[NLA] "breaking news"

[Eileen Eckert]

"Who would do the research, Eileen?" Practitioners. Practitioners. 
Practitioners. After reading some of the responses to my posts, I thought 
maybe an evil twin was using my name to write anti-teacher hate mail to the 
list. I re-read what I've written, and it says, I'm advocating for 
program-based research done by practitioners. Nothing I've written says that 
someone else should set or carry out the research agenda. The EFF field 
research is a great example of connections between practitioners and 
researchers to produce "sound" research (maybe a less loaded term than 
"valid" or "trustworthy". More on that when I can write something readable 
about what I mean when I use the terms valid and trustworthy, because I 
think one of the problems may be that we use the terms to mean slightly, or 
very, different things.) I have spoken with some of the people doing EFF 
field research--those I've talked to consider it great professional 
development as well as practical problem solving and a chance to have a 
positive impact on the whole field. Is it complete? Even if it is, or if the 
LVA research is complete, there is research to be done anytime a 
practitioner has an unresolved question. Many teachers are already doing a 
huge part of the work of a researcher; they try things out, keep journals, 
talk to others in the field. Is being more deliberate about it and 
disseminating results such a gigantic and unrealistic step? I'm not 
suggesting it be mandatory!

As for the common criticism--it's already been done, why reinvent the wheel? 
The process of invention is as important as the wheel itself-- the same as 
it is with reading. Don't we want learners to experience the power of being 
able to read for themselves? If they say, I don't need to read, my 
husband/wife/grandchild/etc. will do it for me, we can't force them, but 
don't we feel they're missing something? I've been involved in both informal 
and formal program-based research, and I think it is one of the most 
powerful and effective things practitioners can do. It's not a diversion of 
time, energy, or resources from good programming or teaching--it's part of 
them.


>From: "Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council" <sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net>
>Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
>Subject: Re: [NLA] "breaking news"
>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:38:37 -0500
>
>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


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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