Hi Bonnie, In Oklahoma we have ESL teachers go through the same content
standards training in reading, math, and writing using our EFF
teaching/learning system
as the ABE teachers.  We have had numerous ESL teachers tell us how
appropriate the role maps and other tools are for their ESL students.  We
are currently starting
work to develop the speaking and listening curriculum frameworks and are
evaluating what we might need to do (if anything) to the reading and
writing frameworks
in order to use them as ESL standards as well as ABE.  It is a very
comprehensive system.  Our ESL teachers seem to be comfortable with it
even though in the beginning
they were not sure it would be relevant to their needs.  I think it is all
in how you present it, the training that is involved, and being open to
allow ESL teachers make
adjustments as they find necessary.  ESL students carry out roles as
family members, community members, and workers just as ABE students.  The
language they need
is related to all those roles and our reading and writing standards
address that.  Even the math standard which many of the ESL teachers
didn't think was relevant to ESL
has proven to be very relevant.  ESL students have to use math in their
everyday lives and there is language involved in math.
 
I am really anxious for us to have the speaking and listening work
completed.  This will probably be the doorway through which we introduce
standards-based instruction
in the future to ESL teachers.  But, in the meantime, many have walked
through the reading, math, and writing door and are doing very well.
 
Thanks for your comment.  
 
Pam
 
 
 
 
[ mailto:specialtopics at nifl.gov ]specialtopics at nifl.gov writes:

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" <[ mailto:Miriam.Kroeger at azed.gov
]Miriam.Kroeger at azed.gov>
To: "specialtopics at nifl.gov" <[ mailto: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 e
ducation.  WE owe it to them to give them the tools to make informed
choices.

-Miriam Kroeger

-----Original Message-----
From: [ mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
]specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:[
mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov ]specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On
Behalf Of Rinderknecht, Gail A.
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 7:32 AM
To: [ mailto:specialtopics at nifl.gov ]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: [ mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
]specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of Christensen, Lorraine
Sent: Thu 6/19/2008 9:01 AM
To: [ mailto:specialtopics at nifl.gov ]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: [ mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
]specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:[ mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
]specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Rinderknecht, Gail A.
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:38 PM
To: [ mailto:specialtopics at nifl.gov ]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: [ mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
]specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of Mechem, Thompson
Sent: Wed 6/18/2008 8:19 AM
To: [ mailto:specialtopics at nifl.gov ]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: [ mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
]specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:[ mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
]specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov]On Behalf Of David J. Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:50 PM
To: [ mailto:specialtopics at nifl.gov ]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
[ mailto:djrosen at comcast.net ]djrosen at comcast.net



-------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Special Topics mailing list
[ mailto:SpecialTopics at nifl.gov ]SpecialTopics at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to [
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics
]"ttp://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics
Email delivered to [ mailto:tmechem at doe.mass.edu ]tmechem at doe.mass.edu


-------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Special Topics mailing list
[ mailto:SpecialTopics at nifl.gov ]SpecialTopics at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to [
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics
]"ttp://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics
Email delivered to [ mailto:garinderknecht at dmacc.edu
]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
[ mailto:SpecialTopics at nifl.gov ]SpecialTopics at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to [
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics
]"ttp://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics
Email delivered to [ mailto:bonniesophia at sbcglobal.net
]bonniesophia at sbcglobal.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 pam_blundell at sde.state.ok.us


Pam Blundell, Assistant Director
Lifelong Learning Section
Oklahoma State Department of Education
2500 North Lincoln Blvd. Room 115
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599
405-521-3321
1-800-405-0355
pam_blundell at sde.state.ok.us