<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2654.45">
<TITLE>RE: [NLA] Can research improve policy or practice?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I guess it is not surprising to anyone that the Director of Equipped for the Future would believe that accountability for results that matter to learners, programs, and funders is of critical importance. I appreciate Bob's characterization of EFF as a "bright spot in an otherwise dismal landscape." We have been working hard over the past seven years to build consensus on what results matter, so that our system could in fact begin aligning instruction and assessment with those results - and so that we could tell Congress exactly how the skills and knowledge adults gained in our programs enabled them to "compete in a global economy, exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, and help their children succeed in school."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>While our focus has shifted over the past two years to building an assessment framework for the EFF Content Standards, we see our current work as still focused on defining the "content" for each standard. Working with our field research partners in Maine, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington we are constructing a "continuum of performance" for each EFF standard. The continuum is composed of "snapshots of performance" of adult literacy and ESOL students on performance assessment tasks that have been carefully constructed to focus on the "knowledge base" (including vocabulary, content, and cognitive and metacognitive strategies) required to use a given standard to carry out the purpose embodied in that task. Building (and validating) the continua is part of defining the "universe of content" ( to use Bob's phrase) for each of the EFF standards. This is what provides the specification for what performance looks like at any given point along the continuum - say the transition points from level to level on the NRS. Until we have finished this work, it is not possible to construct assessments based on the EFF Standards that can be used for Accountability Purposes.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Once we have finished this work, however, any test maker, any publisher of assessments, can use those definitions of performance (what we call our cognitive model of performance) to construct ANY KIND OF assessments aligned with the EFF Standards. NIFL does not have the resources to construct such assessments ourselves. That's why we have established relationships with all the publishers of assessments currently used in adult education, so that they will know what we are doing, and will be ready to incorporate our work into their own products. We think that the number of states that have already adopted EFF as a framework means that there is a market that publishers will want to serve. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>In the meantime, as Bob said, we are concentrating on performance assessments for several reasons. Because these are tools that help teachers focus on and collect evidence of the kinds of cognitively complex performance that is called upon by everyday activities, and because we don't now have any tools that enable us to collect this kind of evidence. We are excited to be in partnership with DAEL on the National Academy of Science's Committee on Quality Measures for Alternative Assessments of Adult Literacy. DAEL will draw on the work of the Committee to issue guidance to State Directors of Adult Education who use alternative assessments to measure and report learning gains through the NRS. NIFL will draw on the Committee's work to assure that performance assessments developed to measure progress on EFF Standards are of the highest quality and consistent with quality standards put forth by DAEL. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>So what's our timeline for this work?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>By July 2002 we will have validated the continua for the five EFF Standards currently in the National Reporting System (Read with Understanding, Convey Ideas in Writing, Listen Actively, Speak So Others can Understand, Use Math to Solve Problems and Communicate). Over the Summer we will conduct an Assessment Task Institute to develop performance assessment tasks that can be used in relation to NRS levels. By the following summer we will have validated Continua for seven more EFF Standards. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>This means that by Summer 2003 EFF will have developed and validated definitions of performance for 12 of our standards. These definitions will support the development of new assessments that hopefully will take us all out of the dismal swamp - and a little farther toward our vision of a system in which teaching and assessment, reporting and accountability are all aligned with and produce results that matter - to our students and to the public and private agencies that provide resources for adult literacy services. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>If you would like more information on the work of the EFF Assessment Consortium please visit the 4EFF Archives (see messages by Brenda Bell and Peggy McGuire for April, May, and June 2001) - or feel free to be in touch with Brenda Bell or Regie Stites, Coordinators of the Consortium. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>And if anyone has a million dollars or so you'd like to give us - the Consortium would be delighted to speed up and extend our work on assessment and move on to credentialing.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Sondra</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Sondra G. Stein, PhD.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Senior Research Associate and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>National Director, Equipped for the Future</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>National Institute for Literacy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>1775 I Street NW Suite 730</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Washington, DC 20006</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>phone: 202-233-2041</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> fax: 202-233-2050</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Bickerton, Robert P [<A HREF="mailto:RBickerton@doe.mass.edu">mailto:RBickerton@doe.mass.edu</A>] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:20 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: 'Thomas Sticht '; 'nla@lists.literacytent.org '</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: [NLA] Can research improve policy or practice?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> Tom, et al,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Thanks for raising this issue. A few thoughts from one of several state ABE</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>directors who tried to influence the direction of that $50 million back in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>1993 (or thereabouts).</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>By (about) 1993, the R&D initiatives at USDOE (DAEL/PAS and OERI) and NIFL</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>were starting to gell. We were concerned that what appeared to be emerging</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>were a series of small R&D efforts that were neither strategic nor tied</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>together in a coherent thematic way. In our discussions with the principal</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>players, we asked that the three major players (DAEL National Programs,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>NIFL, and NCAL -- the predecessor to NCSALL) work together on a strategic</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>and staged approach to R&D. In particular, many of us argued them to tackle</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>assessment. We communicated the high level of dissatisfaction practitioners</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>had with existing commercially available assessments, that many of us shared</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>their dissatisfaction, and that the challenge was beyond the capability</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(read, "financial resources") of many states to tackle alone. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Our entreaties in this regard were largely ignored. It is true that the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>state directors and others have been regularly consulted on which National</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Programs and NIFL projects deserved support, but the choices have been among</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>several disconnected smaller initiatives that many on this list are aware</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>of. There has not been a large scale coordinated effort to address the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>assessment issue which is now at the heart of what is attempting to serve as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>an ABE accountabilty system. Will anyone argue that by the 1999/2000 and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>2000/2001 program years that the states were prepared to provide valid,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>reliable and comparable data about the educational progress students are</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>making? And will anyone argue that we will do a significantly better job</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>when we report our program year 2001/2002 results?