Dear Tatyana,

 

Please don’t envy me because green skin does befit you! J

 

On a more serious note, I spent six years in the corporate world of foreign
language education and twenty in the tax-exempt sector of ESL program
development and instruction (I think “non-profit” is a misleading term,
because without profits businesses cannot exist, whether or not they have to
pay taxes).  

 

NCLB and AEFLA imposed what I call a corporate model of education on our
schools behind a well-disguised smokescreen of concern for our learners
(that said, it did shine some light on “underperforming” students, but to
what avail I am not sure).   NCLB’s “goal” of having every student perform
at “grade-level” by the 2013-14 school year is an insult of immeasurable
magnitude to the very little we might have learned about teaching, learning,
mind, and affect.  Think about it, all learners will attain similar levels
of proficiency; learners are all the same, and images of Orwell’s 1984 loom
darkly on the horizon.  In fact, I believe the true goal of the corporate
model of education is to allow the crème de la crème to come to the fore. 

 

In any case, NCLB and AEFLA seeped into the world of CBOs.  USDOE-funded AE
providers were mandated to partner with CBOs to “maximize the utilization of
community resources.”  Talk about trying to fit a square peg into a round
hole!  That’s when destiny left me unemployed two and a half years ago at
the ripe age of 55.  I collected unemployment for about six weeks, and “my”
school “materialized” all on its own (and I remain grateful and humbled by
how it all came about)


 

Tatyana, I wholeheartedly believe that change can only come about through
cohesive and coordinated efforts of advocacy on behalf of our learners.
This is every individual’s choice to make, namely, whether to politicize (?)
efforts to promote and enable the implementation of best known practices and
further inquiry into what works, why, how, where, and for whom (because I am
convinced that what we know is infinitesimal compared to what we still need
to bring into the realm of consciousness). 

 

In the meantime, I continue treading the path of my own curiosity while
trying to make sense of the load of information that is being thrown my way.

 

Finally, I repeatedly and wrongfully added a “g” to the end of Jim Cummins’
name.  I attribute this to my recent efforts teaching the simple and perfect
progressive tense “aspects,” as I  call them.  Gotta add the “g” to the “in”
ending


 

Have a wonderful weekend,

 

Michael

 

 

 

From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov] On
Behalf Of Tanya Exum
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 12:44 PM
To: assessment at nifl.gov
Subject: [Assessment 1886] Re: [LearningDisabilities 3314] Re:
[EnglishLanguage 4199] Re: Question about assessment

 

Thank you Michael,
 
Your answer, as usual, is extremely informative.
 
I would refer to one aspect of our discussion which I ran across as a
manager of a non-for-profit organization.  You are lucky to be able to say,
"if and when I do report, I do so to businesses to businesses and
institutions (mainly hotels, insurance carriers, students enrolled in K-12
or college, and  CBOs [NGOs])."  As a Manager,  I  was put in a hot seat
when customers, who brought their children in our subsidiary program, found
out that community School Board refused to recognize  gains, children got in
summer through the program. It was not about those childern's skills; it was
about ACCEPTANCE of certain types of testing. We had A LOT of drama for
everyone. I, myself, felt responsible for putting children in that position,
when their high spirits at their first real successes and hopes of moving to
another grade, were shut down.
 
I absolutely envy you that you can afford to use testing to get " as much
information about my learners as possible."  Most of the practitioners are
suffering the necessity to be accountable through pre- and post-testing
which in ESL case becomes tricky considering various purposes of testing
and, actually, pushes in the direction of teaching "to the test"
 
 
The military testing may become a real answer in case of ESLs,
 
Tatyana 
 
 

  _____  

From: mgyori at mauilanguage.com
To: learningdisabilities at nifl.gov
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:40:01 -1000
CC: kevin.jepson at sbcglobal.net; kathi.bailey at miis.edu;
englishlanguage at nifl.gov; assessment at nifl.gov; readingmatters808 at gmail.com
Subject: [Assessment 1884] Re: [LearningDisabilities 3314] Re:
[EnglishLanguage 4199] Re: Question about assessment

Dear Tatyana,

 

I appreciate your comments below as they allow me to further clarify whom
the TerraNova CTBS is intended for, as I understand it.   I’m adding my
message that you replied to below yours so our interaction is
contextualized.

