[AAACE-NLA] Curriculum Policy Proposals

[Marie Cora]

Dear Colleagues,

David Rosen wrote:

" At the state level, I believe that there may be several states now  
that have not only defined their curriculum standards but are moving  
ahead to define curriculum and to align assessments with the  
standards, perhaps also with the curriculum.  Recently there has been  
some discussion about this on the Content Standards list.  Perhaps  
the states are more fertile ground for the kind of evaluation and  
research which might answer the question you have posed.  But I  
wonder.  Are the standardized assessments the states are using to  
produce NRS data really well aligned to these new standards, or do  
the new standards cry out for new, better aligned assessments."

I would say that this is indeed where we need to focus some efforts to
grow a nationwide system.  As a nation, we are simply too diverse in
terms of student body, geographic needs, local and state funding, and
local economic focus for the nation to try to tackle this as a whole at
this point (in my opinion).  To be able to have national standards -
like those that Canada has - would be optimal, but asking the 50 states
to do this after they have first been asked to develop their own
standards is unreasonable in terms of practicality.  I would suggest
that we look to individual states and how they are developing a
seamless/uniform system and then perhaps emulate this (tools and
process) on a larger scale.

I don't know how we could possibly come to consensus otherwise:  we have
very strong supporters of different ABE frameworks - for very valid
reasons.  We can combine some of these frameworks and assessments I
believe, but we still need to come to consensus on a common set of
standards before we can move forward on a national scale.  Some of these
different frameworks are not mutually exclusive because of the way that
they have been developed in the last decade or so.

As for the assessments that are so common:  the NRS, although it
could/should be broader - is only the data collection system.  We can
push this greatly if we demand the development of different assessments
- especially ones based on effective curricula.  The NRS is willing to
take other types of proof - and right now other options are not out
there - although this is starting to change (just one example is the
development of new ABE tests at Educational Testing Service (ETS) that
are in fact aligned with not only the EFF standards, but also with the
ARCS reading diagnostic which is based on research by Harvard and
NCSALL.)  Everyone rails against the NRS, but that is because most are
allowing the NRS to drive what we do.  We can drive the NRS by insisting
that we pursue a set of common standards and a menu of effective and
accepted assessment tools.

Before you say that a program has little choice but to allow the NRS to
drive your car, think what all the programs in a state or in the country
could do together.

marie cora
NIFL Assessment Discussion List Moderator
marie.cora at hotspurpartners.com



-----Original Message-----
From: aaace-nla-bounces at lists.literacytent.org
[mailto:aaace-nla-bounces at lists.literacytent.org] On Behalf Of David
Rosen
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:22 PM
To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] Curriculum Policy Proposals

Tom,

Logic suggests that if there is alignment between curriculum  
standards, curricula, and assessment, that is, if students, teachers,  
test writers and others are all working from the same understandings  
of what students need to know and be able to do, and if students are  
key decision makers -- along with teachers -- in choosing the  
learning objectives, then there is a greater likelihood that the  
learning outcomes will be better.  When there is little or no  
alignment between what is taught, what is learned, and what is  
assessed, logic would suggest that the outcomes measured would not  
show as much learning progress.

Of course, logic is not the only basis upon which to make decisions  
about a learning system.  But it is a good place to start, wouldn't  
you agree?  Of course, down the road we need evidence from evaluation  
and research to know if the logic and other elements of the design  
were right.  (And when curriculum is badly implemented, for example  
where high stakes testing drives administrators and teachers to teach  
narrowly to the standards which are measured, the design can be  
distorted into a meaningless model of compliance, or even a tyranny  
of testing in place of learning.  However, abuse of a model or design  
is not a good reason not to have one.)

You have listed most of the major national adult education curriculum  
or curriculum standards projects -- at least since the 1970s.   
Perhaps we should add the SCANS competencies, as there have been lots  
of adult education curricula designed using them.  Some might also  
argue that the Comprehensive Competencies Program (CCP) created by  
Bob Taggert, was a national curriculum model.  (I wonder, Tom, if you  
know if there was research done on its learning outcomes.  There have  
been many education programs across the country for adults and out-of- 
school youth, including federally-funded Job Corps programs, that  
used it. It changed its name to U.S. Basics, perhaps now is called  
U.S. Basic Skills. )

I am not sure, Tom, that a review of these curriculum models would be  
of much value now.  I am not aware of any systematic efforts to  
collect learning outcomes for those who used these models.  Are you?  
And if there were data, are they still available?  In any case, I  
would agree that if we were to have a national curriculum model, or  
even one used by several states, it would be wise to do systematic  
evaluation and/or research to find out if it had an impact on student  
learning.

