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 j5NGmpG09469; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <410-220056423165441468@earthlink.net> 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: "Debbie Yoho" <dwyoho@earthlink.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:1124] RE: Tom Sticht's concerns about ALL X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: EarthLink MailBox 2004.0.129.0 (Windows) Status: O Content-Length: 2520 Lines: 50 >From Maria, our moderator: "I wanted to counter your idea that literacy practitioners are not equipped to join such discussions. It may in fact be true that in general practitioners are not educated in highly technical issues of test development and interpretation. But in my opinion, they should be. I also believe that little by little in this age of accountability, more and more practitioners ARE in fact becoming knowledgeable and skilled in test development, construction, and interpretation of results." I think Maria is absolutely right. We all should be knowledgeable in test development, etc., and many are working to develop their professional knowledge base to include this information. Unfortunately, I believe that so long as funding is so low that many programs have to operate with part-time and/or volunteer instructors, Maria's vision of a truly well-trained professional cadre is unrealistic. >From another of her posts: "...I'm not sure if we should be defining literacy as a concept (as noted in the Report) or as a set of skills and abilities..." Ahh, here is the rub. Defining literacy as either one or the other is highly problematic. But defining literacy as BOTH a concept (or set of concepts) AND a set of skills is even more problematic for test developers, or so I'm told by people who do understand test formulation. Maria has done a service reminding us that literacy and reading are not the same thing, however one defines terms, and that the TABE is not a reading test. Effective July 1, our state will accept ONLY the TABE (and the BEST for ESL) for NRS accountability purposes. Suppose for a moment that a program offers and delivers ONLY reading instruction, which is pretty near the case in many programs, including mine. Clearly the TABE-only policy isn't fair to those programs. I hope the NAAL (ALL) data will help us make the case at the state level that if the AELS system is to include a wide variety of providers, both specialized and comprehensive, states must allow for more than one instrument as documentation for the NRS. In fact, it seems to me the feds should mandate that states may not demand the use of only one instrument for accountability purposes. For the Cause of Literacy for All! Debbie Deborah W. Yoho Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council Past President, SC Adult Literacy Educators 2728 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205 803-765-2555 Fax 803-799-8417 dwyoho@earthlink.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:50 EST