[AAACE-NLA] FW: Literacy of College Graduates Is on Decline

[Merle Ayres]

Anita: Does this mean the Iowa Test of Basic Skills is not a good benchmark 
either. I remember that through some conversation with other teachers that 
the test was gone over to make the schools look good and " no child left 
behind act" was met and the principal was not reprimanded. I simply called 
it cheating and got scolded.  I was taught by university profs that tests 
were to find strengths and weaknesses and maybe that has changed over the 
years. If its used to help kids then tests are ok. but not as a end all to 
look good for gov agencies and  parents who end up using scores for 
watercooler conversations. Im a retired teacher but may not be up to par and 
all of this.

Merle Ayres
412 8th st. North
Humboldt,Iowa 50548
Tel.1-515-332-4630
Fax 515-332-1738




>From: Anita Landoll <amlandoll at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by 
>AAACE<aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org>
>To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by 
>AAACE<aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org>
>Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] FW: Literacy of College Graduates Is on Decline
>Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:48:45 -0800 (PST)
>
>Well, how does the NAAL compare to the SAT, ACT, GRE,
>PRAXIS, etc.? You are right, we should discuss it. And
>how are students able to do ok on the other tests?
>
>You are also correct about the fed dept of education.
>I don't think the folks from Texas will be satisfied
>until every public school student of age 4-18 is
>tested annually. (Using useless criterion-referenced
>tests of course...
>
>Anita  www.learntoreadnow.com
>
>
>--- tsticht at znet.com wrote:
>
> > Aaace-NLA Colleagues: If the NAAL is correct then
> > some 60 to 75 percent of
> > college graduates, including graduate students and
> > advanced graduate degree
> > holders are not Proficient in literacy. This being
> > the case, it could mean
> > that as many as 60 to 75 out of a 100 newspaper
> > journalists are not
> > Proficient at literacy. When I read the newspaper
> > articles that have been
> > written about the NAAL, without exception, not one
> > single writer has raised
> > any questions about the validity of the assessment.
> >
> > I am also distressed to note that, aside from the
> > messages I have posted,  I
> > have read no messages on the aaace-nla list
> > questioning the validity of the
> > NAAL (or the earlier
> > NALS). This list is for adult literacy educators who
> > are supposed to be
> > interested in helping their students "think
> > critically" yet I have read no
> > critical thinking about the NAAL. Even the
> > researchers who have posted
> > messages have not raised any critical questions
> > about the validity of the
> > NAAL. But perhaps 60 to 75 percent of college
> > educated adult literacy
> > educators and researchers are not Proficient in
> > literacy and can not
> > understand the NAAL report.
> >
> > In an earlier message (NAAAA..L This Can't Be Right)
> > I raised questions
> > about the NAAL and its representation of the
> > literacy of college grads and
> > said, "Perhaps the NAAL would have characterized the
> > literacy ability of
> > the American workforce better if instead of calling
> > the four literacy levels
> > of adults Below Basic, Basic, Intermediate, and
> > Proficient,  it had
> > acknowledged that adults at all four levels were
> > proficient to differing
> > degrees and named the four literacy levels Below
> > Average, Average, Advanced,
> > and Superior Proficiency. Labels do make a
> > difference in people’s
> > understanding of things, including their
> > understanding of the literacy
> > abilities of America’s adults." Notice that just by
> > renaming the levels on
> > the NAAL the discussion of the proficiency of
> > college grads would have
> > changed dramatically.
> >
> > Regarding the drop in Proficiency from 1992 to 2003,
> > it is important to
> > realize that there are differences in the
> > demographics of the samples in
> > 1992 and 2003, and the test items are different too.
> > Finally, even if
> > everything in the two assessments were comparable,
> > it is not possible to
> > discern a trend with just two data points. The
> > changes from one assessment
> > to the next may just be random fluctuations.
> >
> > The believability of the NAAL results would be
> > enhanced had the U. S.
> > Department of Education announced it was going to
> > reinstate the 65 percent
> > cut in funding that it had made in the adult
> > education budget for 2006. But
> > no funding was forthcoming in 1993 when the NALS
> > results lead to newspaper
> > articles saying that half the U. S. population of
> > adults were functionally
> > illiterate, and I don’t think we should count on
> > seeing very much of a
> > response from the federal government with the
> > announcement of the results
> > of the NAAL. So far all I have read about is that
> > the NAAL adds research
> > support to the President’s high school initiative
> > and the U. S. Department
> > of Education and other government agencies are going
> > to coordinate their
> > adult education and training better. Now that’s a
> > big help!
> >
> > Tom Sticht
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AAACE-NLA mailing list:
> > AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> >
>http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
> > LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and
> > goodies for literacy
> > http://literacytent.org
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
>http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/
>_______________________________________________
>AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
>http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
>LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
>http://literacytent.org