Tom ... 

Now I understand why Rochelle need us to change the subject line so often...
Tom, your e-mail to me ended up in my Junk mail and it took a while for me
to find it ... (no comment on your e-mail .. just my spam protection
software).   
 
So here is my reply ... if a bit delayed.        .

As I said ... what we see in the NRS data does not really capture what I am
talking about well .. and makes the issue very difficult to discuss if we
rely on NRS data alone ... NRS data was and has been designed to show the
system at its best ...

The key point I want to make about this is that (besides the old line that
there are lies, damnable lies and statistics) ... The NRS data you reported
was percentage increases over the time ... and percentage increase can be
done with just simple changing peoples' reporting process ... without really
changing what is happening with people.

For example - for years and years (decades) the reported rate of high school
drop outs was something like 12% ... and people then extrapolated
(incorrectly) that 88% must be getting high school degrees since there was
only a 12% drop out .... sure made the K-12 system look good ...

Then this relatively conservative and very "hard number" research group
...called the Manhattan Institute ... did some data evaluation ... by
tracking all kids who entered 9th grade in some states and cities ... and
their numbers found incredibly much higher "non-completion" of high school
within 6 years of entering 9th grade ... of something close to 45% ... 

Now, using that Manhattan method we all know and understand that the high
school drop out rate in this country is horrible, hovering around 45% not
12% and a massive crisis facing the competitiveness of the country, even
though for years the data from the "national reporting system" for the k-12
schools showed a very different story, and based on how they counted, their
figure of 12% was "accurate" ... but not really reflective of the real
situation.  

So the point is that in showing "percentages" and especially "percentages
over time" findings can be accurate but not reflective ... based who you
count and when you count and how you count.  

So to say that far more people are achieving the GED through the ABE system
by saying "greater percent of the numbers of persons saying they want the
GED are achieving the GED ..." does not in any way say that more people in
ABE are in fact getting the GED .... it may mean that .. the States figured
out how to report data to the NRS better, so the numbers look better. 

And we have a foundation to really question NRS reports with some counter
data .... that do we have .... 

For some example of this counter data  ... look at the report
from MDRC called (ironically to me) As Long as it Takes (2003)
http://www.mdrc.org/publications/335/execsum.html

  which challenges issues of length of stay and numbers of hours involved. 

Prior to the full implementation of innovations to support student
persistence, only two-thirds of the adults entering the programs
participated at any level in the third month of follow-up.  After this
rapid early drop-off in participation, the participation rate     continued
to decline, gradually dropping to 28 percent in the twelfth    month of
follow-up and to 15 percent in the eighteenth month. Entrants  averaged 57
hours of participation over 18 months, though in months when students were
active, they averaged 7 hours of participation per month, or less than 2
hours per week. 

But even more on target is to look at the counter data from the GED . 

Lets look at raw numbers .... in the time frames in which you are
talking.... the number of persons taking and passing the GED per year
actually where flat or went down ... while the numbers of persons eligible
for adult education and the GED went up dramatically ... and the official
rate, and more importantly ... the unofficial rate of high school high
school drop outs increased dramatically across the nation .... and the GED
numbers stayed relatively flat or went down 

... in fact the numbers taking and passing the test went down by some
100,000 if we compare the numbers of who took the test in 1995 (800,000
plus) to the numbers of 2004 (some 700,00 plus) ... in part because of the
new test ...) 

And the numbers went down .. even though some 12 states ...now have an
official "GED track" as part of their K-12 system ... to keep the kids in
the schools and avoid the drop out numbers ... and also to keep getting the
money for the kids from the state ... etc ... and even with these effort
still the GED numbers have not gone up ... but down a great deal ... 

So ... if the NRS is reporting a far greater number of people getting
reaching the goal of getting the GED ... and a far greater number of people
are in need of the GED ... we should be seeing a large increase in the
people taking and passing the GED? ... But we don't see that reflected in
the GED numbers.  

