Joanne,

I think what you are demonstrating is the importance of personal  
contacts.  I guess I'd also like to see some kind of structure to  
facilitate these, but if person-to-person works in your community,  
that's great.

My worry is about those who do fall through the cracks -- who don't  
know where to go or where to go next.

Jodi
On Feb 8, 2008, at 6:12 PM, jhalaesl at aol.com wrote:


>

>

> Forrest - you are on target with your comments about the CBO- 

> college connection, or lack thereof. And yes many fall through the  

> cracks. Hence my previous comments about having contacts. This is  

> not a systematized network of contacts (I'm a tad cynical about  

> that route), but those in one's personal/professional circle--the  

> people who can tell us when/if the system can be flexed, or not.

>

> Without those contacts it would be very difficult for me to refer  

> ESL students from our CBO program (FYI much time and effort spent  

> ensuring that our programs are high-quality, accountable, and  

> learner-driven) to other providers, including the college. Our  

> students place a great deal of trust in our willingness and ability  

> to help them get the education they need at a price/time/place that  

> works. When I make a referral, it is a personal one, preceded by my  

> phone call/e-mail to the contact. And always including my/their  

> follow-up.

>

>

> Fortunately the people on the other end of the referral know to  

> refer back to me if their program is not suitable.

> Joanne

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Forrest Chisman <forrest at crosslink.net>

> To: 'The Assessment Discussion List' <assessment at nifl.gov>

> Sent: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 5:08 pm

> Subject: [Assessment 1208] Re: (no subject)

>

> Joanne,

>

> I’m interested in the question Jodi asks too. As I understand it,  

> local literacy councils have been on the wane, but I hope I’m wrong  

> about that.

>

> I’m aware that CBO’s are the federal/state grant providers in some  

> areas, although nationwide (according to DOE surveys anyway) they  

> serve a far smaller percentage of students than do LEA’s and  

> colleges. I mean them no disrespect.  I’ve seen some that were  

> highly professionalized and provided superb service, and some that  

> didn’t  -- just like colleges and LEA’s J! It’s the quality of the  

> provider, not the type of provider that matters.

>

> What interests me more is your reference to the implicit “division  

> of labor” between CBO’s and colleges or LEA’s you mention. I think  

> that in some areas this is fairly common: colleges or LEA’s refer  

> the lowest level students to CBO’s (with or without the necessary  

> funding). In most of the cases where I’ve seen this, it doesn’t  

> seem to work out very well. There isn’t the coordination/ 

> collaboration to which you allude. In fact, I’ve sometimes had the  

> impression that it’s a way of dumping the hardest to serve students  

> on CBO’s. Too often these students become “out of sight and out of  

> mind.” And because the students ARE the hardest to serve, low  

> success rates make the CBO’s look bad, compared to the other  

> providers – unfairly. I’ve tried to chase down information about  

> this model in the past, but I haven’t been very successful. I would  

> love to know if any of the rest of you have experience with it, and  

> how well you think it works.

>

> Forrest

>

> From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment- 

> bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Jodi Crandall

> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 1:09 PM

> To: The Assessment Discussion List

> Subject: [Assessment 1191] Re: (no subject)

>

> Joanne,

>

> Bravo!  Making connections with such limited funds is critical.  I  

> remember when major cities had  councils which coordinated literacy/ 

> ESL services.  I wonder if any of you have some kind of even an   

> informal network that meets to discuss the most efficient and  

> effective ways to use the minimal funds that are available.

> Jodi

>

> On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:50 AM, jhalaesl at aol.com wrote:

>

>

> Not always the reason for an LEA-to-local college turnover of those  

> federal and state adult ed funds

> In my experience, it has simply and sadly been the result of  

> limited resources and insufficient funds.

> And in some areas a CBO (not an LEA) manages those grant programs,  

> offers classes free to the lowest literacy ESL/ESOL students, and  

> is never able to fully bridge the gap between very part-time  

> instruction and college.

>

> One key element to our small successes has been having colleagues  

> in each institution (local college, LEA, CBO, gov't DOE/DOL) who  

> understand the dynamics and the gaps. Granted, most are still  

> limited by the systems in which they work and to which they must be  

> accountable. But there is still much to be said for permitting  

> ourselves some case-by-case thinking, making those simple phone  

> calls, and asking.

>

> Joanne Hala

> Literacy Serrvices

> Jointure for Community Adult Education, Inc.

> ’ve heard an increasing number of stories about areas were the LEA  

> runs the federal/state  adult education ESL grant program and has  

> asked the local college to take it over (because the LEA has  

> concluded it’s an “adult” program). Have there been any rumblings  

> of that in your area?

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Forrest Chisman <forrest at crosslink.net>

> To: 'The Assessment Discussion List' <assessment at nifl.gov>

> Sent: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:42 am

> Subject: [Assessment 1179] Re: (no subject)

> Kevin,

>

> Thanks for the explanation. I find it VERY useful. It’s a very  

> interesting model. I’m not surprised that your students are  

> motivated for college, because they’ve signed up for a college prep  

> track! What worries me are the limited aspirations of many lower  

> level ESL students who may have college potential.