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>A case in point that illustrates why the failure to tackle this difficult</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>systemic issue is so problematic. There are two multi-year research studies</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>being conducted by USDOE with National Programs funding: "What Works in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>ABE" and "What Works in ES(O)L." Each was originally funded at $1 million</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>per year for five years -- a total of $10 million over 5 years. With these</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>studies it's important to keep in mind that without objective measures of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>whether students are learning and succeeding, the answer to "what works" is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>nothing more than who markets programs and services better. In fact, the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>ABE study tried to use uniformed interns to make judgements about which</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>programs were most likely to harbor exemplary practices after 1 or 2 visits</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to a random set of programs. [NOTE: I and a couple of other people raised</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>such hell about the impending waste of scarce resources that the study was</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>taken off line for several months and a new contractor hired.] In the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>absence of solid tools that practitioners could agree upon, both studies</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>spent most of the first 18 months struggling over which assessments to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>"settle on," or in my words, "grit our teeth and make the best of a bad</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>situation." </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Equipped For the Future is a bright spot in this otherwise dismal landscape.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>By starting with "what do adults want/need to know and be able to do," EFF</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>has tackled the real first step in developing and achieving consensus around</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>adult ed assessments. For assessments to be valid and reliable, they must</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>align with what's being taught, i.e., curriculum. Absent agreement about</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the "universe of content," we can neither select nor construct meaningful</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>assessments. Thank you for a good first step. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>But the challenge remains. EFF is working on the assessment challenge but</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>they're not there yet. Further, EFF appear's to be restricting its work to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>performance assessment only. While many of us agree that performance</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>asssessment can be the most promising and meaningful approach to student</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>assessment in adult ed, it is highly unlikely that all the challenges in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>achieving validity, reliability and comparability can be resolved in a way</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that is affordable in both time and money for our programs. Some of us are</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>concluding that at least for the present, we will need a mix of performance</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>and paper and pencil assessments. No such options appear to be emerging</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>nationally.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>So what does this do to a state like Massachusetts? We have convened a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>"performance accountability working group" of very diverse and committed</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>practitioners and experts to help resolve the challenges presented by</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>performance accountability -- with a particular emphasis on assessment of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>learning gains. We have watched about $50 million expended on adult ed R&D</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>and find little to nothing of use to this effort. We are struggling with the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>reality that our state may need to divert a million dollars or more away</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>from instruction to do the development that our leaders were asked to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>undertake almost a decade ago. We're not happy about this.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I believe our national leadership understands that the funds do not belong</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to them but to our field. I believe they also seek our feedback about what</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to do with these funds -- and they have. The problem is that we speak with</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>so many voices that what they end up with is long "wish lists" and the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>result is a watered down set of activities intended to do something for as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>many items on the list as possible. We own part of the problem Tom, I and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>others are highlighting. Our goal must NOT be to simply have input. Our</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>goal must be to thrash through our many different interests, identify common</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>ground, and speak with a single voice about the order in which our top</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>priorities can and should be addressed. We rarely do this. On those rare</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>occassion when we have, we've prevailed. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Do you want to see the next $50 million spent in a way that builds a strong</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>foundation for our field? Then be prepared for some hard work -- not just</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>in getting national leaders to listen, but to arrive at that common ground</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>among your colleagues. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>bob bickerton, MA director of adult ed</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Thomas Sticht</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: nla@lists.literacytent.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Cc: tsticht@aznet.net</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: 11/8/01 11:53 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: [NLA] Can research improve policy or practice?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Research note November</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>8, 2001</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Tom Sticht</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Can adult literacy research improve policy or practice?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I recently attended a couple of R & D planning meetings which got me</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>wondering if the 50 million or so dollars that the federally-funded</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>organizations that have responsibility for research (National Center for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Adult Literacy, National Center for Adult Learning and Literacy,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>National Institute for Literacy, Division for Adult Education and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Literacy) have spent in the last 10-12 years have made much improvement</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>in either policy or practice. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>While all these organizations have been pursuing research and publishing</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>reports, non-addressed issues have arisen that deal with major</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>consequences for the adult literacy education field. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Scale of Need. Important questions of the scale of need for adult</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>literacy education have arisen, with the National Center for Education</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Statistics producing a report by the former director of the National</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) saying that the NALS used the wrong methods</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>and that the scale of need is only half of what was earlier said.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Despite this, R & D organizations go on using the NALS data as though</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>they are valid indicators of adult's literacy skills in the USA and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>elsewhere. There is also a huge gap between the numbers of adults</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>sampled on the NALS who thought they had a reading problem, some 95</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>percent thought they did not, and the reports of literacy problems</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>derived from the NALS standardized tests. This would seem to pose a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>major problem in recruitment and increasing participation in adult</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>literacy education. If people don't think they have a literacy problem,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>why should they seek literacy education as a solution? We need some</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>solid research about how many adults need basic skills instruction and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>how many want it. I haven't found any research institute expressing</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>concern about this or doing anything to educate the field about all</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>this. But perhaps I am just not aware of what R & D centers are doing</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>about this and someone will inform me. