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 j5MKKrG08407; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:20:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:20:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <010501c57768$ea1fbda0$0202a8c0@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:1109] Some comments and questions for the Performance Level Discussion 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: 3151 Lines: 99 The following message is posted for Tom Sticht. marie Questions Regarding the NAS/NRC/BOTA Performance Level Report and the Adult Literacy and Lifeskills (ALL) Report Recently the OECD, Statistics Canada, and the U.S. NCES released a report of the Adult Literacy and Lifeskills (ALL)survey. In this report the authors have overstated the extent of adults with literacy problems in Canada, the U.S. and other countries because they used a methodology which the new National Academy of Science report on performance levels for adult literacy states is too stringent and exaggerates the problem of adult literacy. The ALL authors claim that people without literacy skills at (NALS/IALS)ALL Level 3 or above lack skills to cope in contemporary society but the new NAS/NRC report says that is not demonstrated by their methodology. Also, the idea that people at a lower level of literacy, Levels 1 or 2 can only perform simple literacy tasks is also wrong according to the NAS/NRC report, because people at the lower levels can perform tasks that are at higher levels of difficulty but with less than an 80 percent probability of success. One of my concerns is that by overstating the extent of adult literacy problems (e.g., crying "wolf" too many times) policymakers become unbelievers to a large extent as do the public in general so funding is not provided for the really poorly literate adults to the extent it is needed. Given the fairly widespread understanding of the shortcomings of the NALS and IALS, and given that the National Academies of Sciences, National Research Council, Board of Testing and Assessment has released its report on adult literacy performance levels confirming the many technical and arbitrary decisions that have gone into the NALS, IALS and now the ALL, I was stunned to read the ALL report that simply ignored all these various concerns. What bothers me is that these various government agencies are widely disseminating what they know are misleading statistics. I'm wondering what responsibility the National Academy of Sciences has in addressing the shortcomings of the new ALL and informing policymakers, news agencies, and the general public about the misleading ALL report. This is particularly important since the ALL report also disseminates faulty data about the U.S. I'm also wondering what the responsibilities of the larger community of adult literacy researchers and scientists are in trying to bring the misleading statements of the ALL report to the attention of the general public. Does anyone from the NAS/NRC/BOTA report on performance levels for adult literacy have any thoughts about any of this? Quoting Marie Cora <marie.cora@hotspurpartners.com>: > Hi Tom, > > I'm writing to ask you to post a question or 2 to the NAS discussion. > We've had 2 days of email glitches that have thrown a wrench into the > discussion, and I'm fretting a bit now about it getting up and going. > > If you wouldn't mind (and have the time) to post even just one question, > that would be so wonderful. I would really appreciate it. > Thanks, > marie >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:49 EST