well may have become policy defined as workplace education pure and simple. Nonetheless, the critique on the NRS from various quarters has its own integrity. Part of the problem, in my view, is too much dependency on government. The field needs to find additional sources of stable funding if it's going to stand on its own internal validity. Easier said than done, to be sure, but something worthy of consideration in my view. George Demetrion -----Original Message----- From: nifl-assessment@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-assessment@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Katrina Hinson Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 11:17 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:745] Re: The problem situation (reading I know about the National Reporting Standards - they're heavily stressed in our program because of their link to funding but if you looked at the material supplied by Karen - the links she supplied for the National Standards and Core Curriculum documents - they are vastly different from the purely statistical data that the NRS collects in terms of numbers in, numbers out, % pass, % retained, etc. The Core Curriculum she supplied actually explains what skill should be/could be taught at a given level etc. The Standards document specifies the skills and capabilities that are taught at each level of performance. For instance, on the LEIS forms which is what is used to gather data that goes into the NRS, students are tested on what ever assessment used by an institution - in my case TABE. Based on their scores on the TABE, they are placed at ABE Beginning Literacy, Beginning Basic Education, Intermediate Low or High, GED Low, GED High, AHS Low or High..etc, but so far, I've yet to find identifiable US standards that are comparable to the UK document posted by Karen. As a result of there being no idenitifiable stancards, overlap occurs at least in the program here. Teachers that are supposed to have ABE Intermediate are often teaching the same material that is ues in a GED classroom...and students take the GED test out of the ABE Low or Intermediate class without ever having progressed into the GED Low or High class. Without having identifiable standards for what skill sets should be existant at each level, it leaves instructors, lacking a valuable resource that could benefit their instruction. Instead, they teach out of books which are available irregardless of the fact that the material might not be approapriate for the level they are teaching. I would think it would make sense for there to be some kind of 'standard' that says a beginning ABE Students should be able to do XYZ than to have nothing at all..or to rely souly on statistical data garnered by the NRS. Regards Katrina Hinson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:24 EST