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 j5NFXuG08214; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:33:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:33:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <013c01c5780a$29bc2790$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:1123] Reponse: NRS; test correlations X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 3327 Lines: 73 The response is from Judy Koenig. marie Hello, I'd like to respond to two of the questions raised in yesterday's postings. First Debbie Yoho commented: A primary concern of many direct providers of literacy services like me is the accountability standards of the National Reporting System in relation to the lowest level learners. Do you know if the new data will be used or could be used to establish two very low levels in the NRS system? Many providers feel it is not reasonable to expect learners who score that low to achieve the equivalent of two grade levels per year in order to meet NRS standards. For too many, progress is much slower. I believe the current system creates a disincentive to serve the lowest level learners because the accountability pressures are related to funding. In short, unless something changes, many feel that serving "too many" very low level learners could jeopardize an entire program. Response: The Committee was well aware of the NRS and the challenges the NRS poses for adult educators. We tried to keep the NRS levels and legislative requirements in mind as we made decisions about the performance levels. We address this on page 4-12 and 4-13 of the report, where we say: "In identifying these levels, we were conscious of the fact that one of the chief audiences for NAAL results is adult education programs, which are guided legislatively by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Title II of this act mandates an accountability system for adult education programs, known as the [NRS] that specifies a set of education functioning levels used in tracking the progress of enrolless. Feedback from stakeholders emphasized the usefulness of creating levels for NAAL aligned with the NRS levels. Although it was not possible to establish a clear one-to-one correspondence between NAAL performance levels and the NRS levels, there appears to be a rough parallel between Nonliterate in English and the NRS beginning literacy level; between below basic and the NRS beginning basic and low intermediate levels; and between basic and the NRS high intermediate level." I hope that this helps a bit, although I recognize that it doesn't fully answer your question. The committee did not make any recommendations about changes to be considered for the NRS levels since this would have been beyond the scope of their charge. Next from Miriam Kroeger: Has there been any correlations of the "standard" assessments (TABE, CASAS,) and the GED Tests, including the English Proficiency test (Test 6)to the 2003NAALS, or for that matter to the MRS? Response: Our report discusses the performance levels we recommend be used for reporting the 2003 NAAL results, and for purposes of exemplification, we applied the levels and cut scores to the 1992 NALS results. Our report doesn't include any actual date from the 2003 NAAL because the Department of Education has not yet publically released them. The Department was awaiting our recommendations for performance levels and cut scores before reporting the 2003 results, and they are now in the process of preparing their reports. Once the 2003 NAAL results are released, I would expect that analyses that had been conducted with the 1992 NALS (such as the GED study) would be replicated with the new results.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:50 EST