[NLA] "breaking news"

[Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council]

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 the need is
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.  Also, 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 research and formulation of the
data.  ("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 we 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 Colleges 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?" strand.)  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 t
o
suffer not being able to read.

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

A
P.S. to Jay:
As I located the last "Breaking News" on this topic so I could paste the
above message I wrote yesterday at home, I found you had responded to
Andrea's email.  I agree with her thoughts as did you.  The need for open
lines of communication is the absolute minimum for our AELS.

You wrote the following (which I would like to comment about):
<...The policy makers need to make connections in order to solicit
support from colleagues. This is critical in the policy making arena. No one
issues isolated from others. This connection is related to the various and
different agendas  policy makers have. >

I also believe this is a critical factor in our beginning to adequately
support the literacy efforts going on in our country.  And here lies the
difficult task ahead as well!  The Connection OBviously needs to "come from
us" because they surely aren't coming *our* way.  The street must be
One-Way.  Apparently we individually must contact our country's policy
makers.  So, outside of the known (local and D.C.elected officials) are
there others on some sort of list we should access?  Any ideas?

And to Catherine King who wrote:
<...how "intake" works in her program.   It's a classic
"means-end" situation where, for Nancy, the End is in the
student and the program is the Means to that End.  But for
the person who is collecting data, the student is the Means
to other ends that have nothing (to the student) to do with
the adult student's ends? >

So true, Catherine!  And absolutely NObody on *this* listserv would like the
feeling of "being used" for the purpose of Collecting Data.  The learners
have experienced *enough* Collectors in their lives!  They don't need US to
treat them the same way as the Collectors -- whose 1st name is Bill.  It's
called Having Respect, in my thinking.

My sensibilities tell me that if I can pave the way to knowledge with a
minimum of twists and turns, bumps and rocks, their life's travel will be
far smoother in the future.  Maybe on their highway to knowledge they be
able to use a car instead of their covered wagon.  Wouldn't THAT bring them
out of The Dark Ages, though??

----- Original Message -----
From: <AWilder106 at aol.com>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [NLA] "breaking news"


> Jay,
>
> It wasn't long to read at all and thanks for taking the time to post.
>
>  Hopefully, you hook up with the staff person who might be interested in
this
> topic, OR you find the person who the policy-maker listens to, OR i am
sure
> there are other ways...  Thanks for mentioning the obvious, it isn't
always
> obvious.
>
> A couple of weeks ago a friend wrote an op-ed in the "Washington Post"
about
> a "grave injustice:" her mother, a WW2 vet (WASPS) was being denied a
funeral
> with "full military honors" at Arlington National Cemetery.  Friday, June
14,
> Flag Day, her mother was inurned at Arlington with "full military honors."
I
> was there, I saw it, I was thrilled.  My friend made it happen, she worked
in
> Washington a long time.
>
> I think you have to have an insider's knowledge of Washington's social
> structure (congress, media, lobbying groups, info on who talks with whom)
to
> get things accomplished, it isn't obvious from the outside.
>
> Andrea
> _______________________________________________
> 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