Something does not jive ...

So it appears, or at lease appears, or a possible alternative view of
looking at why the percent increases while the actual number decreases ...
its that ABE worked to decrease the number of people who are actually
reporting that their goal is to get the GED, since the people are being told
... its unrealistic and such ... or other more gentle ways of not saying
that this is the goal ... and therefore numbers of people with that goal go
down ... so that the "percentage of people getting the GED can go up ......
but it is based on a far smaller number of people with that stated goal from
5 years before ... 

So ... more people are not actually getting GEDs ... the simple fact is that
they are not, based on the GED data, or actual raw numbers not the NRS data
you reported based on "percentages" of perhaps dis-similar make up of
populations ... 

The NRS data only masks the fact that most people coming in for services are
likely need the GED ... they may no longer list that as their goal because
the system helps them to "set more realistic goals" ... so the numbers look
better (smaller group reporting that GED is goal so the same or even less
people getting the GED can result in a percentage increase over a 5 year
period)  ... but the needs of the consumers is not really met ...and under
the current approach ... it is still expected to be 3-5 years from first
contact ... on average for the ABE applicant to be ready for taking the
GED... (not for the ABE applicant who is deemed qualified to put that as a
"realistic goal," but on average any and all ABE applicants coming in) 

So how can these numbers between the reported higher percentage and the
actual GED numbers jive?  ... Statistics can make lots of things look good,
despite overt contradictions in raw numbers.

My point is ... that if you really count all the people coming in to ABE
...with very low levels of reading .. the expectation is that - from the
system... that it will take at least 3-5 years for that person to be able to
compete for the GED ... and based on raw numbers ... very few are actually
achieving the need.

So finally, Tom ... your figures do not really address what I am saying ...

And I am saying is that with technology ... that consumer needs, even the
low level reader with "unrealistic goals"  to take and pass the GED and
become far more competitive in work and additional education and training
can be meet... in a real time frame ... and we can measure the results in
real terms and with real numbers 

To support what I am projecting --- Since you are accessing the report...can
you access the raw data and show that I am wrong on this point?  Can we see
a dramatic increase in actual numbers of persons in ABE getting their GED?
In raw numbers ...  The answer is no. 

OK

Glenn Young
CSLD
530 Auburn Ave
Buffalo NY 14222
Cell 703-864-3755
Phone/Fax 716-882-2842
website: glennyoungcsld.com

-----Original Message-----
From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of tsticht at znet.com
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 12:10 PM
To: learningdisabilities at nifl.gov
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 1870] Free workshop on listening and reading

Colleagues: Regarding Andrea's and others interests in listening research
with adult literacy learners, blind adult learners, and other special needs
adults, you may be interested in my workshop that I first presented in 1999.
I have recently (2006) participated in seminars in London, England on
listening, speaking, and reading processes and instruction with adult
learners and have incorporated new research into my workshop. I charge no
fee for the workshop but sponsors have to pay travel expenses. A
description of the workshop follows.
Tom Sticht

Workshop on Listening & Reading Processes of Adults

Presented by Tom Sticht, International Consultant in Adult Education

Listening has been identified as a critical work-related skill but it has
been almost
totally ignored in national assessments of adult literacy. 2008 is the 100th
anniversary of E. B. Huey's 1908 classic book, "The Psychology and Pedagogy
of Reading" in which he stated that, "The child comes to his first reader
with his habits of spoken language fairly well formed, and these habits
grow more deeply set with every year. His meanings inhere in this spoken
language and belong but secondarily to the printed symbols.." . This
workshop presents extensive research and data from the United States and
United Kingdom on the oracy (speaking and listening)  skills of adults and
how these skills relate to workforce development and the intergenerational
transfer of language and literacy skills from parents to their children.

