I'm replying to this particular post, but really, as I'm reflecting over the whole discussion, to whomever it was who said that "EFF didn't seem to relevant to ESOL students." I was wondering why. I've never been explicitly trained in EFF but it has always intuitively seemed to make sense to me that any learner, at whatever level, even basic learners, are very quick to perceive what communication is all about, what the bigger picture about their status is if they cannot communicate, how they are perceived. As for decision making, problem solving, and the rest, everyone does that all the time, and I don't think it's ever too early for metacognition, even if it can't be explicitly expressed in language. I wonder that learning might increase as awareness about the learning process increases, consciously or not...
Just a thought.
Bonnie Odiorne, Ph.D. Writring Center, Post University



----- Original Message ----
From: "Kroeger, Miriam" <Miriam.Kroeger at azed.gov>
To: "specialtopics at nifl.gov" <specialtopics at nifl.gov>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:57:25 PM
Subject: [SpecialTopics 1027] Re: Content Standards: More questions, more answers, more discussion-TM

Quite some good comments - if I can add a few - Fortunately, our choice to develop stadnrds was made before OVAE and the NRS came out with the standardized assessment mandate.  As a matter of fact, when we first developed our standards, there were only 4 levels of ABE/ASE and 4 of ESOL - we had to scramble when NRS changed things to six.  Recently we've seen changes in "cut scores" for the mandated assessments.

As I've mentioned several times, our standards have been field-based form the get-go. Teachers put their best efforts into this initiatives; teachers believed in what they were doing and through sue continue to believe in what was produced, and know that when we didn't get it quite right the first time, they were/are involved in the updates.

One thing that we have to watch out for, and that is the "teaching to the test" trap.  Of course if you test what you teach, that's different.  What we found, and even, what we planned for, was that the standards were "greater" than any test - the standards have more and are richer than a TABE, CASAS, BEST, or GED Test.  It took as a while, and is still something that we have to stop and think about but - if you teach with the Standards, don't worry about the test.  What's on the test is in the standards and so much more.  And that "more" is what better prepare learners for the world beyond Adult Education.  Adult Education has to be more than "just getting by".  For some of our learners it's their last stop in "formal" education; for others it's the beginning of more higher education.  WE owe it to them to give them the tools to make informed choices.

-Miriam Kroeger

-----Original Message-----
From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Rinderknecht, Gail A.
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 7:32 AM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: [SpecialTopics 1012] Re: Content Standards: More questions, more answers, more discussion-TM

I'm not sure if it the 6th grade level is legislatively mandated or just a department of corrections goal,  but it's a something we try to achieve in education within the limits of our capacity to serve the men.  For example, I recently had a man assigned to my literacy class who was served his entire life in special education.  He has an IQ of 50;  there is no way that I will ever get him to the 6th grade level.  I have suggested that he be allowed to opt out of education and be put in a supervised vocational program.

And as someone earlier noted, we also use Plato to tutor our students toward their GED..  I personally also use the REWARDS reading program to advance reading levels.  It's published by Sopris and can be used individually or with small groups to learn to decode multi-syllabic words.  It's a totally scripted program, so a tutor or volunteer can be taught to use the program in a short period of time.

To be quite frank, the educational community at large, i.e. the public schools, do not think much of the GED.  I've heard this from administrators and teachers alike even though we know that nearly one-third of high school graduates could not pass the GED.  As I said before, I have many high school graduates in my literacy program.  I don't think having benchmarks will make anyone think better of the GED.  It's an elitist thing at this point.

I find it to be enormously rewarding to the men to achieve their GED especially considering many of those incarcerated have been suspended from school many times over.  I hear over and over, "I didn't think I could do this on my own."  It's exciting to see a grown man excited about learning for the first time. Our benchmarks are simple:  pass a half test with a 500 or better;  pass the GED test with a 450 or better.  Complete all tests.  And the final goal is a couple of polaroid pictures in a white shirt and tie and cap and gown.  The pictures mean a lot to these men.

Gail


-----Original Message-----
From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of Christensen, Lorraine
Sent: Thu 6/19/2008 9:01 AM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: [SpecialTopics 1011] Re: Content Standards: More questions,more answers, more discussion-TM

Question for Gail:  Is it legislatively mandated that you bring an inmate to a TABE 6 level before they no longer need to be assigned to school?  While I agree with you that the number of graduates is important, I have always believed that if we had particular "benchmarks"
we would be more accountable and in "respected" in the educational community!



Lorraine Christensen

Women's Center - Maine Correctional



-----Original Message-----
From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Rinderknecht, Gail A.
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:38 PM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: RE: [SpecialTopics 999] Re: Content Standards: More questions,more answers, more discussion-TM



HURRAY!



Thank you, Mr. Mecham!.  You said it all.  For the past three years, I have worked in two prisons in Iowa, and getting the men to read at a level of speed and comprehension in order to pass the GED test, is my first concern.  I have many high school "graduates" in my literacy classes.  In Iowa, all inmates must be in literacy classes if they cannot demonstrate the ability to read and comprehend at a 6th grade level.  This is the main "standard and benchmark" that I have to work with.  A man must be able to pass the Test of Adult Basic Education
(TABE) with a 6.0, or he is in literacy class.  A man without a high school diploma or GED must attend GED classes although they can "age out" with staff consent.



I taught special education in the public schools for 16 years and have seen the rise and use of standards and benchmarks.  Although these are wonderful guidelines for schools to help their teachers cover appropriate subject matter at different ages to ensure a well-rounded education for all students, I believe that at the adult level, teachers need to test, assess and determine needs and deficits for individuals and proceed from there.  Each of my students is an individual.  Each class is full of individuals working on appropriate assignments for him.
Very rarely do I have a "class" where more than one man is working on the same thing.  I treat my classroom as an old-fashioned resource room where each person is receiving instruction and practice on the skill that he needs to achieve his GED or increase his literacy.



