NLA Discussion: NRS and GED

[John_Gordon at goodshepherds.org]

Friends,

Here in New York City a group of practitioners from different parts of the
literacy community have been meeting for some time as the Grassroots
Literacy Coalition. Much of our focus over the last year has been on
critiquing the Workforce Investment Act and the National Reporting
Standards. In particular, we have been advocating for a sane implementation
of those standards here in New York. 

Much has been said and written, but we thought it would be worthwhile to
share with you a letter we sent recently to the State Education Department
and others responsible for funding. The letter focuses mainly on our
concerns around the use of the GED practice test as an assessment
instrument by GED programs. We understand the practice test is not normed 
in the way the TABE is, but since the only acceptable outcome for GED
students is passage of the GED, and the Practice Test is an excellent
predictor of passage when used appropriately, why not keep using it.  

I apologize for the letter's length, but I thought it worthwhile to post the
whole letter. It's clear to us that many of the issues we have been
struggling with in New York City are national issues. Perhaps if we can
develop some unity around these issues, we can have some impact.

John Gordon

Here's the letter:

April 27, 2001

Dear Funders and other interested members of the adult literacy community,

	For the past number of months many of us in the adult literacy
community, including funders, administrators and practitioners, have been
meeting in a variety of settings to discuss the new program and reporting
requirements resulting from passage of the Workforce Investment Act and the
subsequent establishment of the National Reporting Standards. Despite our
efforts to clarify issues related to the new requirements, many unanswered
questions still remain. 

	This letter, drafted by members of the Grassroots Literacy Coalition
who have participated in many WIA-related meetings and discussions, is
intended to highlight a few of our most prominent issues and concerns. We
hope that they can be addressed at the upcoming meeting between New York
City literacy providers and officials from the State Education Department
and the Mayors Office of Adult Literacy scheduled for Monday, April 30. Some
are issues that were discussed at a previous meeting on March 27. Others
reflect concerns arising from preliminary drafts of the final report forms
we have seen and from the imminent arrival (we hope) of the RFP for FY 2002.

We approach this meeting with the hope that officials from the State
Education Department have presented and advocated for our concerns at
National meetings they have attended, and will continue to do so in the
future. We also are looking forward to hearing reports from recent national
meetings attended by New York State Education officials. We are particularly
interested in hearing updates about funding prospects for FY 2002 at the
national, state and city level. Will there be any increases in state and
city funding? How will the increase in federal literacy funds be apportioned
in New York State? Can programs expect a proportionate increase in funding?

	One area of concern at the March 27 meeting centered on the use of
the GED Practice Test. Many of us are concerned about the possibility that
the GED Practice Test will be eliminated as an accepted assessment vehicle
for GED students and will be replaced with the TABE. We are emphatically
opposed to this change for several reasons. The GED Practice Test stands as
one of the best tools to determine both readiness for GED instruction and as
an extremely accurate predictor of passage of the GED exam. As an example of
its effectiveness, Laguardia Community College's Adult Learning Center has
achieved passing rates of 82.3% and 77.6% for the past two program years
relying primarily on GED practice test scores to predict test readiness and
to refer students to the GED exam. The GED Practice Test clearly works; why
eliminate an assessment tool and predictive instrument that has been so
effective and useful to programs and students and so directly relevant to
the work in GED classes?

	Replacing the GED with the TABE doesn't make sense. The new TABE
Locator and 7/8 tests were only introduced for use in our programs this
year. We do not know if they have any predictive value when it comes to
passage of the GED, because they have never been used that way and were not
designed for that purpose. In addition, we have found that the scores
students receive on the new TABE are, in many cases, one or more grades
higher or lower than scores students previously received on the old TABE
5/6.  Why replace a proven instrument with one we have no successful
experience with?

We understand that there may be a need to have one scale that is consistent
across all levels of BE/GED instruction with which to measure progress, but
replacing the GED practice test with the TABE is not a sound solution to
that concern.

	On another GED-related matter, we also think the GED Practice Test
score levels used by New York State to determine student levels are not
appropriate. From our extensive work with students, it is clear that scoring
40 on only one section of the five GED sections is too low a dividing point
between levels 4 and 5. Many students at level 4 can score 40 on one
section, but are not anywhere near ready to work at a GED level. The
defining score mix currently used for Level 6 - having any three sections
over 40 - would be a more appropriate defining marker for Level 5. The Level
6 determinant would more appropriately be to have three sections at or over
43, or perhaps a total score of 215 on the practice test. We are concerned
that data systems will be placing many of our GED and pre-GED students at
inappropriately high levels using the current cut-off points, and that we
will then be held responsible for readying these students for the GED exam
on an impossible-to-reach time frame.

	Looking at the preliminary ALIES final report form also raises a
number of concerns for us. In particular, the final column on the page that
documents the achievement of non-educational goals set by students at
intake, asks us to indicate what percentage of students we survey after they
"separate" from our programs responded to our survey and what percent of
those who responded attained their goals. 

	We hope it is clear by now that our programs do not have the fiscal
resources or available personnel to do the kind of exhaustive follow-up
survey of former students' non-educational goals being required of us.
That's one reason why many of us are disinclined to indicate non-educational
goals for our students. Additionally, as educators focused on providing the
best quality educational experience possible for our students, we have
strong philosophical reservations about devoting so much of our resources
toward documenting and tracking non-educational goals and outcomes. 

Even those of us who are surveying our "separated" students find the
proposed requirements burdensome and impractical. We have little control
over how many of our students respond to our survey, yet we are expected to
have (according to the National Reporting Standards) a 50% response rate.
Our students are people who often don't have telephones, who change
addresses frequently, who don't have computers. And, while our staff is
rarely available at night, students who are working or are in school or
training are more likely to be reachable at home in the evenings than during
the day.

	We understand that the National Reporting Standards require a 50%
response rate to program surveys of non-educational goals and that programs
make three attempts to reach students for follow-up surveys. In addition to
our philosophical objections, we also find these requirements to be
impractical and burdensome. We strongly urge State Education officials to
advocate in Washington for the elimination of required percentages of
responses to follow-up surveys, and, more broadly, for the elimination of
requirements that education programs document and follow-up students'
non-educational goals. And we urge that such questions be eliminated from
the NYC final report, or, at a minimum, not be used as key measures of
program effectiveness.

	We thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns.


                               Sincerely,

                                The Grassroots Literacy Coalition 



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE FROM the NLA list, send an e-mail message to
majordomo at world.std.com
Skip the header. In the body of the message type (only) unsubscribe nla

To SUBSCRIBE TO the NLA list, send an e-mail to majordomo at world.std.com
Skip the header. In the body of the message type (only) subscribe nla
---------------------------------------------------------------------------