Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g15MOHu27026; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 17:24:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 17:24:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <004501c1ae93$c6526a40$a2fb3ad0@oemcomputer>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "Bonnie Odiorne" <bodiorne@c4k.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2035] Re: Following up on the five Why's
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
Status: O
Content-Length: 11138
Lines: 310
I would like to second Kirk's motion, and enlarge the issue beyond New York
state. I believe that we are sending such a mixed message to our students
because the constraints of our grants demand test level rises, GED, and/or
employment as the core indicators even of WIA programs, which incorporate
technology readiness, employability skills and family literacy into the more
traditional adult education purview. In our own recruitment for programs we
emphasize flexibility and attention to students' needs, goals, and
interests, yet the first thing we do when we get them in the door is give
them a barrage of standardized tests, a guarantee that they will go in
spirit to negative memories of previous schooling despite our best
assurances. I need monitoring of my own effectiveness, research-based best
practices, or the means to implement my own classroom procedures as a
research project. I want performance measures for me and for my students
that I don't have to reinvent , and a true commitment to a different model
of the educational process for those who have already fallen through the
cracks. My whole educational career has almost without my realizing it been
devoted to alternative structures for learning. We have the scaffolding on
which to build. But we need a voice greater than our own classrooms.
Bonnie Odiorne, Ph.D.
WisdomWays, Program Facilitation
Computers 4 Kids, Waterbury, CT
bodiorne@erols.com
bodiorne@c4k.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Baker" <lvwayne@redsuspenders.com>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:55 AM
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2034] Re: Following up on the five Why's
> I'm intrigued by Peter's comment - could you explain in more detail,
Peter?
> I can see how using the EFF standards can be used as a gauge for teacher
and
> administrator efficacy, but that doesn't change the system for
> developing/hiring/rewarding adult educators, which is based entirely on
> process measures. Similarly, in our area (NYS), adult educators aren't
> rewarded for meeting individual student needs, but for retaining students
> and high standardized test pass rates and high employment gain rates.
> Although I've tried very hard to avoid that in our organization, the NRS
is
> making it exceedingly difficult - which prompted my first submission to
this
> list, culminating in this discussion.
>
> What would make sense is for a certification process based on demonstrated
> abilities grounded in research-based, constructivist best practices,
rather
> than on process measures such as courses completed, tests passed, or
ability
> to make administrators happy. When this happens, I believe we will not
only
> see a significant increase in adult literacy, but greater than 1%
enrollment
> in adult literacy programs nationwide.
>
> Kirk:)
>
> Kirk Baker
> Executive Director
> Literacy Volunteers of Wayne County, Inc.
> 2 Broad Street
> Lyons, NY 14489
> (315) 946-5333
> lvwayne@redsuspenders.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nifl-4eff@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-4eff@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of Peter
> Kondrat
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 6:22 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2028] Re: Following up on the five Why's
>
>
> If my understanding of EFF is correct, those same standards apply
perfectly
> to
> instructors ... and to program managers as well, for that matter. That
> verticality is one of the elegant beauties of EFF ...
>
> Peter
>
> Kirk Baker wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Objective standards around what makes for effective adult educators
ought
> to
> > be developed, just as standards for learning have been developed through
> > EFF. Programs could then measure instructors against those standards,
> > making it easier to recruit and retain good instructors, be they
> volunteers,
> > part-timers, or PhDs. I hope that the direction taken for students by
the
> > NIFL - identifying and developing standards according to real-life skill
> > areas - will one day be taken for instructors. For those of us who wish
> to
> > make a career of Adult Ed, this can help our professional development
> > immensely.
> >
> > Kirk:)
> >
> > Kirk Baker
> > Executive Director
> > Literacy Volunteers of Wayne County, Inc.
> > 2 Broad Street
> > Lyons, NY 14489
> > (315) 946-5333
> > lvwayne@redsuspenders.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nifl-4eff@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-4eff@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of
> > AndresMuro@aol.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 4:46 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2018] Re: Following up on the five Why's
> >
> > Virginia:
> >
> > I am glad that you have not found most adult educators lacking
> experieence.
> > You must be one of the few people that works in a program staffed by,
> mostly
> > well prepared full-timers with extensive knowledge and experience.
> > Unfortunately, in the rest of the US, the reality is that adult
education
> > programs must rely on a lot of part time teachers, limited resources and
> > limited funding for professional development. Some programs even depend
on
> > volunteers w/`virtually no training. It is estimated that 75% of adults
> who
> > enroll in abe programs drop out.
> >
> > I am not criticizing the educators by making this statement. I am
> > criticizing a country and a system where education is totally
> > underfunded,where we must rely on untrained people and we are not
willing
> to
> > support them w/ adequate funding for the work that they do, or adequate
> > professionalp development.