>

> I understand now why you don’t have the resources to operate a more  

> comprehensive program. I’ve heard an increasing number of stories  

> about areas were the LEA runs the federal/state  adult education  

> ESL grant program and has asked the local college to take it over  

> (because the LEA has concluded it’s an “adult” program). Have there  

> been any rumblings of that in your area?

>

> Best of luck in your good work.

>

> Forrest

>

> From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment- 

> bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Hinkle, Robert

> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 9:42 AM

> To: The Assessment Discussion List; The Assessment Discussion List

> Subject: [Assessment 1174] Re: (no subject)

>

> I believe we do have a hard time getting enough students fed into  

> our program and with the appropriate background to succeed if they  

> do come to us. It is a real problem. There are some workplace ESL  

> programs which are run through our Corporate and Continuing  

> Education Office, but those students rarely, if ever, come to us.  

> And they serve the employees of specific companies as opposed to  

> the community at large.

>

> Our ESL program is within an academic department in the college  

> (Communication and Languages) and so is run like every other. ESL  

> students pay the same tuition and fees as all other students at the  

> college. We do not receive special government funding beyond what  

> the state and counties provide for the college as a whole as a part  

> of our yearly budget.

>

> Finances are probably a big reason why we are getting fewer  

> students at the low levels. Community programs are free or low  

> cost; although in the scheme of higher education, the community  

> college is less expensive, it may still be out of reach of many  

> students.

>

> In terms of having a more comprehensive program, we are limited by  

> a small staff, and the unlikelihood of being able to expand given  

> college budgeting restraints. In addition, our three full-time  

> faculty members (including myself) not only teach 15 credit hours  

> per semester but also do the administrative work required. We do  

> advising, scheduling, and the many other tasks associate with  

> keeping the program afloat. The only "official" administrative  

> support for the program is through the 3 hours of overload I  

> receive to serve as Adjunct Coordinator.

>

> The belief that they can attend college does not seem to be a  

> problem with our population although I can certainly see that it  

> could be. A growing problem for us (and many around the country) is  

> the disconnect between high schools and colleges in terms of  

> student preparation. Either the high schools do not think the  

> students are college-bound and so don't bother to give them a  

> college-prep course of study, or there is simply a growing gap  

> between the expectations of each. Additionally, students seem to  

> think that a high school diploma equates to college readiness.

>

> We do our best to advise students, but we don't always have enough  

> time - and as professors primarily - may not know ourselves what  

> all of the options for students are.

>

> Kevin

>

> From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of Forrest Chisman

> Sent: Thu 2/7/2008 10:38 PM

> To: 'The Assessment Discussion List'

> Subject: [Assessment 1172] Re: (no subject)

> Dear Kevin,

>

> Many thanks for providing all of us with a profile of your program.  

> Seeing the variety of college program goals and designs is  

> extremely valuable in stimulating ideas about how to do a better  

> job in delivering ESL.

>

> Personally, I think that it is perfectly valid for colleges to  

> elect to offer solely pre-academic ESL at the non-credit level. But  

> it does prompt the concern about whether other programs in the  

> college’s service area are providing non-academic ESL to large  

> enough numbers of students and at a high enough quality to “feed”  

> the college program – as well as how well their efforts articulate  

> with yours. I wonder whether this troubles you, and if so whether/ 

> how you have addressed the issue.  Frankly, I think one reason why  

> many colleges offer comprehensive ESL programs is that they would  

> prefer to “make” pre-academic students themselves, rather than rely  

> on others to do it. Another reason, of course, if that they may not  

> be eligible for federal/state grant money unless they offer  

> comprehensive programs. Does your college receive these funds to  

> support its pre-academic program? If not, how is it supported  

> financially?

>

> I heartily agree that helping students set realistic goals and  

> understand their options is essential. I believe, however, that  

> encouraging students to expand their goals as they succeed is also  

> essential. For example, many immigrants come from countries where  

> going to college is the privilege of very few, and thus may  

> consider that an unrealistic goal  unless they are encouraged to  

> take the steps necessary (often one step at a time). The problem  

> seems to be that it is hard for most programs to find the resources  

> to provide very much guidance of any of these kinds to most  

> students. I wonder if anyone has any solutions to THAT issue.

>

> In any event, many thanks for fleshing out an interesting model.

>

> Forrest

>

> From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment- 

> bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Hinkle, Robert

> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:19 PM

> To: assessment at nifl.gov

> Subject: [Assessment 1148] (no subject)

>

> Hi All,

>

> I have been reading most of the discussion comments and wanted to  

> address a few issues. First, however, I'll give a summary of our  

> program.

>

> I teach ESL at Raritan Valley Community College in New Jersey. Our  

> program serves approximately 350 students from diverse language  

> backgrounds. Our program offers two pre-academic levels of all  

> skills ESL instruction (a six hour per week non-credit class). In  

> addition, we have 5 levels of academic ESL preparation divided into  

> three courses - Reading/Writing, Grammar, and Speaking/Listening).  

