Janet, Andrea, and others:

To clarify, and for those who may not have seen my original, March  
15th, post, I am proposing a national system of Adult education and  
Literacy which has three aligned components: National Curriculum  
Standards, (Free) National Curricula, and Standardized Assessments.

I wrote, regarding national curriculum standards:

"1. Sets of national curriculum standards for: a) adult ESL/ESOL/ELL,
b) ABE (including adult basic education) c) ASE (adult secondary
education/GED/EDP/ADP) and d) Transition to College programs ,
developed through a process which is widely respected by the field.
(Some would argue that we already have that in Equipped for the  
Future.)"

I am among those who would argue that we already have that in EFF and  
agree with Janet that  we do not need to start over on this.

I am not sure what Andrea's  "units plucked from the air" means but I  
proposed that curriculum units (and assessments)  be based on these  
standards.

Success would be measured based on adult learner goals and contexts  
and national standards.

For this to succeed we would need national leadership and federal  
funding. Those who are interested in advocating for this could bring  
it up with Congressional and Presidential candidates  in the upcoming  
elections as well as with their current elected representatives.

David J. Rosen
www.newsomeassociates.com
djrosen at comcast.net


On Mar 20, 2006, at 10:02 AM, Andrea Wilder wrote:


> Janet,

>

> Very good questions--

>

> What i am understanding about David's  curriculum is that it would

> consist of units that could be plucked from the air..What are the

> strength of EFF?  What are the strengths of David's curriculum?

> Upsides and downsides to each?

>

> How is success measured?  What values are enhanced?

>

> Who puts up the money for each?

>

> How about grassroots support?

>

> Andrea

>

> On Mar 20, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Marie Cora wrote:

>

>> Dear Colleagues,

>>

>> The following post is in response to comments made by David Rosen on

>> the

>> Assessment Discussion List on Sunday, March 19 regarding standards  

>> and

>> on-line performance assessment.  Thanks, marie

>> ----

>>

>>

>> all

>>

>> A bottom-up, field (practitioner and learner) - represented set of

>> standards?  Sounds like EFF, no?  What am I missing here?  We have  

>> this

>> rich, useful resource in EFF.  Are we talking about starting over?

>> Something different?  Don't we have this already?  Aren't some of us

>> building on it?

>>

>> Janet Isserlis

>>

>>

>>>>

>>>> Some might think that what I propose is too top-down.  I would  

>>>> argue

>>>> that it could be very bottom-up if the field -- and adult learner

>>>> leaders -- are/have been/will be well-represented in setting the

>>>> standards, and if the modules can be be selected to meet specific

>>>> learner goals and contexts as well as to the standards.

>>

>> David Rosen

>> ----------------------------------------------------

>>

>>

>> -------------------------------

>> National Institute for Literacy

>> Assessment mailing list

>> Assessment at nifl.gov

>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment

>>

>

> -------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Assessment mailing list

> Assessment at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to  

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment