![]() |
![]() |
[Assessment 259] Re: FW from Content StandardsDavid Rosen djrosen at comcast.netMon Mar 20 12:06:59 EST 2006
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
More information about the Assessment mailing list |