**ADULT EDUCATION CONTENT STANDARDS CONSORTIA**

**CONFERENCE CALL**

**Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:00 P.M. and 3:00 P.M. (E.D.T.)**

**The Bottom Line: Instructional Quality**

**Presented by Regie Stites and Susan Pimentel**

**The Bottom Line: Instructional Quality**

On both conference calls, Regie Stites and Susan Pimentel discussed the
importance of thinking about instructional quality in writing and
revising content standards. Instructional quality is a very important
element in standards-based reform, but it often gets lost in the
background when people focus on the "content" and the levels of
performance "assessments". The following is a brief summary of key
points that arose during the presentation. The single set of the power
point slides for both conference calls is available in the Community
Center.

**One Lens---Many Objects**

The following questions can be looked at through the lens of
instructional quality.

-   Should standards for different content areas have the same format?
    Same author/editor?\
    *Consider having the standards look uniform even when they are
    different.*

-   Should there be a maximum number of standards? Should we include x,
    y, or z content in the standards?\
    *For example,* *consider whether you want to include grammar in the
    ELA standards.*

-   Should standards be linked between different systems (ASE, ESL, and
    ASE/GED?\
    *Consider how to articulate standards so learners can transition
    from one program to another*.

**Reality Check\
**The goal is to create standards that have a realistic chance of
changing and improving instruction. Standards should be visionary, but
writers should be aware of the following problems.

**The 'Pie in the Sky' Problem** occurs when your standards look good,
but there is no realistic way to attain them. Remember the instructional
context in which the standards will be applied. Can the vision for
improvement (with professional development) be achieved, or is it far
out of reach?\
\
The problem often occurs when people say that you need to pay attention
with what is going on in K-12. Adult education and K-12 are different in
terms of client needs and the amount of time for instruction. Stretch,
but be realistic.\
\
We can try to create an image of academic excellence, but it may
difficult. Keep your focus on what is happening now and developing the
right number of standards. What can be taught within the time that you
have? You do not want to create an image of something that is so far out
of reach that it frustrates people. You need to really think about how
people will get there. Make common sense judgments about what to
include. One strategy to avoid the 'pie in the sky' problem is backward
mapping.

**The "Procrustean Bed" Problem**\
*In Greek mythology, Procustes, or the "stretcher', who had an iron bed.
He would catch people and pin them on the bed. If the victims were too
small, he would stretch them to make them fit. If they were too big, he
would chop off parts to make them fit.*\
\
The message is to not force the system into standards that are going to
do harm or cause you to lose some things that were working well. Make
sure you do not lose the good stuff or stretch the system too far. The
unintended consequences are (1) good things get chopped off during
reviews or implementation or (2) teachers are forced to teach things
they can't teach well (e.g., moving the teachers into areas where they
are not fully equipped to teach). Consider the importance of
professional development and providing teachers with the resources to
teach and opportunities for professional growth. You don't want to
create a reform vision that doesn't match staff and program capacity.

**General Instructional Criteria to Think About for Standards**

-   **You want them to be focused:** Standards should focus on the
    essential knowledge and skills in the content area. Here the term
    [essential]{.underline} does not mean all the details, it means to
    [capture the essence]{.underline}.

-   **Parsimonious standards are attainable within the instructional
    program:** This is a matter of checking the scope of your standards
    and making sure that they are teachable within program
    constraints*.*

-   **Keep the scope reasonable:** Think about what is achievable by the
    learners, considering the support you can provide. The key is to
    keep the standards teachable and within the capacity of the learners
    to achieve. Consider time and number of standards that can be
    achieved.

-   **Standards should be clear:** How do you word the standards? Think
    about them being used in terms of the teaching process. Write
    standards in a way that it is easy to transition them into classroom
    practice, not *pie in the sky*, and in a way to improve instruction.

**How to Ensure the Standards are "Just Right"** *(shift from Greek
Mythology to fairy tales!)*

-   **Big Idea #1:** The standards need to be clear if you want people
    to use them.

**Strategies to assess specificity\
**Start by asking your team members and instructors to do the following:

-   **Look at each standard:** As you are working in your teams, take a
    break and let the standards sit for while. When you come back to
    them, discuss the drafts and ask how the standards might look in the
    classroom. If you hear varying things, you have not hit the "just
    right" spot. You may need to add some specificity to communicate
    what you really mean for instructors in the field.

-   **Check model standards:** It's good to go back and check the model
    standards that you review previously. Maybe the model was clearer
    before you made changes, or maybe your changes made the original
    standards clearer. Consider whether they are still clear after
    editing and revisions.

**Sample Process for Drafting, Reviewing and Revising**\
A sample draft mathematic standard was presented, "Use operations and
number sense to compute and solve problems." Reviewers might ask, "What
do you mean by operations? By number sense?" Through team conversations
you can revise the standards and indicators. You really want the
standards and indicators to get at real life problems that adults
encounter. The sample revisions, "Calculate tips, sales tax,
commissions, etc.", make the standard more specific and real for adults.
Continue to go though a process of drafting, reviewing and revising to
make sure the team is communicating what they mean.

