[NLA] "breaking news"

Tue Jun 11 18:27:50 EDT 2002

In response to Eileen who wrote:
"...Unless we have
> some knowledge and power and it is used to guide improvement, whatever
> replaces the NRS is likely to be just as bad! The "breaking news" that
> triggered this discussion is an indication that something's wrong--with
the
> reporting system AND with the instruction/assessment/service provision
> system. But what, exactly, and how can it be "fixed"?"

Eileen, I understand completely your misgivings about taking a stand.  It's
been frightfully proven on this listserv that we all come from such a
variety of "different places" that "unifying the AELS" seems impossible to
accomplish.  I feel extremely fortunate that I access different funding than
the federal dollar so I have the levity to say we won't play their game of
testing for no other purpose than to document "something is wrong" with
either the student who isn't going anywhere or the program that's not
teaching him/her anything within their specified timeframe -- FY99-00, as an
example.  So the purpose must be to show nothing is happening for the
literacy student who wants nothing *more* than *to* progress and learn to
read.

Yes.  Something IS wrong.  But who is listening?  My sense is nobody wants
to hear just exactly what it is that needs to be changed.  Who will hear and
react to all of us who are saying, "Fix it so it's right and I'll show you
the number of people we serve."  For some unknown (or unspoken, at least)
reason the standardized test is the only legitimate way of documentation of
progress.  Says who?

And to Deborah Yoho who wrote:
"...I wonder if it is time to begin discussing what the alternatives might
be to embrace fully the challenge of accountability, construct a quality
assurance mechanism, and still grow in responsiveness, retention, etc. It
seems to me that if we must take our cues from the business model, we should
begin with the assumption that "the customer is always right".  After all,
we work with adults.  In this country adults expect choices and they retain
the power to chart their own course."

Just as the adult learner "expect choices" so should we as providers.  The
"quality assurance mechanism" sounds like something any provider would
support and embrace.  It appears as though in the AELS the customer is
*never* right, from all appearances.  It's wrong.  The adult learner is not
a child who needs specific guidance.  The adult knows what they want and
will pursue the method that works for them and avoid the one that doesn't --
including avoiding anything that even *smells* like submission in
uncompromising programs that are "unresponsive".

I feel that the assessment tools our local program here uses for showing
progress, developed for use with the national level literacy program
materials for the volunteer-driven program, should provide adequate
benchmark proof of literacy level changes.  These are assessment tools that
were developed by the same international literacy organization which hosted
that ProLiteracy conference Deborah attended in San Diego.  Why is it not an
acceptable alternative to TABE/CASAS etc etc?

If the local program such as the one I administer is able to challenge and
guide adult learners so successfully that, when they complete their basic
reading program, they want to continue and work in several higher level
series of books with several different tutor volunteers, we must be doing
*some*thing right here because our retention rate is outstanding.  Our
learners don't quit.  They continue.

So if the adult learner responds and says, "This program is working for
**me** and I believe in it!" why aren't the authorities willing to listen to
them?

Regarding Eileen's point about research stated as:
"...One idea
> is for programs and/or individuals to engage in program-based research
into
> problems with whatever part of the system bugs them most, or whatever part
> they CAN research."

Isn't it abit ironic, Eileen?  I believe that the Laubach and LVA
organizations has already done research into what works for the literacy
level student and developed programs that fit individuals without "programs
and/or individuals" doing further research into what "bugs them most".  What
bugs us most is that the federal authority doesn't take the word of such
well-versed organizations with effective programs and puts us
more-or-less-powerless grassroots folks into the juicer in the process.

Nancy Hansen
Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert at hotmail.com>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [NLA] "breaking news"

> I'm writing in response to the following comment from Nancy:
> I feel "no federal money" is a better option than "no students".  I don't
> know about the rest of the lurkers on the listserv, but it is time for
> SOMEbody to stand up and be counted for the important issue -- the People
> Served.  We better all hope the "NRS does collapse of its own weight" as
> Debbie Yoho wrote. Or *I* predict the AELS will collapse instead -- at
least
> the literacy end of the services we provide will.
>
>
> There are probably quite a few providers who agree that no federal money
is
> better than no students, and if they all had the power to decide to reject
> federal money, then we might have the makings of an effective boycott. But
> lots of systems have mechanisms that make it impossible to turn down the
> money (in Washington State, for example, many programs are in community
> colleges, whose performance funding depends in part on adult and family
> literacy program results as measured by WA's NRS-based system--those
> colleges are not going to give up federal funding!)
>
> So how can we stand up for the people served? I don't think that hoping
the
> NRS collapses of its own weight is the most effective tactic. Unless we
have
> some knowledge and power and it is used to guide improvement, whatever
> replaces the NRS is likely to be just as bad! The "breaking news" that
> triggered this discussion is an indication that something's wrong--with
the
> reporting system AND with the instruction/assessment/service provision
> system. But what, exactly, and how can it be "fixed"? We can trade stories
> forever without bringing about any positive change. Observations are not
> sufficient evidence, and correlations are not necessarily causes. One idea
> is for programs and/or individuals to engage in program-based research
into
> problems with whatever part of the system bugs them most, or whatever part
> they CAN research. Each project would need to be small enough to handle,
but
> if research meets standards for validity or trustworthiness, a body of
> research can be developed to contribute to improvement of the system.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> http://literacytent.org
>

_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org