[NLA] Re: Is the NRS a violation of the law?

[Nashansen@aol.com]

LONG - RESPONSE TO 3 EMAILS

To Debbie Yoho, Anne, Kevin and others:

I agreed with the points you made on 3/6/03, Debbie.  In looking at the 
clause and reading what Massachusetts is doing with their compliance to 
accountability, it appears as though we should be at least questioning 
whether or not all adults nationwide have education at their access and if 
the NRS is against the law regarding the equal access clause.

Subscribers, she concluded the post with this paragraph regarding the use of 
standardized, timed tests to access WIA funding:

<< Incidentally, the stated reason for requiring only one test is for
"uniformity" to compare one program's results with another program's.  
 This assumes standardized test scores are valid criteria for making decisions
 about what programs are effective and which ones are not. If and when that
 day comes, somebody will presumably draw an arbitrary line at a given
 score, as though there were an "average rate of progress" or something. 
 This has already happened here at the k-12 level.  I still say that the
 entire NRS effort will eventually collapse of its own weight, because the
 data is at best incomplete and at worst unreliable, misleading and easily
 manipulated.  >>

But the key is:  Can we afford to <wait> until it <happens>?

There is no doubt in <my> mind that uniform comparison is not possible.  
Considering that the current standardized and timed tests provoke test scores 
which show <nothing> at the beginning of the literacy student's enrollment 
and <nothing> at the post-test, it's doing nothing more than bringing the 
adult learner back to the belief that they aren't capable of learning and/or 
they are as dumb as they have felt they are all their lives.  (That second 
statement is out of the mouths of <my> learners regarding Tests with a 
capital /T/.)

I think those who are not in direct service should realize that adult 
learners are studying well researched and 'tested on-site by users' program 
materials.  These materials also include their life goals right alongside 
their reading, writing and spelling skills development.  One thing, the 
personal individual goals are not measured by a standardized TABE test.  So 
wouldn't it make sense that if the authority is going to 'count successes' 
they would adopt such assessment tools to truly measure progress, one program 
against the other, which do include data on life skills?

Which relates back to Debbie's above statement about "somebody … presumably 
draw(ing) an arbitrary line at a given score, as though there were an 
'average rate of progress' or something."  

It is my belief that "somebody" instead needs to take a long, hard look at 
assessment tools that are already being <used> and which are tied directly to 
the lack of equal access of the adult with limited literacy skills.  The 
assessment tool is right in front of their face and being used across our 
nation by some providers like <our> Council.  That educational tool is an 
integral part of the "Laubach Way To Reading" (LWR) beginning series.  What 
would it take to include in the accountability standards documentation of 
progress shown by "Way To Reading" Check-Up's - a far less threatening 
terminology and process than a Test?  It's often even more <frequent> than 
pre- to post-testing.

The "authority" should evaluate the Scope and Sequence outlines in these 
printed materials designed specifically for our at-risk population.  Other 
series produced by New Readers Press and the Wilson Language Training program 
also have charts.   Why am  not using them as documentation for funding?  
I've been told the LWR assessment tools are unacceptable because they are not 
"standardized".  My question is why not?  What does it take to <make> that 
category of documentation acceptable and valid?

The study materials include basic reading, writing, spelling, phonics, 
punctuation, comprehension, and other skills outlined in the Scope and 
Sequence chart in the front of the tutor's manuals.  The series also includes 
life skill improvement exercises by the middle of the four-book series.  A 
required level of points exists at the end of each book before the adult goes 
on to the next level.  

I do understand the lack of timed approach could be why these scores aren't 
acceptable as an accountability standard, but I can't accept the argument -- 
<if> some states already are not timing their literacy level students' 
testing.  My next question is then, are programs using Laubach materials 
being given equal access when their accountability tool is already in place?  

Our agency <requires> tutor volunteers to use this lesson structure.  For the 
adults studying Laubach materials nationwide, this data accurately validates 
their accomplishments.  This is an educational methodology that was created 
by our national literacy organization in the 50's - is <that> time enough to 
document success?

