In response to Sandy's comments:


>... Priscilla Sissem,  .... notes that whereas some program leaders 

>believe that increased accountability has set a higher standard for 

>our field, has brought us credibility and a new professionalism, 

>others suggest that increased accountability has undermined one of 

>our most deeply held commitments - the commitment to learners as 

>individuals and to each learner's need for individualized 

>instruction. This tension is fascinating and certainly underscores 

>the diversity of the leadership in our field.



>>Larry's questions about how we use data for program improvement are 

>>based on the assumption that program leaders actually find value in 

>>collecting and analyzing data as a basis for decision-making. 

>>Clearly, some do and others do not.  I'm wondering if any 

>>discussion related to using the NRS for program improvement might 

>>need to start with an exploration of state and federal 

>>accountability systems in general and the impact they have had, and 

>>continue to have, on our field.


I would add that while yes, we are accountable, first and foremost to 
learners and then to those who fund the work we do with learners, 
what is maddening are the ways in which this actual work can get 
lost, manipulated, translated and otherwise described as data -- 
sometimes usefully, sometimes not.  When does this data gives us 
helpful information, and when is it merely data that shows, yes, 
people came on average for 27 hours and made a gain of [x] on [x] 
test?  How *do* we use this data without losing the critically 
important details of how learners' lives change (incrementally, 
maybe, or  in bigger ways, too) - and also recognize that sometimes 
numbers help inform us and sometimes they just complete data reports 
that tell us little about learning and the conditions necessary to 
support it.

How can we work to incorporate accountability into our ongoing work 
in ways that productively inform what we do?  There's a growing body 
of work and literature around ways in which  ongoing classroom 
assessment includes and informs learners and practitioners; is it 
possible to see some sort of continuum  that includes our 
understandings of ways to measure and acknowledge those kinds of 
learning/skills/knowledge gains as part of a larger process of 
understanding the relationship of those gains to program improvement, 
change and growth?

  I'm hoping that Larry might join this discussion and respond to our 
responses, if he's not already subscribed to this list.

Janet Isserlis