Thank you, Eduardo for your comments in this discussion. This is what I
wanted when I invited the field to comment and participate.  Your
message reminded me that I should say to all that some of my comments,
such as my strong opposition to standardized testing, are personal
opinion and not official policy of Texas LEARNS or the Texas Education
Agency.  

 

federico 

Federico Salas-Isnardi, Assistant State Director 
Texas LEARNS 
6005 Westview Dr. 
Houston, TX 77055 
Direct: 713-696-0719 
Toll Free: 866-696-4233 
Fax: 713-696-0797 
  
The State Office of Adult Education and Family Literacy 

________________________________

From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Eduardo Honold
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:26 AM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: [SpecialTopics 1017] Re: Resistance to Change and Texas'
approach toovercoming "standards aversion"

 

Dear David,

 

Your post raises many interesting questions about the implementation of
content standards in a large and diverse state such as Texas.  I share
many of your concerns about some of the challenges that are involved in
implementing standards and about the long-term effect of using standards
on local programs.   One of the reasons for participating in the
Standards-in-Action pilot program was to explore the issues of
implementation before going to scale.  In working with programs in
Houston and El Paso, we learned much about what works and doesn't work
with teachers.    Many of the "recalcitrant facts" about adult education
you describe are true, but they may also be the reason for using content
standards in the first place.  In my limited experience in this pilot, I
found that often it was the part-time teachers who were happy to have
some kind of guideline regarding the content they could be teaching at a
particular level of instruction.  It is often the new teacher who has
little experience with adult education who used the content standards as
a guideline.  Many of the more experienced and full time teachers saw
less of a benefit in using the standards.  My own philosophy (which may
not reflect official policy)  is that 1)  Standards should do no harm.
If programs are performing effectively with their own curricular
guidelines, then they should be left alone.  Now, if programs are
struggling, content standards could be one of the elements to consider
in a program improvement plan  2) A corollary to this principle is that
content standards should provide a value added to programs and teachers,
not an added layer of bureaucracy.   We really need to convince teachers
that using these broad guidelines is going to make their lives easier,
not harder.   3)  We need to continually monitor the implementation of
standards to see what is really going on in the classroom.  4)
Implementation, especially in a state like Texas, should be flexible and
dependent on local conditions.   So while I'm in favor of encouraging
programs to use content standards ( mandate may be too strong a word),
I'm in favor of giving local programs wide latitude in terms of how they
are going to be implemented.  So being labeled "a leader in the
standardization process" stings a little, but that's OK.

 

Of course, Standards-in-Action was a year-long pilot program designed to
learn what might work in Texas, not to replicate the pilot statewide.
And some of the things we did learn will help to make standards
implementation more realistic.  In my report evaluating the SIA pilot
(which I will be happy to send to you) I recommend that the "unpacking
tool" you allude to in your post be used in a limited way, perhaps as a
remedial activity for teachers who might need help with a particular
area of instruction.  Local programs should decide whether or not it
worth their while to use a particular standards activity.

 

Texas is still working out the standards implementation process, and all
stakeholders should contribute to the process of shaping its future.
Let's keep the conversation going.

 

All the best,

 

Eduardo Honold

Far West Project GREAT Coordinator

(915) 937-1703  

fax: (915) 937-1795

SISD Community Services

313 S. Rio Vista Rd.

El Paso, TX 79927

www.farwestgreat.org

________________________________

From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of David Heath
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:22 PM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: [SpecialTopics 1003] Re: Resistance to Change and Texas'
approach toovercoming "standards aversion"

 

Hello Federico and All,

 

I have appreciated the many comments concerning the difficulty and the
complexity of accommodating change.  It has been a beneficial reminder
as to why we resist so strongly.  The entire subject is so complex that
a forum like a listserv discussion can hardly scratch the surface of the
many issues surrounding what might be legitimate disagreement and
resistance to programmatic policy mandates of any kind, and particularly
resistance to content standards. 

 

I am seriously concerned, for many reasons, about the possibility of a
mandate in regards to the Texas Adult Education Content Standards and
Benchmarks.  I will address only one concern for now: unrealistic
expectations and what I see as misplaced idealism.  My comments are
restricted to Texas and to ESOL as this is what I know.

 

I believe we are doing the field an injustice, and certainly our
teachers and students, if we do not speak plainly and forthrightly.  The
content standards are curriculum, if only a piece of curriculum.  And
the standards and benchmarks are certainly standardized if following a
rule or protocol is standardization.  