My personal hope is that the NRS crash is sooner rather than later because of 
the following written by Anne Jellen at the end of her post (3/7/03):

<< I also agree that the NRS will eventually fall under its own weight, but
unfortunately, while we are waiting for this to happen some agencies doing
valid work may have to curtail their services, may even fold from lack of
funding.>>

Anne, the programming for needy adults has already been hurt by this 
accountability farce.  In our state, many did fold.  I believed, and have 
voiced my opinion on this listserv from the outset, that it would hurt us 
all.  It's my belief that this required testing for enrollment is the reason 
we now see "a drop" in numbers. It's not a matter of lost people-in-need - 
it's all about lost funding.  CBO's are operating on funds from other funding 
sources without a testing requirement and are those "unreported numbers" we 
no longer see.
 
One last focus:  Massachusetts.  Kevin O'Connor posted an email (3/7/03) 
sharing that his state is addressing the assessment accommodations' issue 
directly and is using a 1.1 Accommodations section from TABE's information to 
evaluate assessment in the belief that "more time is needed to explore what 
types of accommodations are important to set up for students who need them."  
I find this incredible that even in the TABE instructions, it allows for 
flexibility.  I applaud your state, Kevin, for using your discretions.

Please share with the listserv the month and year Massachusetts began 
studying the issue of accommodations that are fair and what data they are 
studying.  (It sounds as though it's going to take another year.) Then 
respond to the following, not meant to be accusatory, because I truly am glad 
that you posted this email:
1)  How many learners register each month in Massachusetts?  
2)  How many literacy level learners dropped out after the test scoring or 
how many (an estimated number of) adults whose self-image has already been 
hurt due to timed standardized testing from start to end of this study 
project?  It would be worth documenting, although difficult.
3)  The reality of a timed testing requirement is:  What's in the best 
interest of our at-risk population?

Kevin wrote:  "For our statewide reporting, it is left to the state's 
discretion to set accommodation policies."  For others on the listserv: 
 
Are there <other> state Dept. of Education or Dept. of Labor officials on 
this policy listserv who know that their state also is allowed "discretion"?  
The timed TABE testing requirement is in place here because, I've been told, 
"Everyone is required to test".  Obviously that's not true across the nation 
- if Massachusetts is questioning the use of timed testing with <all> 
students at the point of enrollment.  

Kevin continued with:
<< 1.1.1 What Accommodations Can Be Made:  
In the meantime, any student may be given the large print version of the 
TABE.  The program may also extend the time limits for administering the TABE 
to time and a half for any students with a documented formal diagnosis of a 
learning disability.  By "formal" we mean the kind of assessments and 
associated documentation developed through a core evaluation by an 
appropriately licensed professional. >>  

<< I know that they wrestled with this, trying to be fair, yet ensuring 
validity and reliability. >>

At least Massachusetts <is> "wrestling" with "being fair"!  The literacy 
level student should be our Number One Priority.  Regarding the "formal" 
documentation of LD, this is another unfair requirement that only "The 
Have's" can access. Additionally, in some areas of the country "appropriately 
licensed professional(s)" are not even readily available to test adults with 
symptoms of learning disabilities. Were those on the listserv aware of that 
factor?  

The point is also this: One subscriber mentioned as a provider that they 
fund, via grants, assessments of their students suspected of having learning 
disabilities.  If our small agency is already scrambling just to meet 
operational expenses due to the loss of access to federal funds, how in the 
world would we ever be able to test as high as 9 out of every 10 of our 
learners using an "appropriately licensed professional" if s/he <were> 
available?  Is this option even realistic when some grants are one-year in 
length and 'non-renewable'?  Would the subscriber be willing to give the name 
of their grant or foundation which <does> fund on-going, individual 
professional evaluations?

Thanks for the helpful comments, Kevin.  It says to me that equal access is 
not being given all adult learners in all areas of the country.  I think 
there is room for questioning at least.  Debbie's provision of the equal 
access clause sent that message to me, at the least.  Thanks, Debbie!  That 
helped, too!  

It feels as though providers who use flexibility with timed testing and 
depend heavily on this funding are a heartbeat away from seeing it disappear, 
too.  None of us are "out of the woods" yet if we truly care about at-risk 
adults with reading needs and as long as the NRS is being used.  

So what do we do about it, banded together as One United Who Cares?

Nancy Hansen
Sioux Falls, SD
Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council
ProLiteracy America Affiliate
sfallsliteracy at yahoo.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