 

The CTBS is not primarily used for students wishing to prepare for their
GED, but for students enrolled in K-12.  As such, it is available in a total
of 11 levels, ranging from Level 10 (for Grade K) through level 21/22 (for
Grades 11 & 12). The language component is not available for levels K-2, and
the social studies component is not available for level K. 

 

Theoretically, you would administer the level that corresponds to the grade
a student is attending (e.g., a 4th grade student would take level 14).

 

You state, “Social Studies and Science parts of pre-GED and GED contain a
lot of graphics, which require quite high level reading skills. The most
difficult for ESLs among them - very internally culturally oriented
cartoons. Inferences is another difficult area.” Yes, that is true; however,
in test design such as the one I understand underlies the TerraNova CTBS,
the skills, including higher-order thinking or reading skills, are, again at
least theoretically, commensurate with the “age-appropriate” level of
cognitive development of learners (granted, English L1 learners) who are at
“grade level.”

 

I’ve mentioned Jim Cummings notion construct of “Common Underlying
Proficiency” (“CUP”).  Perhaps some in the audience have not heard of CUP
because it may have gained prominence mainly in graduate programs in
TESOL/TESL, applied linguistics, and second language acquisition.  Perhaps
the best way to explain it is to refer to the excerpt below which I took the
liberty of cutting and  pasting from
http://www.naldic.org.uk/ITTSEAL2/teaching/SLA.cfm: 

 

Common Underlying Proficiency 

Cummins (1984 and 2000) 
 argues for a common underlying proficiency or
interdependence hypothesis, in which cross-lingual proficiencies can promote
the development of cognitive, academic skills. Common underlying proficiency
refers to the interdependence of concepts, skills and linguistic knowledge
found in a central processing system. Cummins states that cognitive and
literacy skills established in the mother tongue or L1 will transfer across
languages. This is often presented visually as two icebergs representing the
two languages which overlap and share, underneath the water line, a common
underlying proficiency or operating system. Both languages are outwardly
distinct but are supported by shared concepts and knowledge derived from
learning and experience and the cognitive and linguistic abilities of the
learner. 


http://www.naldic.org.uk/ITTSEAL2/teaching/images/CumminsCUP.gif

 

This representation also demonstrates one view of how linguistic knowledge
is stored in the brain. One way of thinking of this is to consider bilingual
speakers as having separately stored proficiencies in each language, and
this may include pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar in the working
memory, which in turn, have access to long-term memory storage that is not
language specific. In other words, the use of the first or second language
is informed by the working memory, but the concepts are stored as underlying
proficiency. 

Cummins also describes language proficiency in terms of surface and deeper
levels of thinking skills. He argues that the deeper levels of cognitive
processing such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation are necessary to
academic progress. He distinguishes these aspects of proficiency from what
he describes as more explicit or superficial realisations of linguistic and
cognitive processing. Cummins proposes a minimum threshold of first language
cognitive/academic development necessary for success in second language
learning. Cummins also suggests that if the threshold of cognitive
proficiency is not achieved, the learner may have difficulties achieving
bilingual proficiency. 


http://www.naldic.org.uk/ITTSEAL2/teaching/images/Cumminsiceberg.gif

This representation of bilingual proficiency would also suggest that
continued conceptual and linguistic development in the first language would
help second language learners in their learning of the second language. So
the continued support of the first language whilst learning the second
language would be beneficial for cognitive development as well as for other
socio-cultural reasons. In his later work, Cummins (2000) presents the work
of many other researchers which support this hypothesis and the claim that
bilingualism and continued development in the first language enhances
metalinguistic skills and development in proficiency in the second language.