> Our highest level Reading/Writing course gives successful students  

> 6 elective credits that count towards RVCC graduation, but those  

> credits do not transfer. Our semesters are 15 weeks. If a student  

> misses 20% of any class, the instructor may withdraw that student  

> (they are not, however, obliged to withdraw these students). At the  

> moment, the late enrollment policy is that students may register  

> for a course prior to the second week of class but not thereafter.  

> Research, of course, indicates that students who begin a class late  

> have a much higher rate of failure than those who begin on time.

>

> In our program, we have three full-time faculty and approximately  

> 16-18 adjuncts.

>

> We have focused our program on academic prep ESL because we are a  

> small program with limited resources, and we have a very difficult  

> time finding qualified adjuncts. Also, a significant majority of  

> our students have signalled their intention to obtain a college  

> degree. Moreover, there are community programs that offer basic  

> English skills although there is often a long waiting list to  

> obtain the services. In other issues, we use the Accuplacer ESL  

> test for placement and have in-house standardized tests at the end  

> of each level of grammar and reading/writing

>

> Within our classes, highly educated non-native speakers usually  

> progress much more quickly. One of the most challenging groups is  

> students who graduated from local high schools but still have  

> inadequate English skills - and not infrequently, weak academic  

> skills in general. One of the strategies that I would personally  

> wish for is real communication between K-12 and community colleges  

> so that students get the language skills they need before they  

> enter college. I understand that there is great pressure to move  

> students out of ESL in many school districts, but ultimately, it  

> does a huge disservice both financially and in terms of motivation  

> to students whose skills remain more BICS than CALP.

>

> I agree with those who suggest that first language literacy issues  

> should be addressed before students enter ESL. However, it becomes  

> complicated to find funding and support for such efforts. In my  

> experience, students with low level literacy skills become  

> frustrated and are not ultimately successful - probably by any  

> definition. I am uncomfortable with the idea that they are spending  

> hard-earned money when the chances for success in ESL are minimal.  

> We advise students that the program is academically-oriented; often  

> they have little understanding of what that means.

>

> I do not agree with the suggestion that the bar be lowered so that  

> students with low-intermediate skills be allowed in credit classes  

> (at least at my college). Historically, other faculty have little  

> experience handling language issues and are very unhappy when  

> students cannot read, write and converse at an appropriate level of  

> English. They end up feeling helpless. Students may pass classes;  

> however, I suspect that instructors do not want to deal with the  

> challenges and so turn a blind eye and let them through. Recently,  

> there has been a problem in the nursing department with non-native  

> English speaking students not passing board exams because they  

> enter the college from other programs and circumvent ESL with us.  

> They have trouble reading and answering questions on the exam. This  

> is a significant problem because nursing programs are judged in  

> terms of the success of their students on these standardized exams.

>

> I think the measure of success should be based on a realistic  

> assessment of student goals combined with a real-life discussion of  

> the possibilities and limitations. Ideally, students would have  

> incremental goals so that success could build. If the goals for  

> students with low literacy levels are not carefully discussed and  

> planned, then they will likely encounter more failure than success  

> because their expectaions will be unrealistic. The more we have the  

> opportunity to talk to students, the more likely it is that they  

> can develop short-term goals that are within their reach.  

> Unfortunately, we have no control over the myriad of complications  

> that accrue in their every day lives.

>

> Apologies for the length.

>

> Kevin Hinkle, Ph.D.

> Assistant Professor of ESL/Adjunct Coordinator

> -------------------------------

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> National Institute for Literacy

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Assessment mailing list

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Assessment at nifl.gov

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Email delivered to jhalaesl at aol.com

> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

> -------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Assessment mailing list

> Assessment at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to  

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment

> Email delivered to crandall at umbc.edu

>

> JoAnn (Jodi) Crandall

> Professor and Director

> Language, Literacy and Culture Ph.D. Program

> Director, Peace Corps Master's Intl Program in ESOL/Bilingual  

> Education

> University of Maryland Baltimore County

> 1000 Hilltop Circle

> Baltimore, MD 21250

> tel:  410-455-2313

> fax: 410-455-8947

> eml: crandall at umbc.edu

>

>

>

>

>

> -------------------------------

>

> National Institute for Literacy

>

> Assessment mailing list

>

> Assessment at nifl.gov

>

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment

>

> Email delivered to jhalaesl at aol.com

> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

> -------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Assessment mailing list

> Assessment at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to  

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment

> Email delivered to crandall at umbc.edu


JoAnn (Jodi) Crandall
Professor and Director
Language, Literacy and Culture Ph.D. Program
Director, Peace Corps Master's Intl Program in ESOL/Bilingual Education
University of Maryland Baltimore County
1000 Hilltop Circle
Baltimore, MD 21250
tel:  410-455-2313
fax: 410-455-8947
eml: crandall at umbc.edu




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20080208/66abe212/attachment.html