Return-Path: <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id KAA07955; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:07:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:07:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <NCBBKFFJEKBIIPDOPFOGEEDFCMAA.nsledd@famlit.org> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Nancy Sledd" <nsledd@famlit.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FAMILY:2617] FW: Cross posting from NLA list: Ron Pugsley Q&A X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: OR Sorry....something happened to the last posting! Nancy Sledd Training Specialist National Center for Family Literacy 325 West Main Street, Suite #200 Waterfront Plaza Louisville, KY 40202-4251 (502) 584-1133 ext.142 (502) 584-0172 fax -----Original Message----- From: Nancy Sledd [mailto:nsledd@famlit.org] Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 8:28 AM To: nifl-family@literay.nifl.gov Subject: Cross posting from NLA list: Ron Pugsley Q&A Thanks to Harriet in Texas for compiling these! Questions and Answers: WIA, AEFLA (Adult Education & Family Literacy Act) and the National Reporting System The following questions were posted to the National Literacy Advocacy (NLA) listserv sponsored by the National Institute for Literacy. Between December 6 and 13, 1999, the answers were provided by Ron Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education and Literacy in the U.S. Department of Education. [Mr. Pugsley indicates that he will answer in upcoming weeks more of the numerous questions that were submitted. Those further questions & answers will be posted to the NLA archives at http://www.nifl.gov as well.] ----------------------------------------------------- Question: Rumors are that the Federal Government is only looking at standardized test scores from tests such as CASAS to measure literacy learning gains. Is this true or is it possible that other measures could be used, such as portfolio documentation that demonstrates level gain according to specific statewide criteria? Please comment on this issue. Gretchen Bitterlin, ESL Coordinator Continuing Education Centers San Diego Community College District Answer: Gretchen, there is no Federal requirement associated with the national performance accountability and reporting system that only standardized tests may be used to measure educational gain. The instructions in the reporting guidelines currently being developed to implement the national reporting system require that a uniform, standardized assessment be used to determine initial placement and subsequent educational gain. Standardized tests are allowable but not required. There is no requirement or intention to require local programs or states to report individual test scores to the Federal Government. The states have the responsibility to determine the standardized assessment(s) to be used to measure educational gain. ---------------------------------------------------------- Question: States are having to scale back their "ambitious" attempts to impose standards via performance on standardized tests for K-12 students...[to avoid] failing large numbers of students or to have to deny high school diplomas to great numbers. This is a debacle adult education should not aspire to repeat. Can we learn from the K-12 experience and introduce rationality, in the form of field-based input, into how outcomes are defined and measured and rewarded? Deborah W. Yoho, Chief Executive Officer Greater Columbia Literacy Council Columbia, South Carolina Answer: In adult education, nobody is "setting arbitrary standards...," rather States are estimating the percentage of students likely to advance in basic reading and writing or in speaking and listening over a period of time. Adult learners, enrolled in ABE/ESL/ASE, are seeking to enhance or improve their proficiency in these areas. NRS is one way for the field to register how learners are progressing. ---------------------------------------------------------- Question: Ron: What is the US Department Education doing to ensure that programs that serve the lowest level learner are not effectively excluded from funding as a result of the outcomes and reporting systems being established under WIA/AEFLA? Bill Raleigh, former Director of Government Affairs Laubach Literacy Answer: Hi Bill, probably the strongest indicator of the Department's commitment to providing services to the lowest level of learner is the inclusion in the Department's annual Government Performance and Review Act (GPRA) report to Congress of a performance indicator that says--"By 2000, adults at the lowest levels of literacy (those in Beginning ABE and Beginning ESOL) will comprise 50% of the total national enrollment." This indicator is one of only seven performance indicators selected by the Department to measure the performance of the adult education and literacy system. The Department is committed to providing access to the most in need and will continue to monitor the level of service to this population. ------------------------------------------------------------ Question: How will state adult education agencies and the U.S. Department of Education know what the actual data collection and reporting costs are to programs? Will the Division of Adult Education and Literacy be able to provide, or allow