Return-Path: <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i75E4Y110256; Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:04:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 10:04:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <002501c47af4$953f9ec0$cb01a8c0@snet.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Bender" <SBender@1199TrainingFund.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:1104] GED vs. EDP vs. Credit Diploma X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 3883 Lines: 77 George and others, I'd suggest that when you speak with the local adult education provider, you ask them to give your students an overview of the high school credit diploma program and the External Diploma Program, in addition to the GED. The "new" GED is harder than in the past, and for the students that you're describing, these programs may be more realistic. Steve Bender 1199 Training Fund Hartford, CT ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion@lvgh.org> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:41 AM Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:1103] Re: elective courses > Thanks you Tom and Michele for your recommendations. > > You're both correct on the need for helping students at this level > improve their basic skills. That's what we focus on in our regular > two-group sessions and in our computer lab as well. As part of our > program we utilize the Wilson Reading System (and our most advanced > students are in Book 5). We also utilize a wide array of narrative texts > in various areas of interest. This summer, we included an editorial in > the Hartford Courant on same-sex marriage, which spawned a debate and > short student essays. We also worked with a fairly complex management > survey that one of the students brought in from his job. We work with > essays the old Scott, Foresman Adult Reading Comprehension series, > Voyager, News for You, with a collection of African-American > biographies, Building Vocabulary Basic Skills, Everyday Heroes, and > other "advanced" texts from various adult ed. Publishing houses and > student-generated essays. > > In general, we combine an approach which includes systematic phonics, > sight-word memorization and reading connected texts of high interest. > Many of our students make progress, little of which might be viewed as > rapid. I also wouldn't deny that there isn't a certain palteauing among > many of our students, though I will not be one quick to judge that there > is no progress even in the "plateaud" state. I'm also seeing a lot of > strengths with many of the students at this level, though if I were > hunting for weaknesses, I'd certainly find them. > > Those students in the CASAS 220-230 range are our more advanced. The > question is not what the focus of the instructional program should be, > in general. I believe we're responding reasonably well with that even > while noting room for continuous improvement. The issue is what we > might offer in our electives. Some of the students at this level > identified the GED as an area of interest. The issue is whether > providing an intro would be useful through our elective offerings. I > ran off a whole bunch of material on the new GED. I have to say I was > blown away on what students are expected to master. In my considered > judgment, the students to whom I am referring would not likely pass the > GED any time really soon. The issue, rather, is whether they would > (sooner rather than latter) succeed in a pre-GED class and whether an > overview of the GED would be useful to introduce in our electives. My > intuition leads me to believe that it is, at some level, and that it is > important for program like ours to establish more effective transitional > opportunities, as there is a large gap between the higher-level students > in volunteer literacy programs like ours and entrance into GED classes, > and job training. > > So, perhaps we can continue this discussion on two levels: > > a) providing an effective instructional program for the more advanced > literacy students (still below pre-GED readiness) > b) developing effective transitional strategies for those who might be > successful in more advanced programs, while maintaining a strong support > system for those willing to take on the effort. > > George Demetrion
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:47:17 EST