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 PAA00760; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 15:44:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 15:44:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <NCBBKFFJEKBIIPDOPFOGCEFMCMAA.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:2625] FW: NLA Summary: Part 2 of Q&A: WIA, AEFLA, and the NRS 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: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: OR Thanks again to Harriet for compiling these questions and answers off the NLA list. Nancy Sledd -----Original Message----- From: nla-approval@world.std.com [mailto:nla-approval@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Harriet Vardiman Smith Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 11:50 AM To: nla@world.std.com Subject: NLA Summary: Part 2 of Q&A: WIA, AEFLA, and the NRS Part 2 of Questions and Answers: WIA, AEFLA, and the National Reporting System The following questions were posted to the National Literacy Advocacy (NLA) listserv sponsored by the National Institute for Literacy. During December 1999, the answers were provided by Ron Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education and Literacy in the U.S. Department of Education. ----------------------------------------------------- Question: Can the six levels of performance be modified by states and can performance be measured on only one of the three areas, such as listening and speaking for ESL? Gloria Gillette Answer: Gloria, there are a couple of separate questions here. But they are related. First, for federal reporting purposes, States must use the six levels of performance on our report forms which reflect statutory requirements in WIA. As you know the functional level descriptors describe what a learner entering that level can do in the areas of reading and writing, numerically, speaking and listening and/or functional or workplace skills. The local program need not assess the learner in all areas, but the assessment should be in the areas in which instruction will be focused. Additional indicators that States want to include may be used at the States' option. In fact, a number of States have requested--and we have included in the NRS--optional indicators States can use to report outcomes for family literacy and workplace literacy programs. But the legislation clearly allows States to develop their own performance indicators beyond the statutory ones they must report to us. One issue in your question may touch on is the extent to which project learners, who meet their objectives, may be counted. Although these learners would no longer be included in federal reports, they could still be aggregated by States and used for State and local reporting. Washington State is one State that has been fairly successful in devising a method for doing this and including that method in its State plan. The contact persons would be mendoza@sbctc.ctc.edu or bkanes@sbctc.ctc.edu. ------------------------------------------------------------ Question: Does WIA "preclude" sampling? David Rosen/George Demetrion Answer: It's true that WIA precludes sampling, but here's how. There is no specific statutory language in WIA's Title II that says "no sampling allowed." There is, however, very specific language about what the performance measures must be, how each State's adjusted levels of performance will be expressed and how achievement on those levels must be compared to those of other States. In order to comply with the latter statutory language, sampling is unlikely to produce comparable data among States on the performance indicators based on specific learning outcomes of individual students in the various educational functioning levels. Regarding the core outcome measures for employment and employment-related activities, data match procedures would be far less costly and cumbersome than sampling. There is the further issue that sampling may not provide an accurate basis for paying performance awards to States that exceed their performance targets for Title I, Title II and vocational education. ------------------------------------------------------------ Question: Further comment on this question from section 1: Is this true or is it possible that other measures [than standardized tests] could be used, such as portfolio documentation that demonstrates level gain according to specific statewide criteria? Gretchen Bitterlin, ESL Coordinator Continuing Education Centers San Diego Community College District Answer: You raise a good question about the use of standardized tests. What Sec. 212 of WIA requires is that the state's performance levels on the statutory core indicators be "expressed in an objective, quantifiable and measurable form." And those core indicators must reflect "demonstrated improvements" in certain skills. Now the quickest way to get to that is by using standardized tests, although I don't think that anyone is very happy with the state of the art in standardized tests for adult education. That is not to say that other measures that could reach these objectives, such as portfolio assessment against statewide criteria which included the WIA core indicators could not be used. But it would be more difficult for the state to standardize this process. Colorado has a very good portfolio assessment system that you might look into, although the extent to which it can accommodate the WIA core indicators is not clear. The contact person would be Pam Smith or Mary Willoughby at 303/866-6638 While the selection of standardized tests for adult basic and English as a second language programs is not ideal in any sense of the word, it will as [David Rosen] point[ed] out, take a significant investment of time and effort to improve the situation. What the role of the federal Department is in this sort of policy question has been vigorously debated, but the most effective one at the moment appears to be to provide a catalyst for discussion in this area rather than to identify and fund the development of a government test. As you note, the improvement of adult education tests is a long-term project and we will have to use what is available to support the NRS for the time being. ------------------------------------------------------------- Question: One question I would like to have Ron address is how Federal ABE funds are distributed. Many people don't realize that there is an established formula. Perhaps Ron could speak to it. Also there is a state-by-state list of funds. How can someone access it? And lastly, how much discretion do states have when they distribute federal funds within a state? J. Cretella Answer: The Federal Adult education funds are allocated to the states and outlying areas through a formula based on certain population factors. First, each state is given a base amount of $250,000. All outlying areas receive a base of $100,000. The remainder of the allocation is based on the relative number of qualifying adult in each state or outlying area to the total number of such qualifying adults in all states and outlying areas. A "qualifying adult" is defined as a person who is at least 16 years of age, but less than 61: who is beyond the age of compulsory school attendance of the state or outlying area; does not have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent; and is not enrolled in secondary school (Note: The 16 to 61 age range used in this formula has nothing to do with who may be served in programs. Persons over 61 may be provided services.) The number of "qualifying adults" is based on Census data and is updated at the time of the Census (every ten years). Although the next Census will take place in 2000, we do not expect the new population counts to be available until at least 2002. The legislative language describing the allotment of funds to states, including additional provisions concerning the Outlying areas can be found in Section 211 (c-g) of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. Each year the Office of Vocational and Adult Education prepares an allocation schedule containing level of adult education state grant funds that each State and Outlying Area will receive. This information is placed on the Division of Adult Education and Literacy Web-site and may be accessed at WWW.