Jan and others,

I think program improvement works best -- and I believe Pennsylvania is 
a good example of this -- when it is both top down and bottom up.  A 
top down demand or requirement from the state adult education director 
that programs chose (a) program improvement goal(s) and use data to 
monitor progress is needed.  Bottom up (program level) decision-making 
about which goal(s), which data -- and once the data are clear -- what 
to do to improve, is also needed.

I would like to see more federal resources available for program 
improvement, and would like to see all state adult education directors 
working with program directors in their state to develop and implement 
a state program improvement model.

Perhaps our Pennsylvania colleagues would like to add to this 
discussion, to describe how their program improvement model works, what 
the opportunities and challenges have been in implementing it, and what 
the results have been from a program and State Education Department 
perspective.

David J. Rosen
djrosen at comcast.net

On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 08:39 AM, Jan Gallagher wrote:


> Cheryl Keenan's message notes that program improvement works both 

> bottom-up

> and top-down and invites us to participate in the bottom-up side of the

> process. Do list members have hopes for the ways in which program 

> leadership &

> improvement might influence policy at the federal or state level?

>

> Jan Gallagher

> Director of Communications

> Literacy Assistance Center

> www.lacnyc.org

> voice 212.803.3332

> fax 212.785.3685