Posted on behalf of Arlene Grognet

From: aggrognet at aol.com
Date: June 19, 2008 10:59:52 AM EDT

Federico, Phil, et al-

I have read with interest all of the states’ responses to the  
questions raised, but a computer glitch (now solved) has kept me from  
contributing. I will keep my remarks to ESOL, because that is what I  
know best. It seems that most ABE and GED students come to class with  
oral English. However, they lack some of the knowledge and skills  
needed to lead a full adult life. On the other hand, ESOL students  
may already have those skills, but they lack the oral English with  
which to express them. For ESOL students, learning English is not an  
end in itself; it is a tool with which to do something else! That  
something else may be to go to the doctor or shop for food and  
clothing; it may be to work in a factory or a restaurant; it may be  
to talk with the school personnel or read a note from the teacher; it  
may be to get th GED or go to college.

  I was struck how closely David Heath’s description of teachers in  
Texas, matches that in Florida. Yet, I come to a different conclusion  
than he does. We need standards (not standardization) so that new and  
part-time teachers are oriented to what students should learn;  
experienced teachers have a reference guide for their teaching; and  
curriculum reflects the real world in which students have to  
communicate. I am a Florida resident, and participated in the  
standards setting workshops offered buy Susan Pimentel that Phil  
Anderson described. It was an interesting and challenging exercise,  
but one which new and part-time teachers would have benefited little  
from. I say this because professional development is out next step,  
and more than 4 hours of training on standards, no matter how good  
the training, with leave teachers angry and bored. I know that it is  
not enough, but state implementers have to realize that anything  
coming from the state is sacrosant and will be viewed with suspicion,  
if not hostility. If new teachers stick with the program, they will  
be back for more. If they quit, we haven’t lost that much.

As to David’s question about textbook correlations with standards, I  
would look at all of them as spurious. (And this coming from a  
textbook writer!) A textbook is only as good as the Teachers’ Manual  
which should accompany it. For each lesson, the Manual should give  
shape to the the standard, tell teachers how the linguistic skills  
they are teaching fit into language acquisition, give new and part- 
time teachers step-by-step ways of  presenting and practicing a  
lesson, and give experienced teachers hints for expansion and  
extension of the lesson. Without that, textbooks are only page-turners.

As to what the federal government can do for standards: give money to  
each state for refinement,  implementation, and experimentation, and  
stay out of standards writing and setting. If the federal government  
gets into it, it becomes a slippery slope. Just look at standardized  
testing and NRS as examples.

One question I have concerns assessment. How does know when when a  
student is ready to advance with the integrated skills needed in  
language learning? Is there any one assessment that gives the teacher  
or the test administrator a good picture of the students’ listening/ 
speaking and reading/writing skills, and is aligned with standards?

Allene Grognet
Vice President (Emeritus), Center for Applied Linguistics