[NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners

[Catherine B. King]

To Nancy and Art, et al:

>From a purely statistical point of view, the data (adult
students) who fall outside the norms do not exist and are
not important, and should not be funded.   From the
humanistic point of view of most teachers, each student
is important, and the least are the most important ("least"
meaning those who are hardest to serve).

I am not saying that all statisticians are not humanistic,
least of all Tom Stitcht whose posts clearly reveal him to
be on the side of educational advocacy for all adults.  And
I am sure you are not averse to the interesting knowledge
gains that the field of educational statistics provides.

However, there is a disjunct in the dialogue around this
issue of different points of view and emphasis.  But the
statistical point of view, coupled with punitive overtones,
is the kind of data that apparently gets the ear of our
current policy-makers.

The point that I think is missing, or perhaps it doesn't seem
important to anyone, is that all of these adults are a part of
a supposed democratic polity whose voice needs to be
(1) able to be heard, and (2) as educated as it can be.

If so, the notion of "low expectations" in adult learners
should comes under a different light.  That is, as Nancy and
Art would probably agree (?), the adults who show up in
their programs are not there for a handout for which they
need to produce a statistical tradeoff.  They come there to
improve themselves--why else would they come?

At the level of the program administrator, it seems to me
that Nancy's, and Art's, and all administrators' and teachers'
one main responsibility is to their adults and THEIR
expectations.   Viewed in that light, I wonder how low they
would be.

Also, we should be glad people show up at these programs
at all--and support the education that goes on there--in a
purported democracy where education of "the people" is
essential to "provide for the general welfare" and for the
democracy as such.  Adults are not there to work in a
factory and produce some goods.  In a democracy,
general education is a right; this is the only thing that
legitimates all of the jobs and salaries that emerge from
providing this service, including policy-makers'; and this
right is understood as such by those of us who
understand what democracies are about.

Adults, and their decisions to educate themselves in
any way, ARE the goods.  Their coming to adult
programs, and their own qualifications of our programs
should constitute a good amount of how we qualify
them.

Regards,

Catherine King
Adjunct Instructor
National University
Department of Education
San Diego, CA

----- Original Message -----
From: Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council <sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners (longer)