states to use federal dollars to provide, new funds for these additional federally-required data gathering and reporting costs? I am concerned that they will come out of programs' instructional budgets, and thus compromise programs' ability to help students achieve the very learning gains the WIA calls for. David J. Rosen (NLA List Moderator) DJRosen@world.std.com> Answer: Hi David, your question is an important one. The cost to adequately collect and report outcome data, especially on post-program outcomes, is of great concern to everyone in adult education. A promising long-term strategy to successfully control the cost (and ensuring a level of reliability) is to track adult learners electronically through appropriate data systems. For example, a state level data match of the adult education system and the GED testing system can identify quickly and relatively inexpensively all adult enrollees who passed the GED in any given year. Using such a data matching method eliminates the need for each local program to invest any time or money in tracking their students to determine high school completion. The Department and the individual states have been and will continue to investigate this and other approaches to tracking student outcome data. States have the authority to directly spend or allow local programs to spend federal dollars to support the accountability and program improvement requirements of the new Act. Certainly, over the past two years the federal appropriation for adult education has increased and part of this increase should be used to support the accountability requirements. One of the mandated considerations that states must use to fund local programs is whether or not the local programs offer a high quality information management system that has the capacity to report participant outcomes and to monitor program performance, and federal funds would be the source to support these management information systems. -------------------------------------------------------- Question: What was the reasoning behind the NRS not allowing for any type of sampling of students? If I understand correctly, the NRS requires educational gains data from all students in all programs in the state. Was the possibility of doing say a stratified sampling that could have included all programs in a state, considered? If yes, what was the reasoning behind excluding it from the NRS? Ajit Gopalakrishnan Capitol Region Education Council (CREC) 111 Charter Oak Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Answer: Over the past two years, even before the passage of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the Department supported a project to develop a national reporting system built upon the need to better identify and report program outcomes. Prior to the passage of the AEFLA, the Department had identified "sampling" as an appropriate tool for data gathering at both the state and local level. In fact, one of the components of the national reporting system project was to conduct a pilot test of the NRS and a state level sampling construct was one of the models used. Before the pilot test was completed AEFLA became law and a number of assumptions regarding a state level survey were revisited by the Department and the Project Advisory Board. Because of the accountability requirements contained in AEFLA, it became necessary for states to evaluate the effectiveness of each local program based on the core performance indicators. The results of this accountability review would be linked to a number of critical program activities, including program improvement plans, training and technical assistance issues, and eventually funding support for individual programs. As a result, it was clear that a good deal of precision was needed in the reporting system used to collect, analyze and report on individual and local program performance...precluding the use of state-wide or national sampling. --------------------------------------------------------- Question: Since the goal of the WIA is to improve people's economic self-sufficiency through investment in adult education, and since the recent A T Kearnery study clearly demonstrates that students in LVA programs experience economic improvements in their lives (on average $33 for every dollar spent by LVA), how does the department plan to improve direct and equitable access to LVA and other volunteer and community-based organizations to federal funding authorized by WIA? Anne DuPrey Member, Curriculum/Field Services Committee Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc. Answer: Anne, I agree that the Kearnery study is important and deserves to be read and studied by the field. As you may know other ROI studies have been done by States in preparing information for state legislators. D&E is a provision in the law and is further adressed in each State Plan. ----------------------------------------------------------- Harriet Vardiman Smith Materials/Research Coordinator Texas Adult Literacy Clearinghouse 800-441-READ 409-862-6519 website: http://www.cdlr.tamu.edu/tcall/ Nancy Sledd Training Specialist National Center for Family Literacy 325 West Main Street, Suite #200 Waterfront Plaza Louisville, KY 40202-4251 (502) 584-1133 ext.142 (502) 584-0172 fax
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 11:00:18 EDT