[NLA] "breaking news"

Wed Jun 12 10:19:48 EDT 2002

Nancy said that there is research by Laubach and LVA that could and should 
be used to make the accountability system responsive to the needs of 
learners (and programs), so let me ask: If some benign and anonymous 
bureaucrats were to reform or replace the NRS using what they learned from 
the research you mentioned, what would be the result? What does that 
research tell us that would contribute to concrete, specific changes in the 
accountability system?

In several messages, Andrea has asked policymaker-type questions about 
criticisms of the NRS. How does existing research answer those questions?

I want to make the case that valid or trustworthy research by practitioners 
in program settings is needed for the following reasons:

1. Large, formal research projects have too long a turnaround time. Small, 
program-based projects can respond more quickly once a question has been 
identified. An example: in another message, Tom Sticht wrote that the number 
of volunteer literacy tutors has dropped. He included possible reasons for 
the drop, and though they make sense, they are unconfirmed. If programs 
undertook small-scale research projects, we could get data from which to 
draw conclusions and advocate for changes pretty quickly--within months. By 
comparison, we're still waiting for research reports from NCSALL projects in 
which data was collected years ago (I'm thinking of the staff development 
research project; an article in Focus on Basics last June described working 
conditions of ABE teachers from data gathered in the study, but we still 
haven't seen the answer to the research question--I know this takes time, 
but I wanted the answer last year because the question is so important).

2. Program-based research deals with program-relevant issues and provides 
data that can be used at the program level to improve practice as well as 
giving the researchers "ammunition" in the battle for a more responsive 
system.

3. Program-based research builds the capacity of practitioners to benefit 
from other research. Whether you agree with what he says or not, Tom 
Sticht's posts to the list are detailed, specific, and clear about what is 
known versus what is suggested by events and reports; could that way of 
writing be related to being a researcher? Practice with research helps 
teachers, administrators, and other staff to develop the skills needed to 
analyze, critique, and draw appropriate conclusions (and avoid drawing 
unjustified conclusions) from research--their own and others'. I have a 
feeling some people are going to read this and believe I am saying that if 
they don't do research they are incapable of critical thinking, so I want to 
be clear that I don't mean that at all. BUT, doing research, and attending 
to issues of validity and trustworthiness, involves thinking in ways that 
day-to-day teaching and administration don't normally require. I believe 
those ways of thinking ARE needed to advocate for and make recommendations 
about how to create and implement an accountability system that works. I say 
this with experience as a classroom teacher, program administrator, 
participant/observer in state-level assessment and professional development 
systems, and fledgling researcher (maybe being fledgling contributes to my 
bias for doing research--so convince me it's not needed!).

I'm not at all reluctant to take a stand; I just think we need to be clear 
about what that stand is and what results we expect from it.