> I wish to BRIEFLY confirm what Art is saying in this email.
>
> My opinion is that his comments about Tom's analysis applies *especially*
to
> the smallest of literacy programs where the standardized assessments have
> absolutely nothing to do with the needs of the learners entering at the
> lowest of literacy levels.  In the programs where assessments are done to
> gauge a starting point for GED studies, *perhaps* they find the tools
> helpful, but for programs like the one *I* administer - where not a one of
> our New Readers / adult learners are here to study for a GED - the
> assessment results mean absolutely nothing.
>
> The measure of skills, just as Art proclaims:
> > "...has absolutely nothing to do with student capabilities nor
> > curriculum efficiency nor teacher qualifications.  It certainly does
have
> > something to do with 'time' though, and let's don't forget 'need', from
> the
> > student's perspective."
>
> Regarding the requirement of the NRS for "annual data"?  The ostriches had
> better dig their eyeballs out of the dirt and take a long, hard look at
the
> demographics of the truly literacy-level program participant.  Finish in a
> year?  Finish what exactly??  Be able to gain a *year's* worth of
> educational skills when they attend sessions on a very part-time basis as
> their busy schedules allow - or get to the next level in the plotted
plan??
> Totally a farce!
>
> Think realistically for just a second:  If a prized aggressive, motivated
> and energized learner with a 0-1 level of recognition of sight words and a
> measure of positive self-image and high expectations for themselves, comes
> into a literacy program as early as July in a fiscal year reporting
period,
> you think that this adult is going to "climb out of the pit" to the "next
> level" (7 to 9) by June of the same reporting period!?
>
> Oh!  And by the Way.....that adult has a family, a full-time job, bills to
> pay causing a second job ... yep!  You are really going to see that adult
> accomplish that lofty goal in 12 months!  Heck!  Go ahead!  Flash that
stand
> ardiszed testing tool at the guy or gal with a 0-1 base of knowledge and
see
> just how long it takes for them to run the opposite direction of the In
> Door.
>
> Nancy Hansen
> community-based literacy council
> Sioux Falls, SD
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Art LaChance" <arthur at ellijay.com>
> To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners (longer)
>
>
> > Tom,
> > Your analysis appears to leave out some contributing factors.
> > 1) students are not considered to be 'level completers' until they
achieve
> the
> > skills to progress into the next level, which according to your report
is
> > segregated into three main areas: 0 to 6 grade level, 7 to 9, and 10 to
> 12,
> > give or take a grade level.  To "complete" a grade level ALL skills must
> be
> > above the 6th grade level for instance in order to move that student
into
> the
> > next level.  That means reading, math, and language skills as measured
by
> a
> > "standardized" assessment tool must all be within the parameters of the
> next
> > level.
> > 2)  All data reported to NRS is 'annual' data.  I find it exceptionally
> > difficult to draw any conclusions whatsoever in terms of who, what,
where,
> of
> > the lowest level of adult literacy students based on annual data when it
> will
> > take far longer than 6 to 12 months to grow a low level student
> approximately
> > 4 grade levels across the board.  Especially when we probably only see
> that
> > student in class approximately 6 hours a week and most of the time less
> than
> > that.
> > This scenario has absolutely nothing to do with student capabilities nor
> > curriculum efficiency nor teacher qualifications.  It certainly does
have
> > something to do with 'time' though, and let's don't forget 'need', from
> the
> > student's perspective.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Art
> >
> >
> > Art LaChance
> > Gilmer Learning Center
> > Ellijay, GA
> >
> >
> >
> > Thomas Sticht wrote:
> >
> > > Research Note           October 9, 2002
> > >
> > > Thomas G. Sticht
> > > International Consultant in Adult Education
> > >
> > > Why Such Low Expectations for Adult Learners in the Adult Education
and
> > > Literacy System (AELS) of the United States?
> > >
> > > This year the U. S. Department of Education released the first report
on
> > > the use of an early version of the National Reporting System (NRS) to
> > > obtain performance data from the states about the Adult Education and
> > > Literacy System (AELS) of the United States, that is, those programs
> that
> > > receive some funding from the State Grants of the Adult Education and
> > > Family Literacy Act of 1998. . Called, "Adult Education and Family
> > > Literacy Act, Report to Congress on State Performance, Program Year
> > > 1999-2000", the report is available on the Education Department's Web
> site
> > > at: www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE.
> > >
> > > Performance Indicators for Learning
> > >
> > > The AEFLA calls for states to report on "Demonstrated improvements in
> the
> > > literacy skill levels in reading, writing and speaking English,
> numeracy,
> > > problem-solving, English language acquisition, and other literacy
> skills."
> > > In the present report, states provided data on what their targets for
> > > achievement were and what their actual achievements were for each of
> seven
> > > levels of literacy, three for adult basic education and four for ESOL.
> > >
> > > In examining the targets for achievement, I was struck by how low the
> > > targets were. For instance the lowest level of ABE proficiency target
is