At the state level, I believe that there may be several states now  
that have not only defined their curriculum standards but are moving  
ahead to define curriculum and to align assessments with the  
standards, perhaps also with the curriculum.  Recently there has been  
some discussion about this on the Content Standards list.  Perhaps  
the states are more fertile ground for the kind of evaluation and  
research which might answer the question you have posed.  But I  
wonder.  Are the standardized assessments the states are using to  
produce NRS data really well aligned to these new standards, or do  
the new standards cry out for new, better aligned assessments.

Finally, if we did have national curriculum standards, or if we do  
have state curriculum standards, these should be reviewed and changed  
over time, I would suggest  at least every ten years.  And the  
curricula developed from these should be reviewed much more frequently.

David J. Rosen
DJRosen at theworld.com




On Apr 5, 2006, at 3:12 PM, tsticht at znet.com wrote:

> Aaace-nla Colleagues:
>
> David Rosen has recently discussed his interests in national content
> standards, curriculum aligned with the standards and assessments  
> that map
> onto the standards and curriculum. This is consistent with the current
> zeitgeist concerning accountability at the federal level. In this  
> regard, I
> think it is important to review past activities of the federal and  
> state
> governments to product the sort of standards/curriculum/assessment  
> systems
> that David has spoken about. The primary efforts in this as far as  
> I know
> are the Adult Performance Level (APL) project, the California Adult  
> Student
> Assessment System (CASAS-later changed from California to  
> Comprehensive to
> market the system products more widely, and supported by the federal
> government's dissemination efforts), and the Equipped for the Future
> project. To my knowledge, there is no research indicating that these
> attempts at national standards/curriculum/assessment systems  
> improved adult
> education and literacy development anywhere. In fact, for the  
> CASAS, some
> data suggest just the opposite, in California in the decade from 1986
> through 1996 gain scores for ESL and ABE stayed the same, retention  
> rates
> stayed the same, and the percentage of adults reporting they met their
> goals dropped from around 15 to 5 percent.
>
> The national APL project just sort of faded away after the federal  
> funding
> dried up. CASAS is widely used as an assessment today, and has content
> standards (competencies) and curriculum materials aligned with the
> assessment system. EFF tried to get national input from learners at  
> the
> outset but was plagued by a poor and biased response rate. Out of  
> 6,000
> programs contacted, only 1,500 letters from learners were received  
> from 149
> programs. This is about a 3 percent response rate from programs  
> (149/6000)
> and a very small sample of the some 4 million students in the  
> federally
> supported ABE program at the time. Further, it was reported that of  
> the 149
> programs, some sent two or three letters from students and some  
> sent dozens,
> adding to the bias factor. Aside from the questionable  
> representation of
> adult learners in the EFF project, there has never been an  
> evaluation to
> see if programs that adopt the EFF approach have improved in any  
> way or if
> they are more effective than any other program that does not use EFF.
>
> Presently, the National Reporting System of the federal government  
> that is
> used by all 50 states provides three first order (broad) domains of  
> content
> standards: ABE, ASE, and ESL (ESOL/ELL), they define six second order,
> sub-domains for each of these three first order domains, for which  
> programs
> can find and map curriculum materials from publishers, or  
> constructed in
> their own programs with or without the help of students, and  
> finally, the
> NRS provides an assessment system with a variety of available tests  
> that
> provide levels of assessment in mapped onto the second order  
> domains for
> each of the three first order domains of content standards. This  
> broadly
> conceived national content standards/curriculum/assessment system  
> also has
> yet to demonstrate in some acceptable manner (presumably some
> scientifically acceptable manner to meet present federal concerns for
> scientific, evidence-based programming) that it has lead to genuine
> improvements in the AELS.
>
> Given these past and present experiences with national efforts to  
> produce
> content/curriculum/assessment aligned standards for the Adult  
> Education and
> Literacy System (AELS) of the United States as a means of improving  
> the
> AELS, I think it might be useful to conduct a more thorough review  
> of these
> past and ongoing federal and perhaps some state efforts along these  
> lines to
> identify why they have not been demonstrated to actually improve  
> the AELS in
> terms of student learning, retention, or goal achievement. Ideally,  
> this
> would be done before any major new projects along this line are  
> initiated.
> But perhaps that is asking for too much.
>
> 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

_______________________________________________
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