Hello, everyone.



Here in the UK we went through a similar process some years ago. On the whole, content standards have been welcomed, because previously provision was very uneven. If someone moved from one city to another, or even from one institution to another, there was no way of knowing what 'basic' or 'level 2' meant. Even if students could show an ESL exam certificate (for example)  from a recognised organization, there was no way of knowing whether they had just been coached for that exam, or whether they had had a broader curriculum.  The problem was the same for literacy and numeracy, I understand.



Initially, national curricula for adults were brought in for literacy and numeracy, following the creation of national curricula for 5-18 education. After representations and discussion, an ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) was brought in, separate from literacy in some respects, but following the literacy curriculum. The main difference in content was the inclusion of listening as a distinct skill area. This created a problem in that the priorities for second language speakers are not necessarily the same as the priorities of first language literacy learners. There is also a presumption of previous academic failure and/or learning difficulties in the literacy curriculum which is less likely to be true of second language learners in the UK context. We were told that we should select relevant areas and ignore the irrelevant, but many of us believe this presumption colours much of the curriculum.



Some years further on, the debate still continues. In many ways, the National Curricula for adults have been very useful. If a teacher is asked to take on a new level, the curricula provide a starting place. If a student has been in an Entry 2 class in another institution, the new provider has better information to use in assessment and placement. If a teacher moves to a new city or institution, they are going to use the same content standards. 



However, problems remain. A reasonable expectation for a full-time course (12-16 guided learning hours per week) is not a reasonable expectation for a part time course of as little as 2 GLH per week. Funding bodies don't always take this into account, nor of the recommended classroom hours for moving from level to level. This, of course, is not directly content, but the amount of content that can be covered will be limited if financial resources are limited. Another problem is that with standardized formal tests, there is a temptation to teach to the test, thus restricting what is actually learned. This is compounded for those of us who cannot offer the full-time study envisioned by the curriculum materials. The promised free teaching and learning materials did not always lead to successful learning without such heavy use of supplemental material that for many of us it seemed easier just to use the supplements or to turn to commercial materials.



I believe it is fair to say that many of the difficulties and grievances have not been with the contents standards themselves, but with their implementation by civic and institutional authorities. An additional problem has been the imposition, and imposition is the only word, of additional teaching requirements without additional time, pay or resources. A teacher who spends only a few hours a week with a class who have no other access to learning is now expected to include  IT with literacy and, in the case of ESOL, citizenship in the same amount of class time. Many classes have no access to IT facilities.



The people who have reported here seem to have gone to considerable effort to avoid some of these difficulties, and I wish them and their programs well. 



Cheryl Thornett
ESOL and Literacy tutor
Birmingham UK Adult Education
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/specialtopics/attachments/20080616/9af5add4/attachment.html