First, thank you David for this opportunity to share with all of you
Oklahoma's work in the area of adult education content standards.  Below
are my
responses to your questions.  I look forward to the discussion over the
next two weeks.

1.	Why did your state choose to adopt content standards?  
·	Informal discussions around content standards began at the state level
prior to my coming to the state in January 2001.  There were several
reasons for considering content standards at that time, one of which was
the belief that at some point in the future they would be required of all
states.  However, apart from the idea of it being a requirement, there
were serious concerns about what Oklahoma wanted adult education to look
like in the classroom.  There was agreement that if we had state level
expectations for providing quality instruction, then the state needed to
provide guidance as to what that looked like. In addition, Oklahoma’s K-12
system had been implementing standards for several years and since adult
education is part of the Department of Education, it should have equally
strong standards. 
·	In Program Year (PY)2002-03, the state reviewed research on quality
instruction and various approaches other states had taken in the
development of content standards.  The state decided to explore the
Equipped for the Future teaching and learning system through a pilot
project that began in the summer of 2003.  The pilot consisted of three
local programs and one Department of Corrections site. The EFF standards
were not officially adopted by the state at that time; however, the pilot
project provided feedback from the field that supported the need for
content standards.
·	In the spring of 2004 a state Task Force made up of program directors,
teachers and state staff was established to determine if content standards
should be adopted, why or why not, and if so, what direction should be
taken and what resources should be invested in this process.  The Task
Force made two important decisions that led to the adoption of our current
state standards.  First, they agreed that the EFF standards and all the
tools associated with this system of teaching and learning were
representative of what Oklahoma wanted adult education to look like in the
classroom. This system provided direction and guidance supportive of
systemic change needed throughout the state.  It was recommended that the
state officially adopt the EFF standards.  Second, the Task Force agreed
that while the EFF standards provided a strong research-based foundation,
there was not enough detail in the areas of reading, math, and writing. 
It was recommended that further resources be invested in the development
of Curriculum Frameworks (CF) for reading, math, and writing over the
following three years with reading being the focus of the first year. 
Formatting recommendations were made by the Task Force, the work began,
and the first reading training was implemented during PY2004-05.  Work in
the area of math took place in 2005-06 and in writing in 2006-07.  

2.	What standards has your state adopted?  
·	Equipped for the Future    [
http://eff.cls.utk.edu/fundamentals/eff_standards.htm
]http://eff.cls.utk.edu/fundamentals/eff_standards.htm
·	Curriculum Frameworks in reading, math, and writing have been added to
the EFF work.

3.	What has been the process of moving from official adoption to actual
implementation?
·	PY2008-09 will begin the sixth year of this process.  Professional
development was implemented from the very beginning with the first EFF
pilot project already underway when the decision was made to officially
adopt the EFF standards.  
·	The state set EFF Goals and Objectives for learners, teachers,
directors, local programs, and the state.  An application process was used
to select programs for the pilot project in 2003-04.  Each year
thereafter, additional programs applied to begin the three-year training
process with an average of five new programs per year.  To date,
twenty-six of thirty-five local programs have participated in the
trainings. Over 300 participants have been involved in varying degrees of
the content standards training over the last five years.  An additional
five programs will be added in 2008-09 and it is planned that by 2009-10
all local programs will have been engaged in some level of content
standards training.
·	The three-year process which began in 2004-05 includes the following:


