[NLA] Proposed FY04 Budget

[George E. Demetrion]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 14:26:59 -0800 (PST) Thomas Sticht <tsticht at znet.com>
writes:
(snipit)

 I’m wondering just how much the field feels that assessment is a major 
issue and if so, who should address these issues. Should ProLiteracy 
Worldwide take on the responsibility of improving the assessment approach
of the federally administered National Reporting System, as George seems
to suggest? And just what are "valid and reliable"  "direct measures"
versus "tests" that David talks about? In my reading, the National
Academy of Science’s report on assessment in adult literacy education
does not seem optimistic about developing "performance assessments" that
are comparable across programs and states to permit the type of
comparison of achievement that accountability evaluators seem to be
demanding. Nor has the K-12 system with hundreds of millions of dollars
in research over the last quarter century accomplished this in a manner
that is acceptable to the professional field of accountability.  So I’m
not certain that the problem is in need of national leadership. Perhaps
it is in need of the voices often of thousands of adult students who
demand that their judgments of the value of their learning be accepted
along with the judgments of their tutors, teachers, and others with whom
they have a special relationship, as just as valid and reliable
indicators of learning as are nationally
developed "objective" tests.
________________________________________________________________

Tom & others:

My suggestion  would be part of a longer-term focus that would not
necessarily (not likely) converge with the National Reporting System at
least in the next go around, slated for 2005.  Moreover, its focus would
be specifically tailored to the community-based (broadly understood)
adult literacy/ESOL sector rather than the state-mandated ABE/GED
programs.  Though it could have applicability for the latter, that would
not necessarily be the case.

Historically, LVA and LLA as separate entities have made strategic policy
decisions to work with the ABE directors and others, emphasizing the
importance of "one common voice."  Without such an alliance, it has been
argued the literacy agencies would be isolated and marginalized and that
working in concert was the only viable way of moving the field forward as
a whole.  Part of the dilemma of working in this manner is that "the
com[promises we can live with" have benefitted the ABE programs much more
than the adult literacy sector.  This has been discussed in depth on
these airwaves and brought out recently in Jose's post.  Neither the
current nor the next round of NRS revisioning will reflect an assessment
accountability system that adequately gauges the impact of adult literacy
education among students who participate in LVA and LLA programming or
other similar programs.

I am not suggesting in the least that ProLiteracy Worldwide not work in
concert with the policy leadership.  That would be foolhardy.  I am
suggesting a bi-lateral approach where the newly formed agency also
devote major resources to the needs and interests of its specific sector,
which of course it will be doing without the need for my advice.  Where I
may be recommending something new is in emphasizing the importance
(through  the development of a sustaining partnership with a major
university--i.e., Syracuse University) to provide in-house oversight on
research on adult literacy education as the basis of establishing a
leadership role in the development of various products and services such
as tutor training modules, curriculum guides, and student assessment  and
program accountability (the latter two would require different, though
related indicators). 

 Someone recently wrote an article that referred to the "criterion bleed"
when the house of adult literacy needs to fit its framework within those
of other entities such as the national policy orientation of the WIA/NRS
and whatever new legislation may emerge.  No doubt some of this needs to
continue in any formulation of a meaningful bi-lateral strategy,
particularly in the short-haul of the next several legislative cycles. 
In my opinion, however, that should not intrude on longer-term
initiatives to legitimize the field on its own emerging frameworks.  This
would include developing internal expertise via a university partnership
on the intellectual premises (acknowledging pluralistic interpretations)
of its own field and developing training, accountability, and program
management systems based on them as well as corresponding policy
formulations.  

The research stemming from NCSALL and the EFF project have played various
influential roles within the LVA and LLA communities that certainly can
continue to be drawn upon.  However, I do not believe that the new agency
can depend upon them in  providing the intellectual, instructional, and
programmatic direction that it, only, can provide for its own network,
and perhaps for the field of community-based programming, through
cutting-edge research and programmatic innovation.  

What I'm suggesting may not be for the short-term, but for intermediate
and long-term strategic positioning.  In any event, the merged agency,
ProLiteracy Worldwide has many more resources than the two agencies as
separate entities possessed.  Can or will it be able to take a leadership
role in the ongoing development of adult literacy research and
programmatic application. 

My hope is that responses (if any) will be given in the same public
exploratory spirit that my message intends.

George Demetrion
sophocles5 at juno.com

a


________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.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