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 iAMIxJQ27768; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:59:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:59:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <009601c4d0c6$687a6410$0502a8c0@frodo> 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: "Marie Cora" <marie.cora@hotspurpartners.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:748] Re: standards or lack thereof X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 8744 Lines: 201 Hi Katrina, Thanks for your posts. I hear your frustration. You should definitely take a good look at the EFF material - their standards do attempt to be thorough. And I believe that there is work being done/has been done to figure out the connection between EFF and the NRS (Peggy or other EFFers? Can you jump in on this for me?). Several states do use EFF and so they must have ways that they report information to the feds, it has to be unless all the EFF places get money from somebody other than the feds. Also, you noted: "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." In Massachusetts, the state has been engaged for well over a decade of building state standards that describe exactly this. I know that other states have done similar things. So the states are charged with developing their sets of standards, and having them fit (try to, more or less) within the present framework of the NRS and use the accompanying set of commercial assessments presently ok'd by the NRS (there are exceptions to this set of tests and I provided one link in another email on developing PBAs (performance based assessments) that meet NRS requirements). And PLEASE correct me out there if I'm giving misinformation. But as far as I understand, this is how it goes. marie cora Moderator, NIFL Assessment Discussion List, and Coordinator/Developer LINCS Assessment Special Collection at http://literacy.kent.edu/Midwest/assessment/ marie.cora@hotspurpartners.com -----Original Message----- From: nifl-assessment@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-assessment@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Katrina Hinson Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 11:18 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 >>> george.demetrion@lvgh.org 11/22/04 7:43 AM >>> There is a federal level National Reporting System that is organized around general reading, writing, and English speaking levels. There is no single national assessment protocol. Each state reports data from an approved assessment instrument, which is then "calibrated" into the NRS levels. There are about 7-8 approved instruments for reading, including BEST, CASAS, ABLE (I think), and others. Instruments need not be standardized tests, but they need to be uniform, measurable, and standardized (I'm writing quickly here with no data in front of me, so I may be a bit off on some of this). The NRS was developed in the late 90s and went into effect in 2000. It is linked with the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), and more broadly, to the pressures for accountability and "streamlining government" of the 1990s. This link on the NRS may be a good place to start: http://www.oei-tech.com/nrs/index.html?PHPSESSID=b7207f5a781e21c3e1d69b3 4dbe71c18 The NRS has been at the center of much critical discussion on the US listservs. Check the archives, and especially the original NLA list around 1999-2000. I include a chapter on the WIA/NRS and another among its critics in a soon to be released book in which more information will be provided once the book is actually released. George Demetrion -----Original Message----- From: nifl-assessment@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-assessment@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Katrina Hinson Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:19 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:742] Re: The problem situation (reading I've kind of been just observing this list, listening to the conversation and getting a feel for it before jumping in. I have been looking up the all the information people have provided in various emails over the past few weeks. I found it to be enlightening, and interesting. I have to admit, I was intrigued by the National Standards and Core Curriculum information put forth by Karen. I'm curious now though - are there are such similar standards in the US at all or is it left to each individual state/county/program to define their own standards? IF so, are there any examples anyone can point me to? I've been asking about standards as they relate to Adult Education, both ABE, GED and ESL as well as AHS. The response I keep getting back is that there are absolutely no state/national standards for ABE and ESL; vague ones for GED and state guidelines for AHS. That surprised me. It left me asking alot of questions such as how do you know a program is working if there are no state standards? I got told that they look at retention rates, goal completions from LEIS forms etc...and to me that just doesn't seem to be a complete picture. Am I missing something? Regards Katrina Hinson >>> george.demetrion@lvgh.org 11/22/04 6:57 AM >>> Hi Karen, We have the same thing in the US in a wide divide between policy formation and what our adult literacy scholars and critically-informed practitioners are saying. There's some effort afoot to mediate the breach by linking empirically-based researchers (essentially the neo-positivists) with the insights drawn from "practitioner wisdom." I agree that that's a healthy step (and from a policy perspective, perhaps the best that can be accomplished at this time). Still, the concern remains that critically-informed "practitioner knowledge" and a wide stream of research and theory produced by practically-informed adult literacy scholars over the past 35 years is being marginalized in the process. There are no easy resolutions to this dilemma of which I am aware. At the least this requires of such practitioners and scholars a continued grappling with the issues, seeking out creative spaces of operation, and continued publication of work, however much it parallels or goes against the grain of normative-policy based assumptions. I would qualify your last statement where you say. "it is therefore not accurate to say that any of their ideas has influenced adult literacy work." In the trenches and struggling George Demetrion Literacy practitioner & scholar -----Original Message----- From: nifl-assessment@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-assessment@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of HthKar@aol.com Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 5:41 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:733] Re: The problem situation (reading vs literacy) Re the New Literacy Studies Living as you do in the US, you may not appreciate that few people involved in teaching adults to read and write have ever heard of the writers you mention. A piece of research by the BSA demonstrates this quantitatively. it is therefore not accurate to say that any of their ideas has influenced adult literacy work. Cheers Karen.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:24 EST