Hi everyone,

I feel strongly that even though standardized testing does not necessarily 
reflect the learning taking place in the classroom, especially with the 
changes in our reporting this year, it is still better than going with a 
more holistic but subjective method for deciding how our students are 
learning. Unless a test can be created that is holistic as well as not 
terribly time consuming for instructors to grade, I am glad we are 
currently staying with our current form of testing.

 It may be wise for the federal government to require one test being done 
nationwide, and perhaps they have the resources and research available to 
create one test, just as the GED exam is one test. Challenges to this test 
will be able to be made in the future concerning whether this test does or 
does not represent people from various sociopolitical and cultural 
backgrounds, and more discussion will continue, but at least we could then 
say that ABEII  means the same thing in Boston as it means in St. Louis, 
as it means in small town USA. I qualify my statement by saying I have 
only been teaching GED for 3.5 years, so many of you may have better 
input, but this is how I perceive the situation.

Thanks for listening.

Tina

Tina Luffman
Coordinator, Developmental Education
Verde Valley Campus
928-634-6544
tina_luffman at yc.edu



"David J. Rosen" <djrosen at comcast.net> 
Sent by: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov
10/19/2007 06:16 AM
Please respond to
The Assessment Discussion List <assessment at nifl.gov>


To
The Assessment Discussion List <assessment at nifl.gov>
cc

Subject
[Assessment 984] Re: level movement






Assessment Colleagues,

On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Venu Thelakkat asked:
I am told that standardized assessments, especially those used in adult 
literacy, have many problems.  But what is the alternative?  Policy makers 
and funders (private or public) want accountability for the money they 
disperse and there is very little else that has been proposed.  Even in 
NRS, educational gain is the only measure that has some validity as a 
program outcome.  The other measures such as getting a job or entering 
post secondary education are very unreliable given the wide variety of 
methods used to collect and report the data. 

Great question, Venu. 

One alternative that makes sense has been proposed, but I am told that 
Congress so far has been unwilling to accept it. Instead of reporting 
outcomes for every student in every federally-funded program, OVAE should 
each year pick a random sample of federally-funded programs and measure 
attainment of student goals over a multi-year period, that is, measure 
impact.  Some would argue that measuring impact is not possible, that 
adult education students are too hard to track over time, but the 
Longitudinal Study of Adult Literacy, now in its eighth year in Portland, 
Oregon, has shown that it is not impossible. 

Isn't impact more useful to policy makers than outcomes? Does anyone in 
Congress really care how many level gains students make? Some policy 
makers may care about how many program participants -- especially over 
time -- have improved their employment status, can read to their children, 
can use  a computer, now have a diploma or GED, and have succeeded in 
their education beyond secondary level.  Of these goals, only the GED and 
high school diploma (for now at least) require a standardized test.

David J. Rosen
djrosen at comcast.net-------------------------------
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
Email delivered to tina_luffman at yc.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20071019/f1132b3c/attachment.html