What a great discussion topic!  The ARCS project has been one of a few factors that have caused some programs in our organization to revisit diagnostic assessment as a tool for providing quality instruction.  However, I have found some challenges that I would like to hear opinions on.  Given the resources in the field of adult education, the bottom line of some of these challenges is dollars.
 
1. Not all adult ed programs are staffed with teachers (or volunteer tutors) who are comfortable with teaching beginning reading skills that relate to phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency instruction.   In the K-12 world of education, this level of remediation is done by reading specialists, folks who have spent years being educated in the field of reading and on the implementation of appropriate assessments and strategies for such remediation.  In my opinion, this should have a huge impact on the planning and delivery of professional development.
2. Grouping students homogenously (by skill level), so that you can best match teacher strengths with students' areas of weakness, is not always an option when you have to fill classes to meet your numbers goal for students served.
3.  Resources (time, human, financial) for providing one-on-one assessment is quite limited, if it exists at all.  Not all classes have access to computers for individualized assessment.
 
Without a doubt, I see the value in the project!  I believe targeted instruction of skills, particularly for students with low reading levels, is imperative.  Our organization works with E3 (Employment, Education, Empowerment) Centers which are youth centers for disconnected out-of-school youth (particularly those returning from placement centers).  We also contract with the Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation to provide literacy services to people participating in the Maximizing Participation Project.  The adults in this project are working to overcome multiple barriers to coming off of welfare.  In both of these projects, we built in the use of the Woodcock Johnson Diagnostic Battery of Reading.  At the E3 Centers we were afforded the luxury of staffing the low level literacy class with reading specialists and in the MPP class we were not.  This meant a lot of time and resources went into training the staff at the MPP site on assessment and interpretation of results, and then the use of appropriate instructional strategies based on those results.
 
I would love to see this type of assessment used with our volunteer tutoring programs and in community classes where students are TABEing below the the 6th grade level.  However, for all of the reasons above, the implementation of such a plan is quite challenging.
 
Stephanie Korber
Program Manager - Learning Differences and Youth Initiatives
Center for Literacy
Philadelphia, PA   

________________________________

From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of David Rosen
Sent: Tue 5/23/2006 5:45 AM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: [SpecialTopics 14] Flurry of Questions about the ARCS



ARCS discussion participants,

Thanks to all who have posted these great questions.  Our guests, 
John Strucker and Rosalind Davidson, will be looking them over and 
responding as they can over the next several days, perhaps grouping 
similar questions.  Please post your questions -- and follow-up 
questions -- through Tuesday, May 30th.


David J. Rosen
Special Topics List Moderator
djrosen at comcast.net



-------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Special Topics mailing list
SpecialTopics at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 6643 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/specialtopics/attachments/20060523/c7208518/attachment.bin