Goals. The goals of the Workshop on Listening  & Reading Processes of Adults
are (1) to summarize three decades of  R & D on adults' listening and
reading skills; (2) to present information on writing  as a second
signaling system for  speech and how that involves phonemic awareness and
phonics training in bridging from listening to reading for information and
for learning, (3) to illustrate techniques for training listening skills
for learning by listening and to improve reading fluency and comprehension,
and (4) to illustrate how listening and literacy practices can be assessed
using various methods including using the use of the telephone to provide
assessments of the need for listening and literacy education among the
local  adult population.

Outcomes. Following the workshop, participants will be able to (1) discuss
the R & D on listening and reading using specific references to the R & D
literature and use this information in their planning for adult literacy
education, (2)  incorporate information about the place and manner of
articulation and other types of information relating listening and reading
processes of adults into their planning for program development that helps
adults bridge from oral to written language skills, (3) use this
information in planning for the development of teaching and learning
activities for both native language speakers and for English as an
additional language for non-native English speakers, and (4) apply the
information to the design and conduct of local needs assessments for adult
literacy education including the assessment of adults' knowledge and
literacy practices  by listening in telephone interviews.

I charge no fee for any of these workshops or presentations, but sponsors
must pay travel expenses and make all arrangements for the events. Contact
me at tsticht at aznet.net if you want to arrange for a workshop (or other
presentation) in your area. Following is a list of my presently scheduled
meeting and speaking events for 2008. However, none of these deal with the
Workshop on Listening and Speaking Skills of Adults. In past years I have
enjoyed meeting many members of various discussion lists and putting faces
with names! I look forward to meeting many more this year!

1. completed February 1, Miami, Florida. Adult Education Miami Dade County
Public Schools.  Contact: Darlene Kostrub,  dskostrub at aol.com [Full day
presentation of Adult Literacy Education in Industrialized Nations]

2. completed February 15, Washington DC, Adult Literacy Research Working
Group (ALRWG). [Scheduled meeting of ALRWG members, no presentation]

3. completed March 13, Connecticut. Connecticut Association of Adult and
Continuing Education. Contact: Andy Tyskiewicz, atyskiewicz at crec.org
[Keynote and follow-up session]

4. April 4, 2008 Delaware, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware Association for Adult
Continuing Education. Contact: Matt Davis, mhdavis24 at yahoo.com [Keynote and
follow-up session]

5. April 15, 2008 Marlborough, Massachusetts, ACLS Curriculum Conference.
Contact: Anne Holbrook, aholbrook at doe.mass.edu [Keynote and follow-up on

:double duty dollars"]


6. May 6, Georgia, Atlanta, Reading Hall of Fame (RHF), International
Reading Association. Contact: Tom Sticht, tsticht at aznet.net  [Presentation
in a special RHF session celebrating 100 years of E. B. Huey's The
Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading]

7. June 20, New Mexico. New Mexico Coalition for Literacy. Contact: Heather
Heunermund,heather at nmcl.org [General session presentation]

8. August 7, North Carolina, Raleigh. N.C. C.C. Basic Skills Conference.
Contact: Karen Brown, kbrown at nccommunitycolleges.edu [General session
presentation]


References Used in the Listening & Reading Processes of Adults Workshop

Hofstetter, R., Sticht, T., and Hofstetter, C. (1999). Knowledge, literacy
and power. Communication Research, 26, 58-80.

Sticht, T., Hofstetter, R., and Hofstetter, C. (1996). Assessing adult
literacy by telephone.  Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 525-559.

Sticht, T. and Armstrong, W. (1994, February). Adult Literacy in the United
States: A Compendium of Quantitative Data and Interpretive Comments.
Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

Sticht, T. & McDonald, B. (1992). Teaching adults to read. In: J. Samuels &
A. Farstrup (Eds.) What Research Has to Say about Teaching Reading. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.

Sticht, T. and James, J. (1984). Listening and reading. In: P. Pearson (Ed.)
Handbook of  Research on Reading. New York: Longmans.