 

Here are some recalcitrant facts.  I am speaking of Texas adult
education here, but I would think there are commonalities across states.


 

*	Of 2,235 AE teachers in Texas, only 188 are full time
*	Only a fraction of ESOL instructors have degrees in language
acquisition theory 
*	A significant majority of new ESOL instructors have no prior
ESOL training of any kind 
*	Only a small portion of ESOL teachers receive any significant
planning time
*	Many teachers have second jobs
*	Many have compelling life interests that demand their time (one
reason they seek employment in our field)
*	Many want instructional and curriculum tools that are ready-made
and do not require a great deal of investment of time they feel they do
not have
*	The average ESOL student in Texas attends fewer than 100 class
hours a year (This is true across the nation I believe.)
*	In Texas, only 50% or so complete an instructional level
*	Students come and go, attending then "stopping out" then
returning
*	Many of our ESOL students have limited academic backgrounds and
have never experienced an educational environment like they discover in
adult education

These facts are serious and relevant to our discussion because they tell
us a great deal about what is possible and what is necessary.  

 

One example: Just to "train" my existing staff in content standards
required a six hour training provided by a skilled presenter in the
Texas Adult Education Content Standards and Benchmarks, then 10 more
hours of follow-up to unpack and critically consider exactly what the
standards and benchmarks were expecting students to know and do and ESOL
instructors to understand.  Then, we had to consider, as a program,
exactly how we were willing to take on this new "standard".  All of this
takes time...time...time...

 

Now, I have a new teacher.  Although he is bright and creative, he has
never had training in content standards, portfolios, credentialing,
adult education theory, learning disabilities, language acquisition
theory, program operations, or ESOL instructional materials.  Well, you
get the point I hope.

 

Here is how Eduardo Honold, a leader in the standardization process,
describes the "unpacking" of the Texas content standards and the demands
required to "do it right". 


Effective Standards-Based Education for Adults:
The Standards-in-Action Pilot in Texas


by Eduardo Honold

..."Ten teachers in Socorro ISD and 15 teachers in Harris County
Department of Education participated in a year-long effort to implement
the new Texas content standards by using several "tools" provided by the
SIA national consultants. The philosophy of this pilot is that teachers
must first work collaboratively within their programs to understand what
the new standards and benchmarks actually require students to know and
do and then, determine how to teach from those benchmarks. The goal of
the pilot is to provide adult education programs in Texas with ideas on
how to deepen teachers' understanding of the new standards.

...After stripping the benchmark to its essence, teachers determine the
level of thinking required by the benchmark based on the revised Bloom's
taxonomy (Forehand, 2005). By "unpacking" the benchmark in this manner,
teachers are ready to develop sample classroom activities that
illustrate the requirement of the standard and are appropriate for
students in a particular level." 

My questions would be:

1.      Is there compelling evidence that it needs to be done? 

2.      And if so, are we going to do it right?

3.      Are we going to be honest and transparent about what it will
take?

4.      Is our field structured and funded in such a way as it is
doable?

If the answers to these questions are positive, then I am on board.  If
not, I am a resistor.

David Heath

ESOL Coordinator

Odessa College

 

________________________________

From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Federico Salas
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 10:37 PM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov; David J. Rosen
Subject: [SpecialTopics 989] Resistance to Change and Texas' approach
toovercoming "standards aversion"

 

I have just posted the Texas experience with content standards
implementation.  Now, however, I want to jump in on the discussion
addressing the issue of resistance to implementation and resistance to
change.  Before I do, however, I want to say hi to my friend Paul Jurmo.
Long time no see, Paul.  

The question is the source of the resistance to the adoption and/or
implementation of standards.  I cannot hope to answer that question
here, but I can share some of the resistance that we faced in Texas and
some of the comments we have heard over the now four years since we
started the standards process.  

I would like to share some history that is very relevant to the question
Paul asks and that actually sheds light on the process of overcoming
that resistance and addressing change.  Paul mentions that "some might
feel that standards are something rigid and irrelevant or too
cumbersome. We have seen some of this attitude along with concerns by
some that the standards are something imposed "in addition to everything
we already do."  