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/allots.html. It is very difficult to answer your question about how much discretion states have to distribute federal funds. It is really based on an individual point of view. Let me describe some of the conditions under which States distributed federal funds and you can decide how much discretion there is. First, the federal statute establishes the purposes of the program and generally describes how the funds may be used (allowable costs). At the general policy level, states must spend money to support adult education and literacy services, including workplace literacy, family literacy services, and English Literacy services. Of the funds allocated to a State, up to 5% may be spend for state level administration, up to 12% may be spent for state leadership activities, and 82.5% shall be used to award grants and contracts to local providers. Of the funds allocated to local programs, some funds must be spent to provide programs for corrections education and other institutionalized adults but not more than 10% of the funds made available to local programs. The state must fund multi-year grants or contracts, on a competitive basis, to eligible providers as defined in AEFLA. The state must consider a set of 12 considerations (defined in Section 231(e) of AEFLA) in awarding local grants or contracts. States may add other criteria as well to the competitive funding process. These are some of the conditions under which funds are distributed. -------------------------------------------------------- Question: Along the same lines as assessment and funding - what about learners who aren't working and don't have "attaining employment" as one of their goals? I'm thinking of students who are elderly, or who receive disability benefits, or who are homemakers. Will the fact that their goals do not fit into DOE funding goal frameworks adversely affect a program's funding? Erica Walch, Instructor Read-Write-Now Adult Learning Center Springfield, MA Answer: You'll be pleased to know that next year we'll be counting for employment purposes only those who actually had as a goal getting a job or obtaining job advancement. Concerning the impact on funding of enrolling learners who do not have employment as a goal from the federal perspective, there is no impact. Federal funds flow on a formula basis to eligible persons that do not take their learning goals--or even if they are interested in learning--into account. The formula only counts the number of persons who could legally be eligible for services in each state. The legislation does not tie federal funding to learner goals or even to the extent to which states achieve their predicted performance levels, except that financial incentives are provided to states that exceed their negotiated performance levels for WIA Title I, Title II and vocation education programs. -------------------------------------------------------------- Question: Someone asked me recently if there was WIA, title II funding available for Native Americans on reservations. I know that in some of the k-12 programs there are set-asides for this purpose. Does DAEL fund programs on reservations? If not, do you know if the BIA or some other agency has funding for this purpose? Andy Hartman National Institute for Literacy Answer: Andy, there are a couple of questions here, so let me take them in order. There is no specific WIA Title II funding targeted to or set aside for Indians living on reservations. However, as with the Adult Education Act, it is possible for local tribal education agencies, community colleges, community-based organizations of demonstrated effectiveness to compete for adult education funds like other agencies and organizations in the States under Title 2. My understanding is that the Bureau of Indian Affairs no longer has funds for adult education. ------------------------------------------------------------- Question [somewhat abbreviated]: Tom Sticht has … raised some important issues … as well as Catherine King on the relationship between federal policy and democracy. There's a lot more that could be said, but the obsession with counting--"objective, measurable, quantitative, "at least goes to a significant core to where my critique is at. "Secondary measures" are fine, I suppose, but if they are not what "really" counts, I don't know why hard pressed programs are going to spend quality time documenting them, too, in addition to documenting what "really" counts. As I have understood it, EFF all along was designed to link pedagogy with policy wherein the standards (the generative skills) would be the mechanism of assessment through its performance indicators…These, however, do not easily break down into "objective, measurable, quantitative," so they're off the table, at least as far as primary indicators. Without the clout of a legitimizing assessment system, where does that place the policy objectives of EFF? On the sampling issue--not that I have any final answer here, but at least (even from your comments) there seems to be room for interpretation, if not negotiation. Think of what the alternative is, attempting to obtain data information, pre and post of whatever, on every student, an impossible standard, particularly for decentralized volunteer tutoring programs, and a dubious task in any event,-- all just because a certain interpretation of the law says that that is what's "really" needed for the enforcement of policy mandates. If there are some real problems here with the WIA and particularly with the NRS, why not put a moratorium on the data collection process for a year so that we can put together some of our top practitioners, researchers, policy folks, and reps from VALUE to take a good hard look so we might come up with some other alternatives, including sampling. George Demetrion LVA-Connecticut River East Answer: George, thank you for the fine summary. The issues you raised are requirements of the Workforce Investment Act, including what to measure, when it must be reported (annually), how the Department must report it to Congress. Because the Act requires core indicators that are not EFF's standards, EFF's standards are in the category of additional, useful measures a State may choose but which are not mandated by law. No one can declare a moratorium on data collection under WIA because it is a statutory mandate. We all will have to work on improving it as we go along. WIA is the work of Congress, not the Department of Education. To keep things simple, the Department even chose not to regulate on the new Act - for the first time since adult education programs have been authorized in federal education law. As for expressing the "debate on policy needs in the public airwaves," I do hope my earlier offer of webcast/satellite dialogues this winter will help get more people involved in the process. I look forward to keeping in touch with all of you on these issues as we move forward. Ron Pugsley, Director Division of Adult Education and Literacy U.S. Department of Education. ---------------------------------------------------------- Harriet Vardiman Smith Materials/Research Coordinator Texas Adult Literacy Clearinghouse 800-441-READ 409-862-6519 website: http://www.cdlr.tamu.edu/tcall/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 11:00:18 EDT