**Strategy for level specificity - Backward mapping**:\
This is a good strategy to address the "pie in the sky" problem. Start
at the exit level to identify the competencies or skills learner should
know when they leave the program and then work backwards. Decide on the
"building blocks" or prerequisites that students need to learn to master
the objectives. In reading, look at a standard in a higher level, and
then identify the lower levels skills that are needed to reach this
level.\
\
You can work backwards from the top or start at the bottom and look at
how you are going to get to the top. Think of a pyramid---you start with
a high level skill and look at the building blocks (skills) to reach the
top. Remember it is not always a series or a ladder straight to the top.
You need a broad foundation that allows you to narrow, but not one that
is too broad so that the standards are not achievable in the program.

Backward mapping is a way to keep the standards focused and
parsimonious. Keep focused on the essentials so that the document
doesn't overwhelm people in the field. Limit extraneous information.

**ABE/GED Example**

Slides provided an example of backward mapping for mathematics in ABE

**EFF - ESOL Listening Example from Ohio*\
***Susan noted how the listening sequence is related to speaking skills
development (e.g, from level (1): learned questions and simple
directions and up to level (6) making oral presentations.

**Big Idea #2: Standards' can't do everything; they are only the first
step.\
**The writing team can become frustrated as they draft, rewrite, and
continually revise to make the standards clear. Rewriting can be
overdone. Consider adding supplements to provide more clarity and help
communicate the essence to foster instructional improvement. But you do
not want to have your standards document too fat and full!

**Supplement the Standards**

No matter what you put on the page, more clarity is needed. You also
need to give teachers flexibility. Consider adding supplements to
provide more clarity and help communicate "the essence" that will foster
instructional improvement. Develop and integrate teacher supports to
ensure greater clarity and understanding.\
\
Suggestions include:

-   Prerequisite skills and concepts: You don't have to include
    everything that you will teach. Consider backward mapping to
    determine the knowledge and skills needed at levels 4 and 5 to
    prepare learners for the standards in level 6.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sample lesson plans

-   Sample activities/examples: The development of sample lesson plans
    and activities are good professional development exercises. For
    teachers who are used to teaching K-12, concrete examples of skills
    in adult contexts will help.

-   Textbook correlations: Have teachers find out what is in current
    textbooks that will help teachers and learners with the standards.
    Then find out what is missing and needs to be developed. Textbooks
    are a reality.

-   Resources: book lists, vocabulary lists, idiom lists, Web sites.
    These are ways to assist teachers in translating standards into the
    classroom.

-   Assessment: What does it look like when the student masters this
    skill? Ask teachers, "How can you check this in the classroom?"

**Big Idea #3: Standards are "living" documents that need to be
re-evaluated and updated regularly**

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good". All standards need to be
improved. Stretch to identify what adults need, but it's not necessary
to include everything that people think is good. Make something that is
attainable. Standards are not static documents. States can come back to
the standards and increase the level and difficulty later.

**Tips for continuous improvement**

-   **Field test:** Ask instructors to implement the standards and ask
    for feedback Revise the standards according to the feedback
    received.

-   **Set up feedback process:** If you do not have time to field test
    the standards before full implementation, build in a feedback
    process. Ask instructors to keep track of what they like and don't
    like. Send out surveys or hold focus groups to gather information.
    Let people tell you what is working and what is not working. Build
    on that feedback through supplements, professional development, and
    revisions when needed.

**Discussion Questions from call at 12:00 p.m.**

Q: Usually when standards or curricula are being written, you start at
the first level. Would it be appropriate to suggest that the writing
panel begin with the exit level criteria?

> A: Susan and Regie (consultants): Perfect. Use the exit criteria and
> create an outline working backwards to the bottom. It's a great way to
> focus and get the outline started. Then start from the beginning to
> flesh it out and fill in what's missing. Consider going back and forth
> from top to bottom and bottom to top. But keep in mind, that it is not
> always a step ladder. When you conceptualize the exit point, you
> really have a pyramid, but don't make the base too broad. Be careful
> not to branch out into too many different areas. It's all about
> narrowing your focus to make sure you're not creating something that
> gets too big. Keep it to the essentials.\
> \
> There is not always a one to one correspondence of skills working up
> all levels consistently. Some steps at the bottom could lead to
> another standard; it could feed in several exit criteria.
>
> One state put together a chart. Our strands are reading, writing,
> speaking, and listening. We put all of the standards together at each
> level to see if all of the benchmarks were at the same difficulty
> level. It helped us see how things were interconnected or if they were
> mismatched. We did one page per level. For example, "Express
> themselves orally for a variety of purposes." We wanted to make sure
> they were right at the level. Were we repeating anything? Were they at
> the same level of difficulty? Then we looked at the progression of
> skills across levels.

