Hi Peggy 
Thank you so much for your thoughtful and comprehensive response 
It has certainly provided me with a way forward when talking to
officials and others in New Zealand about approaches for the work that
is currently happening here 
You and Regie have   given me a way of describing the clear differences
between the 2 types of stds which I realise I haven't been doing really
adequately up to now and I am most grateful for your input
I am sure I met you at the Rutgers Conference in 2003 and it is great to
connect electronically 2 years later 
Thank you or as we say in New Zealand Kia ora 
Susan  
 
	-----Original Message-----
	From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Marie Cora
	Sent: Friday, 27 January 2006 3:00 a.m.
	To: Assessment Discussion List
	Subject: [Assessment] A response to Susan Reid's post to the
assessment list
	
	
	Hi everyone,
	 
	The following post if from Peggy McGuire, who apologizes for the
lateness of her post - to which I say:  "let no post remain unread!".
	marie cora
	Assessment Discussion List Moderator
	 
	*************
	 
	Hello Susan.
	I have spent some (certainly not exhaustive) time looking at the
NZ documents and thinking about the questions that Susan has raised with
regard to standards-based vs. competency-based approaches to teaching. I
have a few thoughts:
	 
	First, I'm not surprised that practitioners, in the absence of
widely-accepted literacy standards, have used the outcomes statements
from the National Qualifications Framework unit standards to guide
curriculum and assessment despite the Qualification Authority's caution
that they were not intended for that purpose. A lot of folks here in the
U.S. have been using the National Reporting System's Educational
Functioning Levels in much the same way, despite the same kinds of
cautions (Practitioners need and want guidance about what's most
important to teach in order to best serve adult learners. They also know
that they have to report student outcomes in terms that are acceptable
to external audiences, particularly the NRS). That's one major reason
why there has been a push over the last couple years for states to
develop content standards - and why there is increasing interest in
adopting or adapting the Equipped for the Future standards and
developing aligned curriculum frameworks at the state level.
	 
	Next, I completely agree with Regie that it is equally important
for practitioners to be exposed to both the conceptual and operational
differences between competency-based and standards-based approaches. I
think Regie has done a nice job of describing the conceptual
differences. And as I read the introduction in the document discussing
NZ's draft Descriptive Standards, it occurred to me that another key to
understanding the concept might be to elaborate on the goals for
introducing descriptive standards articulated in that introduction - to
help teachers promote students' fluency, independence and ability to use
key skills in a range of authentic contexts for a range of real-life
purposes. This seems a wonderful opportunity to discriminate between
teaching a student how to competently perform a particular task, and
teaching knowledge, skills and strategies in authentic contexts of use
so that a student can competently perform a particular task as well as a
range of tasks as needed. The approach to planning, teaching and
assessment suggested by the latter is all about developing expertise in
skills through purposeful, contextual and constructivist learning and
practice. This in turn promotes transfer, and the fluency and
independence in the use of the skills that the authors of NZ's
Descriptive Standards advocate. It is all about preparing students to be
lifelong learners.
	 
	As for helping teachers and students to a functional
understanding of the differences between this standards-based model and
a competency-based model, it seems to me that there are a couple of key
tools needed to support the Descriptive Standards before that can be
done. According to Susan's post, one of those tools is currently in
development - the "progressions" for the five draft standards that, I
assume, will articulate in greater detail the knowledge, skills and
strategies that need to be taught, learned and assessed at each
developmental level (from novice toward expert) of each standard. This
is a critical step in guidance for teachers, as it will give them the
basis for assessing particular learning needs and selecting appropriate
targets for direct instruction, depending on the purpose for and context
in which the skill(s) will be used.
	 
	But my experience with EFF suggests that giving teachers tools
to figure out what to teach/assess at a particular level in a
standards-based system is not enough. Teachers also need and value a
comprehensive and common-sense model of what it looks like in a
standards-based system to 1) surface students' purposes and goals for
learning, 2) identify the knowledge and skills that they will need to
meet those purposes/goals, 3) develop instructional activities that
allow students to learn and practice needed skills in meaningful
contexts related to their purposes/goals, and 4) monitor and gather
evidence of learning, both for reporting purposes and to inform further
instructional planning. Further, teachers need quality, ongoing
professional development to help them understand and utilize such a
model. 
	 
	In the case of the EFF Standards and Performance Continua (our
version of "progressions"), we have tried to meet this need by
developing, with close collaboration of teachers, an 8-step "Teaching
and Learning Cycle" along with its companion "Teaching and Learning
Toolkit", both of which utilize the EFF standards and Continua to align
teaching and assessment. And then we offer implementation training and
technical assistance to states and other organizations who are trying to
"put this all together", through the EFF Center for Training and
Implementation at the Center for Literacy Studies, University of
Tennessee. The EFF Center is also providing expertise and support to
those states who are ready to develop curriculum frameworks based on
Content Standards. 
	 
	It occurs to me that, whatever models and training protocols get
developed to support the NZ Descriptive Standards, this might be an
excellent opportunity to increase the level of teacher (and perhaps even
student) consultation in the overall process of moving toward a more
standards-based system. And as I believe Regie rightly pointed out, the
teachers who become engaged in the development process may well be your
best, most informed translators to other teachers of the differences
between standards-based and competency-based practice.
	 
	Thanks so much for the opportunity to learn about the news from
New Zealand and to think about the questions that your experience is
raising. I wish you all the best in your efforts!
	 
	 
	Peggy McGuire, M.A.
	Senior Research Associate and Equipped for the Future National
Consultant
	Center for Literacy Studies
	The University of Tennessee
	111 5th Street, PO Box 16
	Mt. Gretna, PA 17064
	717-964-1341 (p/f)
	215-888-6507 (cell)
	mcguirep555 at aol.com
	 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20060127/45aa2b30/attachment.html