> > > defined as:  "The percentage of adults enrolled at the Beginning
> Literacy
> > > level who acquired the basic skills (validated by standardized
> assessment)
> > > needed to complete that level (1999-2000)." Averaged across all fifty
> > > states, the average target for achievement by the least able adult
> > > learners was 22 percent . In other words, the average expectation of
the
> > > fifty states was that some 78 percent of the least literate adults
would
> > > not acquire the basic skills needed to complete the most basic level
of
> > > learning.
> > >
> > > In some states, the expectations for learning at the lowest level were
> > > dismayingly low. Three states projected that less than 10 percent of
> > > adults would acquire the skills of the lowest level of literacy.
> > > Astonishingly, Hawaii projected that just 5 percent, Nevada 6 percent,
> and
> > > Iowa just 8 percent of the adult learners at the lowest level of
> literacy
> > > would acquire the basic skills needed to complete that level. Actual
> > > levels of achievement were Hawaii 2 percent (!), Nevada 30 percent,
and
> > > Iowa 15 percent, with an average achievement of 15.67 percent. Notice
> here
> > > the large difference between actual achievements for Hawaii and
Nevada.
> > >
> > > Eleven states gave targets in the range of 10-14 percent. Arizona's
> target
> > > (T) was 10 percent and it achieved (A) 37 percent; Arkansas T=10,
A=27,
> > > California T=13, A=13, Florida T=13,A=25,Indiana T=14,A=25, Missouri
> > > T=11,A=24, New Hampshire T=11, A=13, N. Carolina T=12, A=54, S. Dakota
> > > T=14, A=35, Texas T=12, A=12. The average achievement for the eleven
> > > states was 26.36, ten points below the national average. As a
standout,
> N.
> > > Carolina, which expected only 12 percent to achieve the skills of the
> > > lowest level of literacy, actually reported an achievement level of 54
> > > percent, well above the national average of 36 percent achievement for
> the
> > > lowest ABE level.
> > >
> > > At the high end of expectations and achievements, Alaska set its
target
> at
> > > 42 percent and achieved 64 percent. Ohio was T=30, A=65, Delaware
T=43,
> > > A=63. At the top of the targets for achievement was Utah, with a
target
> of
> > > 74 percent. And while its achievement was high, at 67 percent, it was
> > > below the state's target. But all these states with higher targets
> > > achieved well above the national achievement of 36 percent.
> > >
> > > At the national level, for the three ABE levels, average targets for
the
> > > lowest, intermediate, and highest literacy levels were 22, 24 and 27
> > > percent and average actual achievements were 36, 42, and 44 percent.
For
> > > the four ESOL levels, average targets were from the lowest ESOL level
to
> > > the highest level, 22, 25, 28, and 27 percent, while actual
achievements
> > > were 39, 40, 43, 38 percent. Across all performance levels, it was
> > > expected that anywhere from 73 to 78 percent of adults at a given
level
> > > would not achieve the basic skills needed to complete that level.
> > >
> > > Is Low Achievement A Self-fulfilling Prophecy?
> > >
> > > Over all fifty states, for the lowest ABE level, there was a positive
> > > correlation of +.38 between the target and actual achievement levels,
> > > indicating that as a general trend,  as the state's target's for
> > > achievement went up, actual achievement went up.
> > >
> > > These data raise some serious questions. Why are there such wide
> > > disparities in targets and achievements among the fifty states?  Why
do
> so
> > > many states have such low expectations for their least able ABE
> learners?
> > > Why do those states with higher expectations for the least literate,
as
> > > indicated by their relatively high target scores, actually achieve
> better
> > > than the states with the lowest targets? Why do average expectations
and
> > > achievements go up from the lowest to the higher levels of
performance?
> > >
> > > Averaged over the national average data, the overall average target
for
> > > achieving the skills at one of the seven levels was 25 percent, and
the
> > > average actual achievement was 40 percent. This indicates that in the
> > > AELS, 75 percent of the adults were, on average, not expected to
achieve
> > > the skills of a given level, and in actuality 60 percent did not.
> > >
> > > Is there some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy at work here such that
> low
> > > expectations lead to lower achievements? Is it possible that this
> > > marginalized field serving marginalized adults suffers from an
> inferiority
> > > complex that leads to low expectations and low achievements for its
> adult
> > > learners?
> > >
> > > Possibly if we could move the Adult Education and Literacy System of
the
> > > United States from the margins to the mainstream of publicly supported
> > > education, and recognize it and fund it at levels comparable to
> mainstream
> > > public education, we could find the psychological, financial, and
> material
> > > resources to overcome any inferiority complex and hold up high
> > > expectations and reach high levels of achievement for our nation's
under
> > > served and undereducated adults.
> > >
> > > In this regard, it might be especially useful to look at states like
> Utah
> > > to find out why they have such high expectations and how they reach
> > > achievements that go along with such expectations, particularly for
our
> > > least able adult learners. There may be some power of positive
thinking
> in
> > > these states that can help the entire system reach new levels of hope
> and
> > > achievement.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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