[NLA] Cross-post from NIFL-Assessment on alternative assessments

[David J. Rosen]

NLA Colleagues,

The NIFL-Assessment post below, a reply to the post below it, raises an
important policy point (one made before on this list by Massachusetts
State ABE Director, Bob Bickerton,) that current federal policy allows
the use of assessments which are not standardized tests if they can be
shown to be valid and reliable. Few states, however, are taking
advantage of that opportunity.  And even if states are developing
alternatives, driven by accountability for numbers, limited in knowledge
about these assessments, and lacking time to use them, practitioners may
fall back on the often easier-to-use standardized tests -- even if they
know these are not valid, e.g. not related to their students' goals.

Does this matter?

Yes. If programs are held accountable to results from standardized tests
which do not fit with what adult learners and programs are trying to
accomplish, then the most important learner gains or outcomes may not be
measured, and successful programs will not shine.  Eventually, if
funding decisions are based on standardized test results which do not
fit curricula designed to meet learner or program goals, programs will
tailor their curricula to the tests, making adult education and literacy
less relevant to students.  It would be unfortunate and ironic that in
the name of increasing standards and accountability -- because we lack a
good set of valid and reliable assessment options for our field --
programs may teach to these tests and, in doing so, may lower their standards.

In addition to Equipped For the Future (EFF), what states, initiatives
or organizations are developing valid and reliable assessments that fit
adult learners' goals? Is any state actually using such assessments now?

David J. Rosen
<djrosen at massed.net>



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:29] Re: question
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 11:25:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Don Seaman <dseaman at tamu.edu>
Reply-To: nifl-assessment at nifl.gov
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment at literacy.nifl.gov>

The reason that thinking is prevalent is that we are playing numbers
games 
for reporting and funding.  Our staff members, at a training session, 
presented "It is allowed" which identifies and promotes alternative 
assessment procedures. It was received quite well, but many folks in the 
audience indicated that they would be evaluated by the numbers they
produce 
so they probably weren't going to change using tests as their main, if
not 
only method of assessment.

Don Seaman
Texas Center for Adult Literacy and Learning
EAHRD-College of Education
4226 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843-4226
Telephone: 979-845-5472
FAX: 979-845-0952

At 06:42 PM 10/26/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>I have just come back from a meeting where assessment for ABLE students was
>discussed in one of the sessions. An observation made by the
facilitator of
>this session (I was facilitating a different session so I couldn't attend)
>was that the teachers in the discussion group think of assessment as the
>usual standardized tests (TABE, BEST, etc). Only two of the teachers at this
>session mentioned alternative assessments. Have others found this to be true
>in the ABLE teachers you are in contact with? What sugggestions do you have
>for changing the thinking of folks?
>Thanks,
>  Dianna Baycich
>OLRC
>330-672-7841
>1-800-765-2897 x27841
>dbaycich at literacy.kent.edu
>Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies
>to trying to prove the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly
>succeed and are right.
>H.L. Mencken