Bill's observes that resistance to change sometimes is about "trust and
intention" while dealing with strategic planning.  In Texas we had a
difficult and, at times, contentious experience with the process of
adopting standards.  There was a first iteration of the adoption when,
under a different administration of the office of adult education, we
experienced a process that was, as Bill puts it, "estranged from (and
less accepted by) the grass roots."  In the early 2000s, standards from
another state were imposed on all of us in Texas by a shortsighted
administration without input, with little buy-in, and with virtually no
opportunity to pilot them or to make necessary adaptations to suit our
population or our needs.  Local administrators (our state director,
Joanie Rethlake, and I were both such local program directors) were told
that we needed to have 100% of our teachers trained to implement the
standards by the end of that fiscal year or our grants would be in
jeopardy.  Talk about "trust and intention."  To be sure, some programs
saw this as an opportunity to adopt a much needed content framework and
dived head on into the process making the standards their own and
developing their own checklists and other means of implementing them
which had not been offered by the state.  Other programs felt
overwhelmed, didn't like the standards, didn't feel they would work, and
saw them as "rigid and irrelevant."  Many tried their best to understand
the situation they were facing and invested a lot of time and resources
-along with emotion and stress-to make the standards work.  Yet, by the
end of the fiscal year, when it was apparent that as much as everyone
tried many teachers had not been trained, the state office announced the
standards would not be adopted after all.  If programs wanted them they
could use them; if they didn't they were free to do without them.  The
process had been costly, time consuming, and frustrating. 

 

Fast forward one year, and in 2003 Texas LEARNS came into existence and
a completely new leadership was breathing new life into the adult
education program in Texas.  One of our first priorities was to address
the issue of the adoption of content standards.  Our initial idea was to
continue what the former administration had started but to add some
Texas flavor, engaging some programs in piloting the standards to give
them a sense of ownership of any edits.  At our first meeting we were
not prepared for the level of emotion, of resistance, of outright
hostility that the idea was about to generate.  The issue of our
intentions and the trust of the field was now on the table for us to
tackle.  

Our decision was then, with the help and leadership of the Texas Center
for the Advancement of Literacy and Learning (TCALL) to go back to the
field and conduct a number of focus groups with instructors and with
students; in fact more students than instructors from all over the state
participated in the focus groups.  After analyzing the feedback from
these groups, Texas decided to scrap our plans and start anew.  As I
have said in my other posting earlier tonight, we adopted five of the
EFF standards because they closely matched what the focus groups were
telling us.  

We then proceeded to involve teachers and local program administrators
in the process of writing benchmarks.  Standards Writers had to apply or
be nominated, and they were selected by committee to participate in the
process. Writing the benchmarks and agreeing on the appropriate level
and examples took nearly two years of meetings and a lot of give and
take, but the result was a document which teachers considered their own.
During this process, the state office and the standards project kept
local programs, teachers and administrators abreast of developments.

Then came time to pilot the standards; we had two pilots one conducted
by many of the teachers who had written the benchmarks.  We wanted these
writers to pilot the materials because they were closer to their
development.  The second pilot was an expanded pilot which came after
the changes which resulted from analyzing the feedback from the first
pilot.  

In June 2007 came time for the official launch and nearly 700 people
from all adult education and EL Civics programs in the state registered
for the three day conference.  

After the launch, a group of the standards writers volunteered to be
trained by external consultants to become "Standards Specialists."
These specialists became the trainers helping us provide expert
professional development that was "close to the source" of the
standards.  

Why do I tell you step by step what happened in the process?  I think
that one of the keys to overcoming the initial resistance was our
willingness to invest in a process that would take time but would
involve all stakeholders:  students, teachers, administrators, and
expert consultants. 

The documents were written by the people who will use them with feedback
from their students.  Involving 100 students in the process indicates a
true commitment to listen to their voices; we were not simply paying lip
service to student participation.  The standards were then piloted and
re-worked immediately based on feedback.  This showed we were listening.
We then involved a large number of teachers in the second pilot.
Finally, the project provided training to volunteer standards
specialists to become trainers of their colleagues. All throughout, the
process stayed very close to the field.  The bottom line is we tried to
enable a bottom up process to ensure buy-in.  Even administrators who
were afraid to embrace the document have slowly come to see the new
document as something worth giving a try.  While full implementation
will take a long time, by addressing the fundamental objections teachers
and programs had with the earlier experience the leadership of Texas
LEARNS and TAESP were able to get significant buy-in from the field.  

 

federico

Federico Salas-Isnardi, Assistant State Director

Texas LEARNS

6005 Westview Dr.

Houston, TX 77055

Direct: 713-696-0719

Toll Free: 866-696-4233

Fax: 713-696-0797

 

The State Office of Adult Education and Family Literacy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/specialtopics/attachments/20080619/8b8d7f08/attachment.html