[NLA] Breaking News

[Nashansen@aol.com]

NLA subscribers et all:

The "conversation" as *I* left it early evening Wed., June 12, continued on.  
A dozen subscribers wrote 18 more messages - all with great information 
within.  I read and re-read them and now wish to respond.  Some thoughts I 
can agree wholeheartedly with.  Some raise questions for me.  Can't answer to 
all of them unfortunately.  But here I am, the burr under the saddle.

Let's start with the RESEARCH sub-topic that developed.
Eileen Eckert wrote at 9:19 AM on Wed., June 12, that she advocated for small 
program-based projects research that would reveal data we all could use for 
effective change.  I had mentioned that if we need research data, why not ask 
the national literacy organizations (merged as ProLiteracy Worldwide now) 
about their research vehicles and the data gathered therein.  She asked me 
(and the others on the NLA listserv) and I quote:  "If some benign and 
anonymous bureaucrats were to reform or replace the NRS using what they 
learned from the research you mentioned, what would be the result?"

Art LaChance did respond, stating that he as a practitioner would welcome 
such study.  So would I!  Others responded that they didn't want to start all 
over with a different tool than the NRS!  I never even suggested that - 
provided that it truly IS effective for some AELS programs!  But it needs to 
address the issue of determining skills of literacy level students -- perhaps 
with ANOTHER assessment tool other than the NRS.

Art *did* make a good point in his Wed., June 12, 8:06 PM post.  He wrote:  
"My experiences indicate significant limitations placed upon that type of 
data gathering by the upper level institutions, however accurate the 
'researchers' believe it to be. … how much of the very 'real' information has 
been regarded by federal institutions as a window to the needs of the adult 
student?"  So even though I support that idea, I surely question whether it 
would be worth all the time and energy understaffed and overworked programs 
would put into it.  If it isn't going to have an impact, why expend more 
money on such a project?

By June 14, Eileen "clarified" her meaning of research.  The clarification 
post left me wondering whether she was veering off to the left.  It felt as 
though something had changed in those three days and that the practitioner's 
views would not be "valid and reliable research" at all.  On 6/14/02 she 
quoted from an article in the 1999 JAMA magazine, which said, "program-based 
research that is valid or trustworthy can help us become more mindful 
practitioners."  

So who would conduct the research, Eileen?  It appears to me as though it 
isn't going to be those "teachers or learners" mentioned in the first 
paragraph of your post, but researchers without knowledge of the true picture 
of the adult literacy programs in question here.  The value system being that 
**their* data would be more "valid and trustworthy".  Direct service 
providers know better than anyone but the learners themselves what the 
reality is in the programs.  So being advocated now is "back to the old 
waiting game again" while more of our clientele go without services.  And 
waiting for data from a research project such as the NCSALL project "which 
data was collected years ago", you wrote, is totally unacceptable to *me*!

Marsha Tait's post on June 13 "ProLiteracy Accreditation" explains what the 
national LVA/LLA organizations individually researched and initiated ahead of 
the recent merger.  It gives the information I was suggesting was already 
available - research-wise.  The national literacy organizations know more 
data about the literacy efforts across the nation than any other, I believe.  
They can answer the questions you all have from researchers' views because 
they have a viable national network with specific programs - large and small. 
 

I would like to ask Marsha to respond to Deborah Yoho's inquiry about whether 
learners were involved in the formulation of the research ("Alternatives" 
post, Wed., June 12, 2 PM).  I agree with Deborah.  She wrote:  "… If we 
could just come to some agreement on what a good program looks like and acts 
like, we could police our own house."  I think the programs, which are 
members of the national organizations, already are doing that.  (Here our 
organization is required to do Outcome Reporting for United Way funding, as 
an aside.  And it isn't reporting what grade-level our learners gained in the 
past year!)  Our programs are no different than school districts when it 
comes to some doing a good job while others are doing not so hot at educating 
our nation's children.  Why would we think adult ed would be any different 
than K-12?

Another research resource:  Ronna G. Spacone, EFF Special Collection 
Coordinator, wrote a post, which might be good to read.  It was posted on the 
NIFL-Assessment listserv.  Ronna wrote about more research data that has been 
done.  It is documented in a policy brief by Regie Stites, EFF Assessment 
Consortium Technical Director.  Ronna wrote that the consultation draft 
explains "the EFF approach to developing good assessment tools and to 
ensuring that these tools are put to good use in improving the quality of 
adult education."  That post said the draft could be found at:
    
http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/collections/eff/eff_publications.html#Publications

Ronna went on to write that there is more information regarding a performance 
assessment workshop that was held Dec. 12-13, 2001.  That New National 
Research Council Report on Assessment for Adult Education also can be found 
on the web at:
    http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/collections/eff/report_assess_02.doc

So if the already completed research does **not* have "concrete, specific 
changes" that would effectively improve "the accountability system", as 
expected by Eileen Eckert, what new data could possibly be gathered that 
would?  I question the likelihood that there is any further new information 
-- **unless* there is research conducted utilizing the practitioner as the 
resource, such as Art LaChance suggested, where practitioners and their 
learners are drawn into the research arena.