	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	1.	EFF Orientation
·	An introduction to the EFF system
·	Focus on the state’s goal setting policy and using student goals to
direct instruction
·	Conference calls
2.	Read with Understanding 
·	Focused on the reading standard and using the Reading Curriculum
Framework within the EFF system of teaching and learning
·	Three 3-day sessions (9 days)
·	Conference calls between sessions
·	Site visits between sessions
·	Interim activity assignments
·	Program EFF teams must include the director and a minimum of two
teachers.
·	$5,500 program incentive added to their allocation
·	$1,000 individual participant incentive upon completion of all training
and assignments	1.	Use Math to Solve Problems and Communicate 
·	Focused on the math standard and using the  Math Curriculum Framework
within the EFF system
·	Three 2-day sessions (6 days)
·	Conference calls as needed
·	E-mail feedback of interim assignments
·	Site visits as needed by state staff
·	Requires having gone through the Year 1 training process	1.	Convey Ideas
in Writing
·	Focused on the writing standard and using the Writing Curriculum
Framework within the EFF system
·	Three 2-day sessions (6 days)
·	E-mail feedback of interim assignments
·	Requires having gone through the Year 1 training process and preferably
Year 2
	·	In PY2006-07 the state selected EFF State Specialists (3 in reading and
3 in math) for a train-the-trainer project.  In PY2008-09, the state will
add writing specialists and the EFF Orientation will be conducted by state
specialists rather than national trainers.
·	In PY2008-09 the state will add a one-day EFF Orientation and a one-day
Curriculum Framework training that will be facilitated by the state
specialists.  This training will address the need for shorter trainings
and more local or regional options.
·	A key to the implementation process has been the onsite visits by the
national trainers, state staff, and state EFF specialists.  Mentoring,
conference calls, and the ability to seek support from various resources
has been critically important to the process.
·	Future plans for PY2008-09 include content-specific online courses,
short video conferences on topics that support the use of content
standards and the EFF teaching/learning system, development of speaking
and listening curriculum frameworks and work on ESL standards. 

4.	What successes and challenges have you found in implementing the
content standards?
·	Successes:  Development of the Reading, Math, and Writing Curriculum
Frameworks; A strong three-year training plan that has improved from year
to year from participant feedback and has provided a consistency and
coherence that sent the message that standards-based instruction was here
to stay and not just a one-shot deal; Excellent support of our national
EFF trainers and EFF staff without whom this work would not have been
done; Training of our EFF State Specialists to provide training and
support to the field; Inclusion of onsite visits and conference calls in
the training; Positive feedback from our participants regarding the
changes they are making in instruction; System changes programs have made
to support standards-based instruction such as managed-intake and
managed-entry classes, materials and resources purchased, teacher planning
time, team meetings, sharing of information with teachers unable to attend
in-depth training, and greater focus on student goal-setting and written
lesson plans.
·	Challenges: Meeting the training needs of part-time teachers unable to
attend multiple day in-depth training; Additional professional development
for program directors to be sure they recognize and know how to support
standards-based instruction since they are the key element in supporting
transfer of training to classroom instruction; Money and time for programs
to support the planning process that is needed for standards-based
instruction; and, Staff turnover (directors, teachers, state staff) is a
challenge when you invest in training and then people leave and you have
to start over.  Also providing directors and teachers with new tools to
support instruction is an ongoing process.
·	Many of the plans for 2008-2009 and the work our state has been involved
in with the Standards-In-Action project are an effort to address these
challenges.

5.	What do you recommend happen at the federal level to support the
development of standards-based adult basic education by states?
·	The first thought is always additional money for adult education which
would allow faster expansion of the work already started in Oklahoma.  
·	The Content Standards Warehouse and the Standards-In-Action project are
two examples of support that I hope will continue to be available to
states.  Funds attached to special projects would make it easier for local
programs to carry out the work necessary in moving the state’s content
standards work forward.  Tools developed through the Standards-In-Action
project will are being used in ways that support the work Oklahoma is
doing with content standards.


Again, thank you for this opportunity to share our work. I look forward to
hearing about the work being done in other states as my distinguished
colleagues share information over the next two weeks.
 
Pam


Pam Blundell, Assistant Director
Lifelong Learning Section
Oklahoma State Department of Education
2500 North Lincoln Blvd. Room 115
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599
405-521-3321
1-800-405-0355
pam_blundell at sde.state.ok.us