>From: "Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council" <sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net>
>Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
>Subject: Re: [NLA] "breaking news"
>Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:27:50 -0500
>
>In response to Eileen who wrote:
>"...Unless we have
> > some knowledge and power and it is used to guide improvement, whatever
> > replaces the NRS is likely to be just as bad! The "breaking news" that
> > triggered this discussion is an indication that something's wrong--with
>the
> > reporting system AND with the instruction/assessment/service provision
> > system. But what, exactly, and how can it be "fixed"?"
>
>Eileen, I understand completely your misgivings about taking a stand.  It's
>been frightfully proven on this listserv that we all come from such a
>variety of "different places" that "unifying the AELS" seems impossible to
>accomplish.  I feel extremely fortunate that I access different funding 
>than
>the federal dollar so I have the levity to say we won't play their game of
>testing for no other purpose than to document "something is wrong" with
>either the student who isn't going anywhere or the program that's not
>teaching him/her anything within their specified timeframe -- FY99-00, as 
>an
>example.  So the purpose must be to show nothing is happening for the
>literacy student who wants nothing *more* than *to* progress and learn to
>read.
>
>Yes.  Something IS wrong.  But who is listening?  My sense is nobody wants
>to hear just exactly what it is that needs to be changed.  Who will hear 
>and
>react to all of us who are saying, "Fix it so it's right and I'll show you
>the number of people we serve."  For some unknown (or unspoken, at least)
>reason the standardized test is the only legitimate way of documentation of
>progress.  Says who?
>
>And to Deborah Yoho who wrote:
>"...I wonder if it is time to begin discussing what the alternatives might
>be to embrace fully the challenge of accountability, construct a quality
>assurance mechanism, and still grow in responsiveness, retention, etc. It
>seems to me that if we must take our cues from the business model, we 
>should
>begin with the assumption that "the customer is always right".  After all,
>we work with adults.  In this country adults expect choices and they retain
>the power to chart their own course."
>
>Just as the adult learner "expect choices" so should we as providers.  The
>"quality assurance mechanism" sounds like something any provider would
>support and embrace.  It appears as though in the AELS the customer is
>*never* right, from all appearances.  It's wrong.  The adult learner is not
>a child who needs specific guidance.  The adult knows what they want and
>will pursue the method that works for them and avoid the one that doesn't 
>--
>including avoiding anything that even *smells* like submission in
>uncompromising programs that are "unresponsive".
>
>I feel that the assessment tools our local program here uses for showing
>progress, developed for use with the national level literacy program
>materials for the volunteer-driven program, should provide adequate
>benchmark proof of literacy level changes.  These are assessment tools that
>were developed by the same international literacy organization which hosted
>that ProLiteracy conference Deborah attended in San Diego.  Why is it not 
>an
>acceptable alternative to TABE/CASAS etc etc?
>
>If the local program such as the one I administer is able to challenge and
>guide adult learners so successfully that, when they complete their basic
>reading program, they want to continue and work in several higher level
>series of books with several different tutor volunteers, we must be doing
>*some*thing right here because our retention rate is outstanding.  Our
>learners don't quit.  They continue.
>
>So if the adult learner responds and says, "This program is working for
>**me** and I believe in it!" why aren't the authorities willing to listen 
>to
>them?
>
>Regarding Eileen's point about research stated as:
>"...One idea
> > is for programs and/or individuals to engage in program-based research
>into
> > problems with whatever part of the system bugs them most, or whatever 
>part
> > they CAN research."
>
>Isn't it abit ironic, Eileen?  I believe that the Laubach and LVA
>organizations has already done research into what works for the literacy
>level student and developed programs that fit individuals without "programs
>and/or individuals" doing further research into what "bugs them most".  
>What
>bugs us most is that the federal authority doesn't take the word of such
>well-versed organizations with effective programs and puts us
>more-or-less-powerless grassroots folks into the juicer in the process.
>
>Nancy Hansen
>Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert at hotmail.com>
>To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:09 AM
>Subject: Re: [NLA] "breaking news"
>
>
> > I'm writing in response to the following comment from Nancy:
> > I feel "no federal money" is a better option than "no students".  I 
>don't
> > know about the rest of the lurkers on the listserv, but it is time for
> > SOMEbody to stand up and be counted for the important issue -- the 
>People
> > Served.  We better all hope the "NRS does collapse of its own weight" as
> > Debbie Yoho wrote. Or *I* predict the AELS will collapse instead -- at
>least
> > the literacy end of the services we provide will.
> >
> >
> > There are probably quite a few providers who agree that no federal money
>is
> > better than no students, and if they all had the power to decide to 
>reject
> > federal money, then we might have the makings of an effective boycott. 
>But
> > lots of systems have mechanisms that make it impossible to turn down the
> > money (in Washington State, for example, many programs are in community
> > colleges, whose performance funding depends in part on adult and family
> > literacy program results as measured by WA's NRS-based system--those
> > colleges are not going to give up federal funding!)
> >
> > So how can we stand up for the people served? I don't think that hoping
>the
> > NRS collapses of its own weight is the most effective tactic. Unless we
>have
> > some knowledge and power and it is used to guide improvement, whatever
> > replaces the NRS is likely to be just as bad! The "breaking news" that
> > triggered this discussion is an indication that something's wrong--with
>the
> > reporting system AND with the instruction/assessment/service provision
> > system. But what, exactly, and how can it be "fixed"? We can trade 
>stories
> > forever without bringing about any positive change. Observations are not
> > sufficient evidence, and correlations are not necessarily causes. One 
>idea
> > is for programs and/or individuals to engage in program-based research
>into
> > problems with whatever part of the system bugs them most, or whatever 
>part
> > they CAN research. Each project would need to be small enough to handle,
>but
> > if research meets standards for validity or trustworthiness, a body of
> > research can be developed to contribute to improvement of the system.
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> > http://www.hotmail.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
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com