[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Choice review
tsticht at znet.com
tsticht at znet.com
Tue Aug 19 22:03:31 BST 2014
Thanks for the poppy story, Ken. Amapola is one of my favorite songs - vocal
or instrumental. Good to hear about the adult literacy activity in Tucson. I
hope someone discusses adult literacy work in the European conference as
Colin suggested.
Tom Sticht
Quoting Ken Goodman <kgoodman at u.arizona.edu>:
> Tom , you should know that some wonderful things are happenng in Tucson
> with all the adult literacy groups getting together. Literacy volunteers
> are reading my book On Reading and using retrospective miscue analysis to
> help adults revalue themselves as readers. Interestingly a number of us
> started at different places - you and I and David Berliner for example
> but
> because we looked at real reading in the real world we moved to see that
> reducing reading to something that can be scaled and tested then results
> in reifiying the scaled tests as reading. I just heard a lovely item on
> npr
> with marvelous teachers who were running their schools by consensus and
> the
> conclusion was yes but they need to be trained first before they can
> permitted to decide what their kids need.
>
> You're not a pariah Tom. You're a breaker of icons. This is the era I
> describe as the pedagogy of the absurd. The public policies on literacy
> become increasingly absurd while in the real world little kids all over
> the
> world are texting on cell phones while they're being labeled non readers
> in school using Early Grade Reading assessment ( a derivative of DIBELS)
> In
> Senegal EGRA shows few third graders can read nonsense in French or their
> native languages but a study shows 81% of the people have cell phones and
> 75% are texting on them.( Many in languages they were never taught to
> read
> and write.) And Egra is being supported by theWorld Bank snd USAID and
> Hewlett for millions of bucks as the quick cure to world literacy.
>
> My own view which is becoming stronger all the time is that the human
> need
> for and ability to learn language is so strong that each of learns the
> literacy we need to connect with others and our world in spite of rather
> than because of instruction
>
> The aussies say its the tall poppies that get cut down and you are one
> tall
> poppy Tom Sticht.
>
>
> Ken Goodman
> 7814 South Galileo Lane
> Tucson, Az 85747
> 520-745-6895[image: Description: Description: Description: Description:
> Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image001.jpg at 01CEA8B7.CB8A40C0]
>
https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/u/0/?ui=2&ik=961873547c&view=att&th=141ebf9ba7435815&attid=0.0.1&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1
> <http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415820332/>
> Learning is not a Response to Instruction
> Effective Iinstruction is a Response to Learning
> As Don Graves said "Orthodoxies make us tell old stories about children
> at
> the expense of the new stories that children are telling us."
>
> Use Google to see :
> Ken Goodman's Morning post
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:39 PM, <tsticht at znet.com> wrote:
>
> > Judith, Ken, and All: Following is a note I wrote earlier this year
> about
> > the dangers of thinking critically about literacy assessment in adult
> > education. Might be relevant to Ken et al re whose knowledge counts in
> > education policy and practice.
> >
> > Tom Sticht
> >
> > 7/9/2014
> >
> > On the Danger of Thinking Critically in Adult Education
> >
> > Tom Sticht, International Consultant in Adult Education
> >
> > Definition: pariah (pəˈraiə) noun; a person driven out
> of a
> > group or
> > community; an outcast. Example: Because of his political beliefs
> > he became a pariah in the
> > district.
> >
> >
> > Because of my beliefs about the shortcomings of standardized tests and
> > their
> > interpretations used in the national and international adult literacy
> > assessments since the mid-1990s, I became a pariah in the field of
> adult
> > literacy education. I was left out of professional consultant groups by
> the
> > federal government and its contractors because I did not agree with
> what
> > was
> > being done with standardized tests both for assessing the skills of
> adults
> > and as accountability measures for the Adult Education and Literacy
> System
> > (AELS).
> >
> >
> > When the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) first report came out in
> > 1993
> > I was struck by the arbitrary nature of the scale development which
> > required
> > that someone have an 80 percent probability of being able to perform a
> > certain task to be considered competent at that level of task
> difficulty. I
> > wrote a number of Research Notes drawing attention to the problems of
> the
> > NALS scaling and interpretation. However, my criticisms of the 80
> percent
> > response probability were soundly criticized by the test developers and
> > ignored by others who were using the data for advocating for more money
> for
> > adult literacy education.
> >
> > Another aspect of the NALS (and the International Adult Literacy Survey
> > (IALS) and its spinoffs that I criticized was the repeated
> pronouncement
> > that of the set of literacy levels ranging from a low of 1 to a high of
> 5
> > adults needed to be at level 3 to be able to successfully compete in
> our
> > contemporary high-skill economy. I argued that there were no data to
> > support this claim. Still, I was criticized by the test developers and
> > ignored by government policymakers.
> >
> > However, things changed based on a Research Note that I posted on the
> NLA
> > listserv July 10, 2001. I sent a copy to Jay Mathews, education
> columnist
> > for the Washington Post and the Post published his article Tuesday,
> July
> > 17, 2001 entitled "Adult Illiteracy, Rewritten" in which the former
> > director of the National Adult Literacy Survey reported that the NALS
> used
> > "the wrong "response probability" even after other federal researchers
> had
> > concluded that that would greatly exaggerate the severity of [adult
> > literacy] problems."
