Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h5Q1QBC24431; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <001001c33b82$281296c0$d449dc42@f0e9v3> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Ken Taber" <kentaber@inetgenesis.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:9090] RE: Canada's language benchmarks (what about children) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 5794 Lines: 129 Where can I get a copy of the Canadian Language Benchmarks? I agree that there must be national standards in the states as there is in Canada. State-based standards will fail and hurt our students. If we want to truly have a federal government that believes that no child should be left behind then we should simplify the process. The federal government should either take the lead or stay our of education all together and just give money to the states. They can't have it both ways. The current system is complete chaos. They want accountability but it is impossible with 50 different plans. Education decisions are no longer made at the local level. They are made first at the federal level, then at the state level. There is no local control. The argument is similar to the whether the country is better off with a federal form of government or a confederate form of government. If the federal government wants true accountability then we must have national standards, a national curriculum, and the same forms of assessment across the nation. Currently, the federal government has 50 different accountability plans and the term proficient has 50 different definitions. This is chaos and lacks common sense. It will ultimately fail because it is unfair. We need to measure our students using the same measuring stick. Think if all the money you would save with one set of national standards, one curriculum, and the same forms of assessment. Think of all the states that waste money doing paperwork for the federal government that waste money. We should be getting rid of these overpaid bureaucrats instead of getting rid of teachers. I think I will move to Canada where they have an educational reform system that makes sense. Sorry, Glen I got on my soapbox and forgot the answer where you can find K-12 standards? Try www.tesol.org and follow the links that refer to standards. -Ken Taber ESOL Teacher kentaber@inetgenesis.com ----- Original Message ----- From: <glen@mbowden.ca> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:36 PM Subject: [NIFL-ESL:9089] RE: Canada's language benchmarks (what about children) > > I found the Canadian Benchmarks to be great. . . for adult ESL. > > I am wondering if anyone could recommend a simple benchmark tool too > assess K-12 students who are either ESL or ESD (English as a Second > Dialect). I am looking for a simple tool for assessing student > listening and speaking skills in particular. > > Glen Bowden > Teacher, SD27 BC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pauline Mcnaughton [mailto:pmcnaughton@language.ca] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:44 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:272] RE: Why did you join? > > > In response to the discussion about the need for a national vs. > state-based standard and assessment I'd like to mention that in Canada - > although education is a provincial responsibility - not federal - the > federal government has developed national language standards for adult > settlement and integration purposes - the Canadian Language Benchmarks. > I work at the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks which is > responsible for developing and supporting this standard. > > In Canada there is a federal language training program as well as > provincially funded language training programs. > > The model used for the development of this national standard to ensure > federal and provincial buy in is very interesting. - just a brief recap > for those interested in reading further: > > - federal government realized it needed a standard for assessment for > its federal Language Instruction for Newcomers program because > inconsistencies across the country meant some newcomers could be barred > from one LINC program and accepted in another > > - a survey of assessment tools was done across the country to determine > if such a tool existed that would serve this purpose > > - national consultations were held across the country with the ESL > community and learners to determine the needs related to standards > > - a National Working Group on Language Benchmarks was formed made of of > a variety of experts, but most notably members of the ESL community > > - this group coordinated the development of the Canadian Language > Benchmarks > > - the federal government also funded the establishment of assessment > centres across the country and funded the training and certification > process for CLB assessors > > - then federal and provincial government members and members of TESL > Canada decided to work together to establish the Centre for Canadian > Language Benchmarks to take of the standard (i.e. research, development, > support, policy development) > > - the board of directors includes federal and provincial government > members as well as members from the TESL community from every province > as well as 3 from TESL Canada, as well as assessment experts > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > > HISTORY DETECTIVES. > There's a story behind everything. And they know how to find it. > A new series beginning July 14 at 8pm ET/PT, only on PBS. > www.pbs.org > > _________________________________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________________________ > > This email may contain material that is confidential or proprietary to > PBS and is intended solely for use by the intended recipient. Any > review, reliance or distribution of such material by others, or > forwarding of such material without express permission, is strictly > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the > sender and destroy all copies. > __________________________________________________________________ > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:16:02 EST