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Access and Participation. U. S. Department of Education officials report</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that enrollments in the Adult Education and Literacy System of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>United States plummeted from over 4 million in 1997 to around 2.9</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>million in 2000. This is a drop of over 25 percent, but I haven't found</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>any research institutes expressing concern about this, even though all</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>of the federally funded R & D organizations (NCAL;NCSALL; NIFL;DAEL)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>have had participation and retention as one of their major interests. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Nature of Provision. To my knowledge no R & D center has stated concern</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>about the proliferation of non-validated ideas about literacy practice</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>and "reform" expressed in reports from government funded organizations,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>including the R & D centers themselves. A variety of reports from these</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>organizations tell teachers that they and their students can benefit</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>from the new knowledge contained in the reports. Yet they offer very</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>little, if any, concrete, convincing evidence that some</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>teaching/learning problems are solved or improved by anyone who</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>possesses the knowledge given in the numerous reports. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Accountability. Numerous issues regarding the National Reporting System</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>and its encouragement of the use of standardized tests that almost all</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>in the R & D field acknowledge are inadequate measures of adult learning</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>in adult literacy education programs have been raised in various</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>refereed journals, literacy newsletters, and internet lists, including</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the NLA list. Yet R & D institutes have had hardly a word to say</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>about this, though NCSALL published a report by Juliet Merrifield that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>raised a number of issues that I have not seen addressed yet by NCSALL</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>or any other federal adult research organization. But perhaps the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>National Academy of Science committee formed recently by DAEL will</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>address many of these issues. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Another aspect of accountability is the need for data regarding the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>returns to investments in adult education and literacy development in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>many areas. I give numerous speeches advocating for adult literacy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>education in different nations each year and I repeatedly hear about the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>need for ROI information. Can adult education produce better health</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>care for adults and their children and produce savings in medical costs?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Does it produce savings in early childhood, compensatory education</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>costs, does it produce savings in training costs in business and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>industry? Does it produce returns in increased productivity at work? It</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>is very difficult to find "hard" evidence to argue for support for the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>AELS, yet there does not seem to be much such evidence being sought in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the R & D centers for adult education and literacy research that would</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>permit strong ROI arguments for advocating for increasing funds for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>adult education and literacy development. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Finally, in the meetings to plan future research agendas for adult</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>literacy and family literacy education that I recently attended I did</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>not hear much to lead me to suppose that the next decade will bring much</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>more by way of R & D that can actually improve policy or practice. For</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>one thing, there was no actual policy or practice problems or issues</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that were identified as existing in some real place or in some real</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>policy that needed research to inform its change. Instead of considering</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>real problems of policy or practice in some real contexts, the R & D was</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>placed in a decontextualized frame and discussed not as problems but</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>rather as academic topics that need to be researched to "fill in the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>gaps" in "our" knowledge, as though there are such metaphorical "gaps"</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>which "we" can just "plug" with a little R & D. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The advantage of the topic approach to R & D is that it permits endless</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>theses and dissertations by graduate students in academic institutions</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>because as is well known, there is no end to the exploration of a topic.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Unfortunately, in my experience, there is also a very small track record</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>for such topic-oriented R & D to solve genuine practical problems in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>adult literacy education in some real place and real time (or any other</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>problems of education, witness the billions of dollars spent on K-12 R &</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>D over the last quarter century and the present state of education). </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Over the years I have been a strong advocate for R & D in adult literacy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>education. But right now, the lack of any major responses to the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>national problems I've mentioned above, and the lack of any evidence of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>effectiveness in solving important adult literacy education problems in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>various R & D reports I have recently seen from federally sponsored and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>supported research and dissemination organizations make me very</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>concerned that if things continue in the future as they have in the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>past, the field will not find much benefit from another decade of R & D</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>in adult literacy education. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>But perhaps I am overly pessimistic. Perhaps readers will respond with</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>numerous insights into how R & D has solved very practical policy and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>practice problems for them and they have some data, some convincing</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>evidence, to substantiate such claims. I hope so.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>_______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>NLA mailing list: NLA@lists.literacytent.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><A HREF="http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla" TARGET="_blank">http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><A HREF="http://literacytent.org" TARGET="_blank">http://literacytent.org</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>_______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>NLA mailing list: NLA@lists.literacytent.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><A HREF="http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla" TARGET="_blank">http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><A HREF="http://literacytent.org" TARGET="_blank">http://literacytent.org</A></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>