A concern about test bias is perhaps one of the main considerations when
administering tests designed for an L1 “Standard” (I call it “TV”) American
English (or varieties thereof) student population.  I’d surmise that social
studies might be most susceptible to test bias because it draws on
background knowledge that is quite culture-specific.  However, it is
important to recognize what in cognition is relatively “universal” and what
is not, because recognition (awareness) helps inform the teaching/learning
cycle.  After all, whether our learners are L1 or L2 speakers of English,
the instructional goals (for example, the GED test) target learner goals and
outcomes that have value and applicability in the United States. 

 

I only cite the CTBS as an example, because it is a test I am familiar with
(although not its 2nd and 3rd editions).  My search for similar tests,
whether norm- or criterion-referenced, continues, and I continue to be eager
to hear from anyone who can point me to other measures that collect such
broadly-based knowledge areas along with English language proficiency,
especially measures designed for adults without regard to their formal
educational backgrounds.

 

I do not have to use a particular test, as I am self-employed; if and when I
do report, I do so to businesses to businesses and institutions (mainly
hotels, insurance carriers, students enrolled in K-12 or college, and  CBOs
[NGOs]).  95% of my students are ESL.  My only desire is to use a test that
is capable of providing as much information about my learners as possible
while using a test that is current (to measure against a norming  population
no more than 2 years old if it is a norm-referenced measure, and also for
“appearance’s” sake).  

 

Hopefully this helps further clarify where I am coming from as well as my
search for more information from whomever might have it.

 

Thanks again for “triggering” this response, Tatyana!

 

Michael

 

From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Tanya Exum
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:05 PM
To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 3314] Re: [EnglishLanguage 4199] Re: Question
about assessment

 

Hi Michael,
 
Social Studies and Science parts of pre-GED and GED contain a lot of
graphics, which require quite high level reading skills. The most difficult
for ESLs among them - very internally culturally oriented cartoons.
Inferences is another difficult area. Are you teaching your students
specifically in these areas before they take even the TABE test? 
 
In our case, we HAVE to use TABE test because this is the pre-GED, GED
pre-requisite.
 
Tatyana
 
Thank you kindly for your reply and yes, it really is different to
experience the world without internet access.  To think it was only 15 years
ago that Netscape brought the WWW to the public!

 

I have received very little feedback (thank you for being a respondent!) to
my search for an assessment tool or tools to replace the AMES I am currently
using.  Years ago the CBO I was working at used CTB McGraw-Hill’s CTBS and
then its successor, the TerraNova CTBS original edition for its incoming
Pre-GED and GED students – mostly youth, but also a few adults.  The current
version is the 3rd edition
(http://www.ctb.com/products/product_summary.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=14084
74395292939
<http://www.ctb.com/products/product_summary.jsp?FOLDER%3c%3efolder_id=14084
74395292939&bmUID=1242319838825> &bmUID=1242319838825). 

 

I’ve decided to experiment with the CTBS for my adult ESL students with
academic goals or who need a GED (for example to meet the minimum
qualifications of career areas such as hairdressing or cosmetology). The
lowest level of the test is level 11 designed for 1st graders.  I will then
correlate their scores with the ones they obtain on other tests I already
have or hope to get samples of for professional evaluation purposes.

 

What I like about the CTBS in principle is that it (theoretically, at least)
taps into students’ background knowledge in reading, language, math,
science, and social studies, precisely the subject areas of the GED test.  I
believe the (formal) educational backgrounds (“common underlying
proficiency” levels) of my students to be of considerable value in informing
and predicting their success in the course of their continued studies,
including ESL.  Although the test is designed for K-12, I hope to get a
sense of its appropriateness for use with an adult population.  

 

I will share whatever I may learn with several of the NIFL discussion lists.


 


 

 

  _____  

 

  _____  

What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx> 

 

  _____  

See all the ways you can stay connected to
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx>  friends and
family

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20090515/6cc592f7/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 6629 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20090515/6cc592f7/attachment.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 5091 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20090515/6cc592f7/attachment-0001.gif