Dear Colleagues,

My response to David's questions will come in several parts. Here is the first, giving some of the background to adult basic skills in England. 

John Comings will also be contributing a response. And I am copying in three colleagues who are perhaps the leading experts in this field in England: Kathryn Ecclestone, Jan Eldred and Jay Derrick.  They may want to add to, or dissent from what follows. 

Adult basic skills in England: background

Before the publication of the findings from the 1994 International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), adult basic skills were not a priority of the English government. The IALS reported that the average literacy and numeracy skill levels of the population of the United Kingdom was below that of Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, and the United States.

The government formed a commission, led by Claus Moser, to investigate the issue and make recommendations.  The 1999 Moser report led to a three-fold increase in funding for adult basic skills in England, from £137 million in 2000/2001 to £420 million in 2001/2002, and then higher amounts in the following years. Funding for adult basic skills in 2005/2006 was £680 million. 

The increase in funding was accompanied by a call for greater accountability. Since the government had employed externally set achievement targets measured by standardized tests in its effort to improve the education of children, it chose the same approach for adult basic skills.

In 2001, the government launched a new adult basic skills strategy, Skills for Life, to address the learning needs of adults identified by the IALS as having low literacy and numeracy skills. Skills for Life is coordinated by the Skills for Life Strategy Unit (SfLSU) within the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). 

The Skills for Life strategy established five levels of English language, literacy, and numeracy skills:
*	Level 2 is equivalent to a GCSE (a qualification usually achieved at age 16) at grades A* to C (higher skill level)
*	Level 1 is equivalent to a GCSE at grades D to G (lower skill level)
*	Entry Level 3 is equivalent to the skills of school students aged 9 to 11
*	Entry Level 2 is equivalent to the skills of school students aged 7 to 9
*	Entry Level 1 is equivalent to the skills of school students aged 5 to 7

Initially, the government's Public Sector Agreement (PSA) target, the most important government target in relation to Skills for Life, focused only on achievement at Levels 1 and 2, because analysis of the IALS data showed that adults needed this level of skill to compete for good wages in the global economy. However, the government decided that the PSA target would also include Entry Level 3, in the context of the policy priority of promoting progression to Level 2 and beyond. Only the first achievements at the top three levels count towards the PSA target. That is not to say that learner achievements at Entry Levels 1 and 2 are not important; achievement at this level often represents a vital stage in a learners' development, in its own right and as a step on the way to achievement at a higher level. I hope that this is one of the questions that is picked up for further discussion.

The IALS identified the issue of low basic skills but could not provide an estimate of how many adults fell into each of the five Skills for Life levels. To gain this information, the government undertook the 2003 Skills for Life Survey, which interviewed 8730 randomly selected adults, aged 16 to 65, to build a national profile, based on the five levels of basic skills, of the population in England. The survey found that the 31.9 million adults in this age range in England fell into the following categories in terms of literacy and numeracy skill: 

*	3% (1.1 million) had literacy skills at Entry Level 1 or below
*	2%	(0.6 million) had literacy skills at Entry Level 2
*	11% (3.5 million) had literacy skills at Entry level 3
*	40% (12.6 million) had literacy skills at Level 1
*	44% (14.1 million) had literacy skills at Level 2 or above

*	5%	(1.7 million) had numeracy skills at Entry Level 1 or below
*	16% (5.1 million) had numeracy skills at Entry Level 2
*	25% (8.1 million) had numeracy skills at Entry Level 3
*	28% (8.8 million) had numeracy skills at Level 1
*	25% (8.1 million) had numeracy skills at Level 2 or above

Nearly half (47%) of all adults aged 16 to 65 were classified as Entry Level 3 or below in either literacy or numeracy.  Only one in five (18%) adults achieved Level 2 or above for both literacy and numeracy. 
Based on these findings, the government decided to set ambitious targets for Skills for Life: 750,000 learners achieving qualifications at one of the top three levels by 2004; 1.5 million by 2007; 2.25 million by 2010. 

A recent report by the House of Commons' Committee of Public Accounts noted that the first target, 750,000 by 2004, was met, but it cautioned that more than half of the participants who achieved a qualification were 16 to 19 year olds.  Most of these teenagers were served by the Key Skills component of the programme in full-time Further Education colleges.  Adults were being served, but they were not the majority of participants. Our case study was focused on that majority - those aged 19+.

The Moser report supported the use of formative assessment as an element of quality improvement. The report argued that the materials used for learning should include assessments that provide useful information to learners and tutors. However, the Skills for Life programme has no formal policy on formative assessment. Though formative assessment is not a formal mandate, formative assessment often features as a (semi) formal process within courses observed in our case study.  

One of several sources of published advice on formative assessment is 'Recognising and recording progress and achievement in non-accredited learning' (RARPA).The project provided a model for formative assessment and quality assurance in Skills for Life. RARPA developed a staged process:
*	Aims appropriate to an individual learner or group of learners
*	Initial assessment to establish the learner's starting point
*	Identification of appropriately challenging learning objectives (initial, renegotiated, and revised)
*	Recognition and recording of progress and achievement during the programme (tutor feedback to learners, learner reflection, and progress reviews)
*	End of programme learner self-assessment, tutor summative assessment, and review of overall progress and achievement

More to follow. 

John Vorhaus



> -----Original Message-----

> From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov 

> [mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of David J. Rosen

> Sent: 26 February 2008 06:00

> To: specialtopics at nifl.gov

> Subject: [SpecialTopics 759] Formative assessment in adult 

> foundation skillsin England

> 

> Colleagues,

> 

> Although Janet Looney will still be answering the (very many) 

> questions I asked, and other questions from discussion 

> participants, let's also move on to the first set of case 

> studies, from England. I have asked John Vorhaus and John 

> Comings if they could:

> 

> 1. give a short overview of the national adult basic skills 

> context in England, particularly noting any features or terms 

> of the context that may be unfamiliar to a U.S. audience and 

> that are important to understand the case studies;

> 

> 2. describe the three case studies; and

> 

> 3. describe what are the most interesting, significant 

> findings and also explain how the case studies might be a 

> good example of formative assessment.

> 

> It would be helpful if, in describing teacher formative 

> assessment practices in England, you could describe or give 

> examples of what goes beyond usual good practice in teaching 

> and learning, what, in particular, is good practice in 

> formative assessment. That is, some may wonder if formative 

> assessment is just a different name for good teaching? Is it 

> really something new? Is it really a discrete set of 

> practices? If, as Black and Wiliam's research shows, it makes 

> a difference in students' learning in elementary and 

> secondary education, what about formative assessment makes 

> that difference? Why is formative assessment such a powerful 

> set of strategies, so effective?  I believe that some of our 

> subscribers are still trying to understand of these issues; 

> perhaps the case studies in England might shed some light on them.

> 

> David J. Rosen

> Special Topics Discussion 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

> Email delivered to j.vorhaus at ioe.ac.uk

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/specialtopics/attachments/20080226/269d6ead/attachment.html