Standards can be a practical tool for communication purposes, by
providing a common language and definitions, particularly useful for
language levels of ESL students moving around in the system.  They can
define priorities...  How much time should we spend on survival or on
occupational vocabulary or on family literacy, or all of the above... In
New Jersey we have been implementing the EFF Standards.  To our
surprise, the diversity of the ESL population in our program is so
extreme that in many cases our students have as many or more of the so
call "soft skills" than our own staff; while others required a lot of
intervention.  So, the problem is when we overly simplify the quality of
a program, tempted to use the standards to judge performance.  We,
practitioners are legitimately very resistant to such a trap.

 

Simply said, Cheryl Thornett from the UK hit the nail on the head with
the email bellow. From my perspective,  "standards" can become only
ideals driving curriculums, classroom materials design and teaching
practices but  "not always lead(ing) to successful learning".  As
standards trickle down, practitioners become overly concern for
documenting students' success reaching "standards" in "standardized"
test, regretfully, restricting learning.  

 

Julio Sabater

President/CEO

Workforce Advantage

908-355-2299 

908-347-8673

________________________________

From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Cheryl Thornett
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 3:24 PM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: [SpecialTopics 987] Re: Implementing State Adult
EducationContentStandards: Texas

 

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 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. did not always lead to successful learning

 

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/20080618/9cc6719f/attachment.html