Forrest,
Thank you for this important question and the one that everyone really
wants an answer to. 

It really is too early to make any concrete statements regarding improved
student performance and/or retention.  However, we are moving in that
direction and I am collecting more and more data each year as the number
of EFF students taught by EFF-trained teachers increases in the state and
we get our programs focused on ways to compare EFF students with other
students. 

In 2005-06 our state moved from using LiteracyPro's EDvantage data
collection system to using the Literacy, Adult Education, and Community
Education System (LACES) which is web-based.  That was a huge transition
year for our programs and I was unable to collect the type of data I
wanted regarding student performance comparisons between EFF students and
other students.  In 2006-07 I asked our programs to "keyword" each student
in their system who was enrolled in a class being taught by an EFF-trained
teacher.  While many programs followed this procedure, not all
participated and I did not feel like I had complete information for that
year.  This year (2007-08) will be the first year that all of our EFF
programs have keyworded their students and I am anxious to look at the
data when it is finalized in a couple of months.  By keywording these
students, I will be able to run reports on each group and do some
achievement and retention comparisons.  

Several of my local programs have reported to me they are seeing a general
trend in increased retention of the EFF students which is boosting their
postassessment percentages.  Of those students being pre and postassessed,
EFF students tend to achieve level gains at a 6-9% greater rate (depending
on subject area) than other students.  Of course you expect this to happen
if contact hours go up; however, it is happening even when contact hours
are about the same for both groups.  Program directors and teachers tell
me they believe it is due to a greater focus on student goal-setting, use
of the curriculum frameworks, and system changes they have made such as
managed-entry intake or managed-entry classes that have been initiated due
to the content standards training.


Pam






specialtopics at nifl.gov writes:

>Pam,

>

>Under the category of "successes" I expected you to list some measure of

>improved student performance and/or retention. Have you been able to

>document that, or is it too early in the game?

>

>Forrest Chisman

>

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

>From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov

>[mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.go[v]

>On Behalf Of Pam Blundell

>Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 9:49 AM

>To: specialtopics at nifl.gov

>Subject: [SpecialTopics 948] Implementing State Adult Education Content

>Standards

>

>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

>

>

>-------------------------------

>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 forrest at crosslink.net

>

>-------------------------------

>National Institute for Literacy

>Special Topics mailing list

>SpecialTopics at nifl.gov

>To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>http://wsww.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics

>Email delivered to pam_blundell at sde.state.ok.us




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