By advocating standards and benchmarks for adult learners, I believe that we will just be adding to the burden of paperwork to "prove" that we are teaching.  Looking at the results of the teaching method is a far better way to examine teaching success and learning.  My students, in the first five months of this year, passed their GED tests with a 96% success rate.  My little "resource" room seems to work fine without standards and benchmarks other than those needed to pass the GED.



Gail A. Rinderknecht

Newton Correctional Facility

GED instructor/Des Moines Area Community College

Box 218

Newton, IA



________________________________

From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of Mechem, Thompson
Sent: Wed 6/18/2008 8:19 AM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: [SpecialTopics 999] Re: Content Standards: More questions,more answers, more discussion-TM

I suppose in the abstract I have no objection to the Standards and Benchmarks described in the various posts this week, but who are they for? Certainly not the teachers. To take an example from my area of alleged expertise, if students are studying to pass the GED test, then it is the specific skill sets needed to pass the test that must drive the curriculum and the teaching. There's a lot of math you can teach, but what math will actually carry our students towards passing the GED tests? You can't figure that out from any Standards document or Curriculum Frameworks or whatever; you can know that only by learning better what literacy skills and knowledge resonate on the tests (the GED Testing Service helps us with that), and then developing the teaching techniques to bring the students to that level. Our state GED Office and our Professional development unit do a lot of work with Massachusetts GED teachers in this regard. The same principle applies if
 you are helping Transiti
ons students do better on the AccuPlacer test or preparing immigrants to pass the citizenship test (nice going, Big
Papi!) or raising a grandmother's literacy level so she can read the Bible.

Now, it probably takes a higher literacy level to pass the GED tests than it does to graduate from high school, so a successful GED class is certainly going to adhere to any legitimate set of Standards and Benchmarks that a state could come up with. I guess what I am asking of all the faceless bureaucrats (of which I am now one myself, I admit) is to be able to see that for themselves instead of making teachers and program directors jump through hoops with all kind of trumped-up documentary "proof" that they are using the Standards. Just as you can see a gorgeous-looking Lesson Plan without having any idea in the world whether any learning is actually taking place in that class, so the kind of thing often required for Standards-Based documentation, "I have such-and-such Learning Objectives, which correspond to Benchmark 3.1.5 blah blah blah..." doesn't tell you anything about what's really happening in the classroom. I would like the monitors and
 evaluators to be able to obse
rve a classroom and know for themselves that high standards are being adhered to so that the teachers and program directors can focus on the learning needs of the students with no wasted motion.

Tom Mechem
GED State Chief Examiner
Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Commonwealth of Massachusetts
781-338-6621
"GED to Ph.D."


-----Original Message-----
From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov]On Behalf Of David J. Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:50 PM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: [SpecialTopics 996] Content Standards: More questions, more answers,more discussion


Colleagues,

Our Content Standards discussion continues through Friday.  I have some more questions (see below) for guests and subscribers. I wonder if there are some people with questions that they feel are "too basic" such as "How do I find out what my state's Content Standards are, or if my state even has them?"  No question about content standards is too basic. This is the place to ask it.

I want to hear from teachers and administrators who are (or are not) implementing content standards. Jon Engel (Thank you, Jon) spoke for teachers who might be skeptical. Perhaps there are some teachers who are skeptical that would be willing to speak for themselves now that Jon has broached this.

Here are three more questions that were sent to me, for our guests and others :

"Part-time teachers and planning time:  Teachers tell us that developing lesson plans from standards takes more time because they have to spend time learning the standards, aligning their activities to those standards, and filling out more paper work to demonstrate compliance.  What are states implementing standards doing to alleviate the pressure on already burdened adult education teachers (low wages, low job security, part-time, no benefits, little or no prep time, etc.)?"

"National standards: As a standards writer, I was struck by the wide diversity of approaches to adult education content standards across states (ranging from the very prescriptive and specific to the very broad and general).  While I understand we live in a federal system in which states can do whatever they deem best for their students, isn't there a value in having a broader national discussion about what our adult students should be able to know and do in order to be successful members of society or, at a very minimum, shouldn't we have a common understanding about how content standards are going to be used?"

"Assessment:  While states have been encouraged to develop widely different content standards, the majority continue to use a very limited set of approved standardized assessments that may or may not be very closely aligned to those standards.  If due to increasingly tight financial constraints states are generally unable to develop NRS-approved standardized tests that are aligned with their standards, is it reasonable to expect that their content standards will have an impact on instruction and student performance?  Do teachers really have an incentive to teach from those standards if what they are teaching is not going to show up in the TABE or BEST Plus or CASAS?  Are there plans to develop such tests?"

David J. Rosen
Special Topics Discussion Moderator
djrosen at comcast.net



-------------------------------
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 tmechem at doe.mass.edu


-------------------------------
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 garinderknecht at dmacc.edu



NOTICE: This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL information and is intended only for the use of the specific individual(s) to whom it is addressed.  It may contain information that is privileged and confidential under state and federal law.  This information may be used or disclosed only in accordance with law, and you may be subject to penalties under law for improper use or further disclosure of the information in this e-mail and its attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the person named above by reply e-mail, and then delete the original e-mail.  Thank you.
-------------------------------
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 bonniesophia at sbcglobal.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/specialtopics/attachments/20080620/856b9f7b/attachment.html