Texas Adult Education Standards Project
Taskforce Meeting Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Florida Curriculum Frameworks (FCF) for adult education programs were introduced to Texas adult education practitioners in program year 2001-2002. The FCF checklists were modified and adopted by Texas and named the Texas Standardized Curriculum Framework (TSCF). A number of adult education programs piloted the FCF and/or TSCF between 2000 and early 2004 without systematic guidance from the Texas Education Agency.

In March 2004, at the request of new state leadership, the Texas Center for the Advancement of Literacy and Learning (TCALL) initiated a review of the TSCF. One of the tasks was to hold a taskforce meeting to review the TSCF. This meeting was conducted from July 7- 9, 2004 at the Hilton Austin Airport Hotel in Austin, Texas. The objectives were to:

• examine progress to date on the development of adult education standards in Texas,
• discuss reactions from using the standards by local program staff members,
• explore, in small groups, future directions for further standards development, and
• develop a schedule for field-testing the revisions recommended by taskforce members.

Approximately 18 out of 56 adult education programs in Texas have been implementing the TSCF since 2001. Application of the TSCF varies from program to program; some implemented the TSCF in several classes, and some implemented it in one particular subject area such as ESOL. However, none of the programs implemented it program-wide. Since there are no resources available for the adult education practitioners to implement the TSCF, several practitioners located and/or created resources (lesson plans and formal or informal assessments) to use in their classrooms. During the taskforce meeting, the participants were introduced to several other states' standards and compared the TSCF to these standards.

Reactions from the local practitioners about the TSCF implementation are mixed. Most of the practitioners like the concept of having state-wide standards because they provide consistent structures and guidelines across the state. Some practitioners also stated that the TSCF has good content because it includes work, life, and academic skills. However, there are several drawbacks to the TSCF as discussed by the taskforce members. The drawbacks include lack of clarity, lack of instructional materials, lack of aligned assessments, lack of time for implementation, and lack of professional development to support implementation. For more information, see page 8 for analyzed results in response to research question 2: What did the participants think of the TSCF?

There is no consensus on whether to keep the TSCF or start developing a new set of standards for adult education in Texas. However, taskforce members all agreed that a lot of work remains to be done to the TSCF for it to be implemented statewide. Investigating the needs of adult learners and ways to modify the TSCF to meet those needs is of great importance. For more details, see page 9 for the results under research question 3: What did the participants see as future directions and concerns for standards development/implementation in Texas?

Presently, the TSCF is not mandated by the state. Local programs can choose whether or not to use it, and they are not required to report students' progress on the TSCF to the state agency. For programs that choose to implement the TSCF as it currently exists based on their programs' needs, supplemental materials submitted to TCALL by the project participants will be made available under the Texas Adult Education Standards Project. These materials will be teacher-made lesson plans that go along with the TSCF.

Since this taskforce meeting at this time did not produce revised standards, no field-testing can be conducted. The TCALL research team proposed that focus group meetings be held in the GREAT center locations during 2004-2005. These meetings will acquire feedback from adult learners, teachers, administrators, and business partners to determine: (1) what are adult learners' needs, (2) does TSCF adequately address these needs, and (3) what changes are needed to align the TSCF and learners' needs. It is the goal of the research team that revised standards will be ready for field-testing by August 31, 2005.

A total of 35 local practitioners participated in the TSCF taskforce meeting in July, 2004: 18 teachers, 5 administrators, 5 resource people and 7 representatives from Getting Results Educating Adults in Texas (GREAT) centers. Eighteen teachers and 5 administrators were identified and invited to the taskforce meeting based on their prior involvement with the TSCF implementation, TSCF survey conducted by the TCALL research team, and their availability during the July 7-9, 2004, when the taskforce meeting was held. Resource people were identified and invited to the meeting based on their expertise in adult education and recommendations from local practitioners. GREAT centers were invited to the taskforce meeting because of their ongoing involvement in providing trainings to the local programs regarding standards implementation.

Thirty five practitioners were assigned to either ASE/GED, ABE, or ESOL for group work on Day 2 and 3 of the taskforce meeting. They were assigned based on the subject area(s) they taught plus their preferences. Each group consisted of similar numbers of participants. See Table 1 for numbers of participants in each small group.

Table 1 Demographic Data of Taskforce Members

Participant >	Teacher	Administrator	Resource Person	GREAT Center Representative **	Total
Group
ASE/GED	6	2	1	3	12
ABE	5	2	2	2	11
ESOL	7	1	2	2	12
Total	18	5	5	7	35

**GREAT Center West was not represented at the taskforce meeting because no staff for that Center had yet been hired during this time.