Sticht, T.  (1984). Rate of comprehending by listening or reading. In: J.
Flood (Ed.) Understanding Reading Comprehension. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.

Sticht, T. (1979). Applications of the AUDREAD model to reading evaluation
and instruction. In: L. Resnick and P. Weaver (Eds.),  Theory and Practice
in Early Reading: Vol. 1, Hillsdale, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Sticht, T. (1978). The acquisition of literacy by children and adults. In:
F. Murray and J. Pikulski (Eds.) The Acquisition of Reading. Baltimore,
MD.: University Park Press.

Sticht, T., Beck, L., Hauke, R., Kleiman, G., and James, J.  (1974).Auding
and Reading:  A Developmental Model. Alexandria, VA.: Human Resources
Research Organization.

Sticht, T. (1972).  Learning by listening. In: R. Freedle and J. Carroll 
(Eds.) Language Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Washington
D.C.: V.H. Winston & Sons.

Sticht T. and Gray, B.  (1969). The intelligibility of time-compressed words
as a function of age and hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 12, 443-448.

Foulke, E. and Sticht, T.  (1969). A review of research on the
intelligibility and comprehension of accelerated speech. Psychological
Bulletin, 72, 50-62.

Sticht, T.G. Some relationships of mental aptitude, reading, and listening
using normal and time-compressed speech. Journal of Communication, 1968,18,
243-258.

Sticht, T.G.  Comprehension of repeated time-compressed recordings. Journal
of Experimental Education, 1969, 37, 60-62.

Sticht, T.G. Mental aptitude and comprehension of time-compressed and
compressed-expanded listening selections. Journal of Auditory Research,
1970, 10, 103-109.

Sticht, T. G. Listening, reading, and succeeding: a 40-year perspective. In
C. Hudson (Ed.) The sound and the silence: key perspectives
on speaking and listening and Skills for Life. London: Quality Improvement
Agency, 2008.


Sticht, T.G. and Glasnapp, D.R.  Effects of speech rate, selection
difficulty, association strength and mental aptitude on learning by
listening. Journal of Communication, 	1972, 22, 174-188.

About Tom Sticht, UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Medal Laureate

Tom Sticht is recognized internationally for his work on the education and
training of under-educated youth and adults. He holds a Ph.D in psychology
from the University of Arizona and has taught at numerous universities,
including the Harvard Graduate School of Education, University of British
Columbia, and the U. S. Navy Postgraduate Shool. He has published over 170
books and articles on the education of under-educated youth and adults. Dr.
Sticht has served on the Secretary of Labor's Commission on Achieving
Necessary Skills (SCANS); the National Commission on Working Women; and he
chaired the California Workforce Literacy Task Force. Earlier he was
President, Applied Behavioral & Cognitive Sciences, Inc. and Project
Coordinator for the San Diego Consortium for Workforce Education & Lifelong
Learning. Articles on Dr. Sticht's work have appeared in newspapers and
magazines in several countries including the New York Times, the Washington
Post, the Boston Globe, the London Times, the New Zealand Herald,  and the
Wall Street Journal. In 1994, Dr. Sticht was the first adult literacy
specialist elected to the Reading Hall of Fame in the United States, in
1997 the Reading Research Quarterly reported that the work of Paulo Freire
and Tom Sticht were the two most influential lines of adult literacy
research in the last 30 years,  and in 2003 he was awarded UNESCO's Mahatma
Gandhi medal for 25 years of volunteer work on the International Literacy
Prize Jury that selects the annual winners of UNESCO literacy prizes..

For additional information contact Tom Sticht, Email: tsticht at aznet.net

Thomas G. Sticht
International Consultant in Adult Education
2062 Valley View Blvd.
El Cajon, CA 92019-2059
Tel/fax: (619)444-9595,
Email tsticht at aznet.

----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Learning Disabilities mailing list
LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities
Email delivered to gyoungxlt at roadrunner.com