> >
> >
> > Following the Washington Post article, the adult literacy discussion
> lists
> > were filled with test developers from ETS, Statistics Canada, and adult
> > advocacy groups denouncing the Washington Post article and, at times,
> > directly criticizing me for exposing the problems the NALS to the
> general
> > public. However, several years later, a National Academies of Science,
> > National Research Council report on assessing adult literacy was
> published
> > which argued that, as I had very early pointed out, the 80 percent
> > probability was too stringent and the report called for the use of a 67
> > percent response probability. And as I had also argued, the NRC report
> also
> > made the point that the use of the level 3 as a criterion level of
> adult
> > literacy in order for adults to be able to succeed in our knowledge
> > economies was not warranted. Following this, the 2013 Programme for the
> > International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) adopted the
> .67
> > response probability for its literacy scales and announced that no
> level
> > for competency would be designated as the criterion for being
> successful
> > because there was no basis for making such a criterion designation.
> >
> > Though I feel somewhat vindicated by the changes made to the national
> and
> > international adult literacy surveys based to a large degree on what I
> > thought early on about the assessments, I have become a pariah in adult
> > literacy education in federal government circles and in testing
> contractor
> > circles. To deepen my status as a pariah, I have also consistently
> thought
> > critically about and wrote about the National Reporting System (NRS)
> and
> > its misuse of standardized tests! Today, you will not see my name in
> any of
> > the lists of distinguished scholars contributing to government funded
> > reports.
> >
> > But to me, the real disappointment is that none of the various adult
> > literacy assessments nor the NRS seem to have benefited adult learners
> very
> > much, if at all. In 1993, the AELS had over 3.8 million enrollments and
> > now,
> > 20 years later, after a series of national and international adult
> literacy
> > assessments, and the implementation of the NRS, enrollments have
> dropped to
> > a little over 1.7 million. For the last decade, federal state grant
> > funding
> > for the AELS has remained stagnant in the vicinity of $575 million, or
> > about
> > $300 per enrollment.
> >
> > Take it from the pariah, critical thinking can be dangerous!
> >
> > tsticht at aznet.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Judith Green <judithlgreen at me.com>:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I thought that this conceptual argument is one that might be a good
> > > dialogues here.
> > >
> > > J
> > > On Aug 18, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Ken Goodman <kgoodman at u.arizona.edu>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > For your information
> > > > Ken Goodman
> > > > Ken Goodman
> > > > 7814 South Galileo Lane
> > > > Tucson, Az 85747
> > > > 520-745-6895
> > > > Learning is not a Response to Instruction
> > > > Effective Iinstruction is a Response to Learning
> > > > As Don Graves said "Orthodoxies make us tell old stories about
> > > children at the expense of the new stories that children are telling
> us."
> > > >
> > > > Use Google to see :
> > > > Ken Goodman's Morning post
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > From: Silverman, Naomi <Naomi.Silverman at taylorandfrancis.com>
> > > > Date: Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM
> > > > Subject: Choice review
> > > > To: "Goodman, Yetta M - (ygoodman) (ygoodman at email.arizona.edu)"
> > > <ygoodman at email.arizona.edu>, "Goodman, Kenneth S - (kgoodman)
> > > (kgoodman at email.arizona.edu)" <kgoodman at email.arizona.edu>, "Bob
> Calfee
> > > (robert.calfee at ucr.edu)" <robert.calfee at ucr.edu>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Yetta, Ken, and Bob,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A good recommendation in CHOICE!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Naomi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The following review appeared in the August 2014 issue of CHOICE:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 51-6878
> LC149
> > > 2013-9875 CIP
> > > > Whose knowledge counts in government literacy policies?: why
> expertise
> > > matters, ed. by Kenneth S. Goodman, Robert
> > > >
> > > > C. Calfee, and Yetta M. Goodman. Routledge, 2014. 217p bibl index
> ISBN
> > > 9780415858007, $140.00; ISBN 9780415858014 pbk, $41.95; ISBN
> > > 9780203796849 e-book, contact publisher for price
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Curriculum and policy are informed by assumptions about what counts
> as
> > > knowledge, grounded in notions of human nature, and affected by
> > > determinations about whose knowledge counts in the construction and
> > > delivery of knowledge in formal educational settings. Whose Knowledge
> > > Counts in Government Literacy Policies? is an edited volume
> consisting of
> > > essays on literacy policies, current research in literacy development
> and
> > > practice, and the impact of policy on practice. The book is organized
> in
> > > two sections. The first section examines the larger question of
> "whose
> > > knowledge counts?" This question is contemplated through six essays
> that
> > > examine literacy policies throughout the US and Europe. The second
> > > section of the book contains essays that focus on a variety of
> topics,
> > > such as the role of literary texts within standardized tests,
> diversity
> > > in children's literature, writing instruction, the common core state
> > > standards in literacy instruction, and literature and literary
> reasoning.
> > > The diversity of ideas offered within the book affords the reader a
> rich
> > > opportunity to consider foundational issues of policy and practice.
> > > Summing Up: Recommended. All readership levels. -- J A. Helfer,
> Illinois
> > > State Board of Education
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Il,
> > > >
> > > > f
> > > >
> > > > I
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
> > > > Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> > > > http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame
> > >
> > >
> > > This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and
> > > may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message
> > > in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
> Please
> > > do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
> message or
> > > in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of
> this
> > > email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of
> > > Nottingham.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> > > attachment
> > >
> > > may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer
> > > system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
> communications
> > > with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK
> > > legislation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and
> may contain confidential information. If you have received this message
> in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please
> do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or
> in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this
> email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of
> Nottingham.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> attachment
> may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer
> system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications
> with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK
> legislation.
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Reading-hall-of-fame
mailing list