[AAACE-NLA] Fwd: Balancing Learner-centered Approaches with Demand for Program Accountability - Re-post

[David Rosen]

Colleagues,

Below is a re-post of a message that was lacking a line in the first  
quite below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--------------------------------

In February I had the pleasure of chairing a policy discussion at an
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
conference  in Paris. The topic was balancing learner-centered
approaches with demands for program accountability. Although the
discussion only took place for an hour or so, there were several
interesting points made, some of which apply to our work in the U.S.
You can read the two-page report of this discussion at

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/62/40166298.pdf

I would be interested to hear your reactions, especially to these
ideas about what programs should be accountable for:

• "Different accountability measures are needed for different types
of learners. For example, research on a US adult learning programme
revealed that learners under 30 improved their literacy skills.
However, learners over 30 did not improve their  reading skills, but
they did improve their reading practices (i.e. effectively applying
literacy skills). This example illustrates that a single measure
(e.g. qualification test measuring changes in reading skills) may not
fit all types of learners."

• "A number of participants argued that given the labour and cost
intensive nature of monitoring programme performance, measurements
should be based on samples. One of the workshop participants
suggested that accountability requirements should also be balanced
with consideration of the efficient use of resources."

• "There was general agreement on the need to follow-up learners
rather than just assessing immediate outcomes. In some cases the
positive impact on a person’s income can be observed only a few years
later. Many participants agreed on the need of using samples when
following-up learners and evaluating programmes."

David J. Rosen
DJRosen at theworld.com