Assessment Colleagues,

Marie wrote:

> What do we need?  National standards?  Is that the most important  

> thing that will help combat these issues?

>

> A different way to capture learning?  What would that look like?   

> Remember that the needs of the funder and public are quite  

> different than the needs of the teacher and student – and both are  

> legitimate needs.

>

> What are your thoughts on these issues?


Ignore for the moment the current political political realities, and  
consider just the merits and faults, not the practicalities, of what  
I propose, a national System of Adult Education and Literacy which  
has three aligned components: National Curriculum Standards, (Free)  
National Curricula, and Standardized Assessments.  Such a system  
could have other components, but for now, I suggest we look at these  
three.

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.)

2. National curricula developed based on those standards and  
available for states to adopt (or adapt) as they choose.  The  
curricula need to be comprehensive, modularized, available in generic  
as well as work-contextualized units, in English but also bilingual  
in Spanish and possibly other languages.  It needs to be available  
free online in units that teachers could download and use in their  
classrooms, that tutors could use with their one-one-one or small  
group instruction, and in self-instructional formats that adult  
learners could use directly online.  (Yes I know how big a task all  
this is.)

3. Standardized assessments developed against the national curriculum  
standards (tests, but also performance-based, direct assessments)  
which have a high degree of validity for measuring the national  
standards.

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.  A national  
curriculum could be made up of a database of thousands of units of  
instruction (modules, learning objects) which could be very easily  
found and in minutes organized/reorganized to fit learners' goals and  
contexts.  An adult learner or a group who need to improve their  
reading skills and who are interested in the context of parenting  
could easily access standards-based modules on parenting issues with  
reading materials at the right level(s).  A teacher whose students  
worked in health care and who needed to improve their math skills  
could quickly find and download materials/lessons for using numeracy  
in health care settings. A student who wanted to learn online and who  
wanted a job in environmental cleanup work could access standards- 
based basic skills/occupational education lessons in this area,  
accompanied by an online career coach and and online tutor.  These  
examples just hint at the complexity and sophistication of what I  
propose, and will have some shaking their heads at the cost.  But,  
consider that if this is a national curriculum, the costs of  
developing such modules have the benefits of scale, that those  
curricula could be widely used -- and freely available.  (Sorry  
publishers, this could eat into your profits.)

There is more, but I'll stop with this.

Okay, let the questions and brickbats fly.

David J. Rosen
djrosen at comcast.net