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 j5OCaHG06104; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 08:36:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 08:36:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <2108AA78.7E3FCF02.0A349A3F@aol.com> 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: AWilder106@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:1135] Spanish GED X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 559 Lines: 9 I am interested in understanding the thinking behind Andres's use of the Spanish GED, rather than switching his students to English. Did the Committee discuss a Spanish language track for literacy? In our state, Massachusetts, there is a need for many more ESL classes for immigrants; I have also heard (have not verified) that ESL is a health risk factor. I understand that our national immigrant policies are chaotic, and I wonder how this chaos may influence decisions made for descriptive literacy assessment, specifically the NAAL. Thanks. Andrea
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:50 EST