> >
> > Andres
> >
> > In a message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2002 2:24:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > Virginia Tardaewether <tarv@exchange.chemeketa.edu> writes:
> >
> > > Ouch ! AS a life long adult educator, comments such as this are not
> > > supportive of my profession. I have not found this to be true,
either.
> > IF
> > > it were true, maybe we need to look at staff development systems,
> content
> > > and application of skills for degree awards, etc.
> > >
> > > "However, unfortunately, most adult educators lack the knowledge and
> > > background to provide any kind of education, period."
> > > va
> > >
> > > Virginia Tardaewether
> > >
> > > Chemeketa {Place of Peace}
> > > Outreach Instructor
> > > Dallas, OR 97338
> > >
> > > tarv@chemeketa.edu
> > > 503-316-3242
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: AndresMuro@aol.com [mailto:AndresMuro@aol.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 8:24 AM
> > > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > > Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2015] Re: Following up on the five Why's
> > >
> > >
> > > Just as a clarification, the new GED only requires that students use
> > > calculators with a few problems, not for the entire math section. They
> > still
> > > need to do basic operations. I am neither defending nor criticizing
the
> > new
> > > GED, nor its content, I am simply commenting on this fact.
> > >
> > > I would contend that the new GED has a new set of rules that teachers
> and
> > > students need to master, and this is obvious. the difficulty lies in
the
> > > fact that most adult educators are part-timers with limited experience
> and
> > > little time for professional development, or volunteers. The few that
> > > participate in this discussion group, or that are being trained with
the
> > EFF
> > > model in some communites, or are knowledgable of other pedagogies will
> > > likely be very succesful with their students. This success will serve
to
> > > claim that this or that model is the best. However, unfortunately,
most
> > > adult educators lack the knowledge and background to provide any kind
of
> > > education, period. If, at present, adult educators have low student
> > > completion rates, with the new, more difficult GED, it is likely that
> > > completion rates will go down. Unless, of course, there is a
significan
> > > investment in adequate professional development, and not in just
making
> > > things more difficult for the poor and the educat!
> > > ionally disadvantaged.
> > >
> > > Andres
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:48:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > "CP"
> > > <cindypatten@home.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > I'm reading this ongoing discussion re:calculators in the GED and
real
> > > life
> > > > application, and I'm wondering if anyone else out there considers
the
> > > > incredibly poor learning curve not only these students, but everyone
> > else,
> > > > who grew up dependent on a machine to do their calculations, would
> have,
> > > if
> > > > calculators were no longer produced or ceased to function.
> > > >
> > > > I teach all my students basic, life applicable math. Some do take
> > longer
> > > to
> > > > pass the GED Math section, but they all can do it with pencil and
> paper,
> > > > without the use of calculators, and they feel exceptionally more
> > qualified
> > > > than those they see around them, dependent upon a machine. They
> > > understand
> > > > the application and can abstract with the process, rather than just
> > > knowing
> > > > which buttons to press to get a correct answer.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not anti-calculator; I'm pro-real life, applicable learning to
> > become
> > > > self-reliant while increasing self-esteem and self-knowledge while
> > > > completing life tasks. A calculator just doesn't 'do it' for me.
> > > >
> > > > Love this discussion, though - for the most part... you guys are
> great!
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Anne R Connors" <arconn@juno.com>
> > > > To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:35 AM
> > > > Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2011] Re: Following up on the five Why's
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I think Emily's suggestions for GED class are great, but I
question
> if
> > > > > one has a 50 hour class , can one really go into the EFF ideas? I
> > think
> > > > > we can teach it from our perspective..ie. ask how that will help
> them
> > in
> > > > > life or show that particular use in life (ie. fractions in
cooking,
> > > area
> > > > > in painting a room ) On the other hand, when some of the class
will
> > > take
> > > > > their GED after only 20 hours of class and it is open entry,how in
> the
> > > > > world does one find time to fit discussion of the WHEEL into the
> > class?
> > > > > And should one fit it into the class?
> > > > > And I agree with Andre that there are many things required for
GED
> > > that
> > > > > are trivial. When does one use scientific calculators or the area
> of
> > a
> > > > > triangle in "real" life? 99% of GED students don't see the
> connection
> > > > > and frankly neither do I. My classes want to get their GED
> yesterday
> > > and
> > > > > in a 2 hour class, they want to learn what is on the test.....
> > Period.
> > > > > That is their goal, so I go with it!
> > > > >
>
> --
> Peter Kondrat
> Director
> New York City
> Professional Development Consortium
> 32 Broadway, 10th Floor
> New York, NY 10004
> tel: 212 803 3355
> fax: 212 785 3685
> http://www.lacnyc.org/pdc
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:45:26 EST