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 iANJqZQ02540; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:52:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:52:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <020601c4d195$697787b0$a3e95ba5@coehdserver.tamu.edu> 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: "Don Seaman" <dseaman@tamu.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:759] Re: The problem situation (reading X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 12396 Lines: 260 To add to Howard's response, several states either have standards or are developing them. At present, AIR (American Institutes for Research) is coordinating a project involving folks from a number of states that are developing standards for ESL, ABE, and GED programs. Renee Sherman is coordinating the ABE/GED group and Peggy Seufert is working with the ESL group, Texas being in the latter one. I don't know what all of the states are doing, but in Texas, we have acquired data about learners' needs as perceived by teachers and administrators through a state-wide task force, then followed that experience with focus groups around the state, including many groups of adult students representing all three levels. All student groups were interviewed in their native language, most of which were in Spanish. We are now trying to transcribe and analyze the data acquired from those groups and plan to have them reviewed by the task force again before attempting the actual development process. Some standards from other states could well become part of ours, as well as some of the data from EFF and other sources. If something is out there that will benefit us, we intend to use it. Since these standards will "guide" adult education in Texas for several years, we are taking our task very seriously and as directed by AIR staff, we're being slow and deliberate in our development. Another interesting note: Some states that have had standards for several years are back at the table with us revising them to meet the changing needs of their adult learners. We beg, borrow, and steal whatever we can from them and share anything we have that might be of value to them. I believe that's what good adult educators do. Don Seaman Research Scientist Texas Adult Education Standards Project Texas A&M University 4226 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-4226 Ph. 979-845-5472 dseaman@tamu.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Dooley" <hdooley@riral.org> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:02 PM Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:751] Re: The problem situation (reading > I hope I can help clarify two confusions in your post, which may help answer > your questions. > One, the NRS is not the "National Reporting Standards." It is the National > Reporting System for Adult Education, and it has, as you note, really > nothing to do (directly) with standards. Because the feds aren't interested > in national standards (knock on wood). It simply identifies the measures, > the numbers, which the feds are interested in counting. It is one slice of > the pie, the one that matters to them, and creates a framework for > comparisons across the country. The assessments which they accept for their > educational gains, are limited, and can't cover everything that occurs in > every program across the US. So, while the TABE or the BEST or the CASAS or > the _________, doesn't measure everything of value in your program it > doesn't have it. But, it should be integrated into your curriculum, and not > marginalized or un-aligned with curriculum either. > The NRS doesn't put forth standards. It doesn't provide even a framework > for a curriculum. Unless you decide to teach to the test or use the level > descriptors as a core curriculum, and I don't know of any programs that do > that. Of course, as you note, these numbers become important to us, because > of the tie to their funding. > Two, even though there are no national standards, and can't imagine any in > the near future, states have been developing standards for their adult > education systems for years now. Several states have standards, either > created or adapted or adopted. You could look to Massachusetts, Washington > State, Maine, and California for starters; there's variety for you. And > then there's EFF and the standards being developed by the CASAS State > Consortium. As you'd expect, there's a lot of overlap, and different states > impart their history and current practices into their standards. > In RI, where I am, each program has to inform the state which standards it > uses in developing its curriculum and instruction when it applies for > funding. I think this might be a good place to start for your program, if > you aren't using any standards for instruction or curriculum yet. Check out > what's there; get together a teacher's group (maybe even let an > administrator in) and see which state standards "fit" or "feel" the best > with your instructors and your program structure. Thinking about standards > gets us back on track to "What do my learners need to know and do" to be > successful with their current educational goals, rather than "What do my > funders need me to measure." Things can move pretty fast and well with some > commitment and forethought. I think you'll find that the benefits for a > multilevel class or comprehensive program far outweigh the natural aversion, > or initeria, to change. > Good luck. > > -----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 > > > > >>> 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