Andrea Wilder proclaimed on June 13th:   "…well-designed research can make a 
link between the field and policy-makers" and I'd say to that - The 
effectiveness of the data will depend heavily on just who is doing it and how 
thorough they are in gathering information.  Haven't you all noticed?  The 
NLA LISTSERV is a microcosm of "field" and "policy-makers" and WE can't even 
"link" in a meaningful way!!

Andrea then went on to make 9 more points.  One of those points was this: 
<< "Good policy comes when there is a connection to the field, 'askew' policy 
comes when there aren't connections to the field (whatever field).  How much 
good information has been given?">>
I would like someone to answer that inquiry because it appears as though 
there is little checking with "the field" -- of providers anyhow - to even 
*get* "good information" to report.   

Again, let us remember how large this AELS truly is!  And how broad the base 
of study is between one program and the other.  Gail Spangenberg wrote that 
enrollment figures in Community College were dramatically Up.  However, those 
figures don't even apply to a community-based program like the one I 
administer with absolutely no link to a community college network. ("What 
caused the decline of the AELS?" thread.)  She wrote a statement that really 
rings true for ME and that was:  "The problems we have at the level of state 
commitment, where the future of ABE rests heavily, have always been with us. 
…"  I would encourage her to keep on fighting the good fight through CAAL if 
they can change that whole un-unified front we face.

Sandy Struck wrote that she was "disturbed" by some of the discussion - one 
of which having a student leave because of initial testing.  She's never had 
any leave. She "takes ownership" of all her test data, she wrote.  What I 
would ask is:  Who ARE these adult learners Sandy's Pennsylvania program 
tested?  I ask the question because, from her increased enrollment data and 
other information in that post, it surely sounded to me as though those 
students must be higher-level students than the Level I Literacy student (0-8 
Gr).  

HER adult ed program has got to be more GED preparation students than those 
being individually taught the ABC's and how to spell.  Aren't they?  There is 
a world of difference between these two adult learners.  The at-risk adult is 
the hardest to identify and serve when they are ashamed of their lack of 
skills and do not want anyone to know of the huge barrier they have to 
overcome before *they* are ready to prepare for a GED.  For that higher-level 
program the NRS probably is as good a record-keeping system as any.

Yes, I would agree that *all* adult learners want "regular feedback on their 
learning", Sandy, but why is it you think that the viable "feedback" is going 
to be given in a standardized timed test, rather than by working with that 
man or woman in an individualized evaluation process?  Timed testing of an 
adult learner in test anxiety mode accomplishes absolutely nothing!  
Especially when the test is too difficult to record either pre or post 
information other than Zero!  The learner's "perspective" of the process then 
becomes they see just how few answers they can even guess at and how many 
they know they got wrong - which translates to their feeling stupid.  And as 
Art testified, a goodly many of them end their relationship with the 
educational program.  It isn't just in his area of the country, but 
everywhere, I believe.  Why should we worry about self-image?  A man/woman 
with a low self-image/self-esteem isn't going to return EVER to the place 
where s/he remembers one-more-time how much education hurts!
_______________________________________________________________

I'd like to respond to some of the other emails that were laid out in two 
*other* threads, but this has "got to be it" for this weekend.  Several 
smiling practitioners came up to me in San Diego at the ProLiteracy Worldwide 
conference.  They told me they are too busy to write back and thanked me for 
writing their view - they are "out there" lurking.  Today I certainly 
understand!  We all need to keep talking, though.

As long as people are still interested enough to talk about the issues, *I* 
predict answers will eventually be found.  It won't be "The End All for 
Everyone", though.  It can't be because we are not of the same mold, the same 
clay, the same shapes, the same fabrics in our individual programs.  But we 
do have the same hope of helping adults in a lifelong learning experience.  
And we should also share the ability to remain flexible and be compromisers 
rather than dictatorial in our approach.

I would like to see a federal funding authority making sure the funding is 
fairly distributed.  Accountability and evaluation?  Yes.  That is needed.  
But let's use documentation tool alternatives that fit the literacy level 
skills.  I was appalled to read that funding was expended on *staffing* in 
one state so they could more accurately gather that NRS data rather than on 
direct service!  Their per-capita cost has to be "out the roof"!!  That is 
nothing to be proud of, *I* don't think.

Having several assessment tools that accurately portray the good that our 
programs are doing for individuals is what it will take to resolve the issue 
that we are not currently showing real growth for our literacy students.  
It's happening!  Our programs *are* effective.  But you'd never know it by 
the statistics.  Instead the learner numbers just disappear.  As Art wrote, 
they even leave.  We may have already broken the trust and have lost the 
students who deserved what we call here as a second chance to learn to read.  
Let's stop this downward spiral before two to three *more* generations has to 
suffer not being able to read.

Nancy Hansen
Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council
Sioux Falls, SD
sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net
_______________________________________________
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