Hello All:

Below is a brief quote from an article in Teachers College Record called "Teaching for Democracy in an Age of Corporatocracy."  www.tcrecord.org.

"What does this have to do with assessments?"  

Well, below are the dot-connections in very brief form. 

PREFACE:  Tom Sticht and others here have discussed using "non-cognition" as a term to refer to more remote or "hidden" learning.   My and others' earlier point is not that we cannot teach to such hidden or remote learning (we can, should, and do), but that such learning is far from non-cognitive, and that using this term makes the case better for NON-funding, not to mention the implications of using such a term on learning theory--a purview of our own professional and theoretical fields.  

Using aspects of the above article on corporatocracy and democracy as a springboard, here are the dots:  


(1) Assessments for what is known as cognitive learning (as opposed to non-cognitive learning).

(2) Funding for those assessments that tend to exclude what is now-known as non-cognitive (the naming makes this opposition much more solid).

(3) Corporatocratic principles as having a great stake in supporting such funding as well as in the nominative distinctions between non-cognitive and cognitive learning/assessments, etc.--as opposed to, democratic principles--training over education, workforce over citizenship, etc.

As example, what is deemed assessible for workforce training is deemed not assessible or less so for developing citizenship skills, which draws on many of what is deemed "non-cognitive" skills.    

Tom is right about the import of funding and I applaud him for his intent--to better fund adult education.  But in my view, he is arguing from accepting the principles of one over the other above very-political distinctions.

Regards,

Catherine King
Adjunct Instructor
National University
Department of Education
San Diego/Huntington Beach, CA


The conclusion of the study that is the centerpiece of the article:

Conclusions: While the teachers were able to use standards strategically to enact a limited form of democratic teaching, both, particularly the teacher who had more experience with democratic teaching, felt thwarted by accountability pressures. I argue that, while democratically minded teachers can navigate accountability pressures up to a point, No Child Left Behind, rooted in corporatocracy, limits teachers' ability to enact democratic teaching, particularly in schools not meeting test score targets. 

www.tcrecord.org  Christine E. Sleeter, 2008     
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Catherine B. King 
  To: Michael Gyori 
  Cc: aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org 
  Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] [Assessment 2198] The Influence of Prior Knowledge on Assessments


  Hello All:

  Here is another website that relates to our prior discussion on assessments as related to prior knowledge:

  The University of Memphis Department of Psychology:   Learning is Influenced by our Students' as well as our own Epistemologies (Theories about Learning).  from the University of Memphis, Department of Psychology Web site: http://psyc.memphis.edu/learning/principles/lp4.shtml 



  Catherine King, Adjunct Instructor

  Department of Education, National University

  San Diego, CA





    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Michael Gyori 
    To: Michael A. Gyori 
    Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:28 AM
    Subject: Fw: [AAACE-NLA] [Assessment 2198] Moderator's request


    I am forwarding a post of mine to the NLA list for your information.

    Michael


    Michael A. Gyori 

    Maui International Language School 

    www.mauilanguage.com





    ----- Forwarded Message ----
    From: Michael Gyori <tesolmichael at yahoo.com>
    To: The AAACE-NLA Discussion List <aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org>
    Cc: Noreen Lopez <Noreen.Lopez at ed.gov>; Marie Cora <marie.cora at hotspurpartners.com>
    Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 8:08:35 AM
    Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] [Assessment 2198] Moderator's request


    Hello Noreen (and, of course, all others),

    To begin, I apologize for this somewhat lengthy post and sincerely appreciate that you took the time to respond to it. I do feel a very strong need to set the record straight, however:

    Firstly, as I have mentioned in the post of mine below that you are responding to, I have no issues whatsoever with the moderators.  Quite on the contrary, as I have also noted below, my experiences with the moderators are of a very high order. I would saddened if any moderators are of the opinion that I am directing criticism of any sort at them.  That said, my point of reference needs to be, initially at least, remarks made by moderators, because they serve on the frontline for addressing concerns. I am well aware that the parameters of the respective discussion lists, and the ideas that they can or cannot accommodate, are not set by the moderators. 

    I copied you in my e-mail below to express my concerns at a hierarchically higher level and copied Marie, because it happened to be directed at an e-mail that she authored that I was responding to.  It could and likely would have been similarly authored by any other moderator. 

    Secondly, my concern is not in any way that my messages are being blocked.  I am referring to a larger issue that includes and impacts me and also others, namely the way that the lists are conceptualized and very real limits on thoughts that can be expressed and discussed using NIFL as a venue.  The assessment list, as you know, had a discussion about cognitive vs. noncognitive skills. It resulted in a very lively discussion, with a few contributors (myself included) dismissing the notion of noncognition for one or more reasons.

    Once the guest discussion ended, I and a few others continued to discuss noncognition, and addressed the explicit and implicit assumptions that associate with that construct.  The importance of the ensuing discussion lies, in my opinion, in the fact that noncognition has become "institutionalized" and measures have been devised to measure purported so-called nonconitive traits. It was at that point that the discussion was essentially curtailed because, I believe, it no longer addressed current practices and associated needs of practitioners, but the very assumptions that underlie them. That curtailment led me to understand that NIFL, as conceived, had no venue through which to address foundational educational principles.

    Yes, we can resort to other venues to discuss explicit and implicit assumptions that guide practice.  However, the  fact that NIFL itself is not an appropriate forum for doing so simply reinforces my concerns, at least, that there are constraints in NIFL that should be addressed.  One of the ways I suggested doing so is creating a list devoted to educational principles that reside on a more theoretical plane. NIFL is, or could be, a very powerful forum, and before using alternative resources, I have decided to focus on NIFL itself, rather than resigning myself to what I believe are its limitations. I am doing so for the sake of free expression of ideas, some of them very powerful ones, in my opinion, that NIFL should be able to accommodate. 