Q: You spoke about the reality of the field and how much we can expect
teachers to teach. Most of our teachers are K-12 during the day. We
cannot always be sure they come in with the mindset of teaching adults
versus teaching children. How much guidance can you put in the standards
to help people teach adults?

A: Susan and Regie (consultants): Some states have done a marvelous job
with including an adult focus in terms of learning English. A lot of
that should signal to teachers that the focus is different and
instruction needs to be different. When teaching adults, there might be
more of a practical focus depending on the learners. You have to signal
the instructors to keep the clients/students in mind. And the focus is
on adults helping them get their way around the world.\
\
Here is where you need to supplement, e.g., with lesson plans and
professional development. Explain and support the use of the standards
by reminding teachers about adult learning theory and the need for
adults to be self-directed learners. Adults have specific goals in mind
and are motivated by very concrete needs. Adult educators tend to
include stuff that not all learners want to know. The class goals are
not "governed by the teacher", but should be based on the individuals'
needs. Their goals may be very different. The standards are gateways -
learners can open and choose the content and extent of what they learn.
A great professional development activity is to have teachers identify
teaching activities and resources they currently use that well help
learners achieve the standards.

Q: We've used so much from so many sources that we are not sure what
belongs or is attributable to each source. Does that ever come up as an
issue?

> A: Susan (consultant): I've never had a problem. In the introduction,
> give credit for the variety of the resources used. I have never had a
> problem as long as I've acknowledged the people and sources. Regie
> (consultant) I also acknowledge the inspiration.

Q: Does anyone know where the revised SPL descriptors for reading and
writing are?

> A: Peggy (AIR): I will do more research. AIR and CAL were searching
> for them so we need to follow up with the Spring Institute. We'll post
> them on the community center once we find the latest version.

Q: Susan (consultant): I am familiar with NRS but not the SPLs.

> A: The SPLs were developed in the early to mid-1980s as part of the
> Mainstream English Language Training (MELT) project for refugees. The
> SPLs provided proficiency descriptors for Listening Comprehension,
> Oral Communication, Reading, Writing, and General Language Ability.
> The SPLs were used for field testing and benchmarking the BEST and
> CASAS assessments. A competency-based curriculum outline was also
> developed as part of the MELT project.\
> \
> The SPLs were one of the primary sources for the NRS Educational
> Functioning Levels for ESOL.

**Discussion Questions from call at 3:00 p.m.**

Q: Susan (consultant): Should standards for different content areas have
the same format or author? Have any of you run into this issue?

> A: Participant state has different task force groups, and we found
> that it wasn't necessary for them be the exactly the same for ABE and
> ESOL.
>
> They will be piloting them with a template that is similar but not
> identical.\
> \
> A: Susan (consultant): Different content areas have different needs.
> If one is more specific than another, it can cause some confusion.
>
> A: We found that with our GED and ESL standards were different. The
> GED standards were much more specific and there were existing
> materials to use in developing them.

Q: Susan (consultant): Has anyone done backward mapping?

> A: Peggy (AIR) shared what she learned from an Ohio writing team
> member. When they were writing, teachers often wanted to include
> something too specific for the general EFF framework or something that
> was more of an activity than a benchmark. They decided to "hold or set
> those ideas aside' for the supplementary documents. Thus ideas were
> not lost and materials for professional development and instructional
> implementation were being created simultaneously.

Susan (consultant): It is wonderful to get that down and categorize it.

> Renee (AIR): It is great to have an archivist to capture everything
> from the discussions. The notes can document the process and
> decisions, and it's good to keep these items (teaching ideas) for the
> supplements and training.

Q: Ronna (OVAE): Thinking back on backwards mapping and the GED. If the
top score is 800 and a passing score is 450, what impact does that have
for standards development? Where do you start?

> A: Susan (consultant): Probably not limited to the "passing level"
> only.
>
> Susan (consultant): What I would do is look at all the GED
> competencies and then what ever else I feel like they would need to
> know.
>
> Regie (consultant): I don't think that the backward mapping should
> always mean starting at the top and working your way down. You might
> also want to think about going in the other direction. Think upward
> and stretch beyond what you need to be able to do to pass the GED.

Q: Ronna (OVAE): How do we stretch ASE beyond passing the GED so that
learners can also get into credit-bearing courses and other training?

> Regie (consultant): For a lot of adults, the GED is the point of exit.
> You might want to consider including standards that are post-GED.
>
> Susan (consultant): I agree, Arizona has standards for the GED and
> post-GED. Don't limit yourself to GED, but remember 'the pie in the
> sky' issue.

**Announcements:**

Last week we made request for states to identify needs for July
conference. If you have not responded, please let us know by the end of
the week. I want to thank Susan and Regie as always. They have given us
a lot of food for thought. Please use the community center to extend our
conversation.