    As a subscriber, I reiterate that I am troubled that changes are being made to discussion lists without drawing in the subscribers themselves in the process.  I also wish to reiterate that it is the subscribers who are the very lifeblood of the discussion lists, and announcing changes to or discontinuing discussion lists unilaterally strikes me as a regrettably undemocratic approach.  I also believe, as I have stated before, that the discussion lists are conceptually flawed, and that many ideas expressed on different lists could lead to new insights if they could at least be colocated on a single discussion list.

    Finally, I'd like to draw attention to an article written in 2008 entitled, The Hidden Curriculum of Performance-Based Teacher Education by Peter Rennert-Ariev. It is quite long, but reading the first four short introductory and summarizing paragraphs in italics ought to suffice whether individuals consider the rest worth reading. It is the "hidden curriculum" that I wish NIFL could accommodate at least as a discussion strand.  The link to the article is http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=14561.

    Thank you so much,

    Michael


    Michael A. Gyori 
    Maui International Language School 

    www.mauilanguage.com






----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: "Lopez, Noreen" <Noreen.Lopez at ed.gov>
    To: Michael Gyori <tesolmichael at yahoo.com>; National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE <aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org>
    Cc: Marie Cora <marie.cora at hotspurpartners.com>
    Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 6:45:11 AM
    Subject: RE: [AAACE-NLA] [Assessment 2198] Moderator's request


    Michael,

    I am sorry if you feel that your messages are being blocked in some way. I can assure you that the list moderators work very hard to see that all list subscribers are encouraged to participate in discussions. It takes effort on the part of the moderators to see that discussions stay focused on the topic, that posts are respectful to other list members, and that everyone has a fair chance to participate without letting anyone dominate a discussion, or stray from the topic, much as you would do with any face to face professional development activity, or in your adult education classroom. 



    The moderators follow the guidelines very closely. I quote: The purpose of the National Institute for Literacy's Discussion Lists is to bring together literacy stakeholders - researchers, policymakers, administrators, practitioners, and students - to discuss critical issues in the latest research, promising policies and practices as well as to share resources and experience. The discussion lists provide a forum to ask questions of subject experts and keep up-to-date on literacy. The National Institute for Literacy partners with literacy organizations that provide specialized and knowledgeable staff to facilitate and moderate the discussion lists. Under a policy governing these lists, the list moderator will follow a review process before messages are distributed to list subscribers. Each list has a specific purpose established around subject matter, content and professional development topics.



    As to your suggestion that the Institute should start another discussion list, I can only say that given unlimited resources there are probably several more lists we would be interested in sponsoring. In reality however, we have a limited budget and have chosen to focus on the identified needs of teachers, based on the NIFL professional development needs assessment and practitioner focus group results, in tandem with legislative priorities, to assist them in the application of best practice and research.

    We know there are many additional needs in the field and know we cannot address all those needs. Perhaps there are other organizations or institutions that would be interested in hosting a list as you describe below to address the theoretical issues in the field. Perhaps one of the Universities would be interested in such an endeavor or a professional association such as AAACE.  



    Noreen Lopez

    Senior Program Officer, Technology

    National Institute for Literacy

    1775 I Street, NW, Suite 730

    Washington, DC 20006



    From: Michael Gyori [mailto:tesolmichael at yahoo.com] 
    Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 3:00 PM
    To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE
    Cc: Marie Cora; Lopez, Noreen
    Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] [Assessment 2198] Moderator's request



    Hello Krista and all,

    In a message I sent to the AAACE-NLA list, I expressed my unreserved support of and respect for the NIFL list moderators.  I will repeat that if all current and prospective moderators found the current constraints placed on NIFL unconscionable, there would be no NIFL discussion lists at all.  Such a scenario would be far worse than what we now have, as effectively all voices would be silenced who wish to use NIFL as a venue.

    I appreciate that some messages (mine included) do not immediately or in a timely fashion address the needs of many if not most practitioners. 

    Everyone has the right, freedom, and their own reasons for blocking messages from certain senders.  If you have a mail filtering option, all you need to do is add the names of the senders you do not wish to receive mail from (in something like the "if the message contains" part). You will still get the mail in your spam or junk folder, and you may or may not have a feature whereby that folder can be automatically deleted.  Alternatively, everyone can easily delete messages they do not wish to read for whatever reason.  

    On further reflection, I honor the NIFL assessment list's prerogative to keep posts focused on practices currently in place and how to implement them,  especially if that is indeed the will of most of its subscribers.  All that lends even more justification, in my opinion, to creating yet another NIFL list that might be called Foundations of Education, or Foundations and Principles of Education.  We would then have a NIFL forum that can address the very premises that guide current practices.  Subscribers could easily decide to join or not join that list, and would only be exposed to more "theoretical" considerations if they so choose.

    Based on my hope that NIFL no longer has censorial considerations in devising and conducting their discussion lists, I strongly believe that implementing such a list would greatly "democratize" the NIFL forum.  Hopefully, now that the Obama administration is holding the reins, and perhaps especially in the spirit of  President Obama now having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, some movement in this direction can be made.

    Michael



    Michael A. Gyori 

    Maui International Language School 

    www.mauilanguage.com






----------------------------------------------------------------------------











------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
  http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
  LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
  http://literacytent.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20091020/c1cc6f3b/attachment.html