Table 2 shows the geographical distribution of taskforce members based on the GREAT center region they are from.

Table 2 Geographic Data of Taskforce Members

GREAT Center Region	Central	Coastal	East	Far West	North	South	South Central
Number of Participants	7	4	6	1	3	4	10

(See Appendix A for taskforce meeting agenda.)

Day 1 (1 P.M. – 5:30 P.M.)

The meeting started with a general session for every participant to introduce him/herself briefly. These introductions were followed by a brief presentation of the results from the TSCF survey administered earlier in the year. A copy of the survey results can be found under the Texas Adult Education Standards Project. Next, three local program administrators shared their experience in TSCF implementation with the participants. The program administrators discussed what they did in their programs in terms of TSCF implementation and professional development. They also discussed their perceptions of the pros and cons of using the TSCF.

This presentation was followed by a definition exercise that familiarized the taskforce members with terms frequently used in standards development and implementation. To do this, a list of terms and sample definitions from different sources were provided. The list can be found in Appendix B. The taskforce members worked in small groups to define the assigned terms by using the sample definitions provided, or by creating their own definitions.

This exercise was followed by three national facilitators sharing their experience in standards development and implementation with the taskforce members. The three facilitators are Heide Spruck Wrigley, senior researcher with LiteracyWork Associates in San Mateo, California; Brenda Bell, associate director of the Center for Literacy Studies, University of Tennessee, and Roberta McKnight, research/technology specialist for the Virginia Literacy Institute and the Virginia Adult Learning Resource Center.

To conclude the first day of the meeting, Texas LEARNS answered some questions raised by participants about the TSCF. A list of some of the questions and answers can be found in Appendix C.

Day 2 (8:30 A.M. – 5 P.M.)

Day 2 of the taskforce meeting started with power-point presentations by the 3 facilitators. The 3 presentations were: (These presentations are in PDF format. Download Adobe® Acrobat® Reader)

• Discussion of Massachusetts ESOL Standards - Heide Spruck Wrigley
• Equipped for the Future (EFF) - Brenda Bell
• TSCF Strategic Planning: Important Considerations - Roberta McKnight

These presentations can also be found under Texas Adult Education Standards Project.

The taskforce members were then divided into three groups: (1)ASE/GED, (2)ABE, and (3) ESOL and started group work led by one of the facilitators. Roberta McKnight was the facilitator for the ASE/GED group, Brenda Bell facilitated the ABE group, and Heide Spruck Wrigley facilitated the ESOL group. During the group work session, the participants were asked to compare the TSCF to other states' standards, share their experiences with using the TSCF, and explore future directions for further standards development.

Each group was provided with several copies of standards from other states recommended by the facilitators and TCALL research team members. Standards from different states were used in each group because not all states have standards for each component. For the ASE/GED group, state standards from Arizona and Oregon were provided. For the ABE group, standards from Massachusetts and Ohio were provided, and the ESOL group had state standards from Massachusetts and Arizona. All three groups were also provided with EFF standards and copies of the TSCF.

By the end of Day 2, all participants reconvened to share their small group discussion with the whole group.

Day 3 (8:30 A.M. – 12 P.M.)

Taskforce members continued to work in their small groups for the first part of the morning. After a small break, a general session followed where each group presented what they thought standards should look like. Several suggestions were also presented for future TSCF modification and/or revision.

Texas LEARNS concluded the TSCF taskforce meeting by responding to some more questions and concerns raised by the participants as well as announcing that Texas had been nominated to participate in a national content standard consortium of states supported by the U.S. Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE). Beginning in September 2004, Texas and seven other states will be engaged in the process of developing, implementing, and aligning content standards for their ESL programs. Consortium members will share their experience in writing, reviewing, revising, and/or adapting content standards. They will also work on developing standards that meet the specific needs of each state's adult learner population.

Taskforce meeting outcomes including participants' responses to the evaluation form and field notes taken by the TCALL research team were analyzed to address the following research questions:

• How well did the participants comprehend standards development?
• What did the participants think of the TSCF?
• What did the participants see as future directions and concerns for standards development/implementation in Texas?
• How well did the participants respond to the taskforce meeting?

An evaluation form (see appendix D) was developed to acquire participants' feedback and suggestions about the taskforce meeting and issues related to the TSCF. All participants were asked to complete the evaluation form at the end of the meeting. A total of 26 completed evaluation forms were collected. The TCALL research team also took extensive field notes during the meeting.

Qualitative and quantitative analyses were used to analyze the taskforce meeting outcomes and answer the research questions. Open-ended questions on the evaluation form and field notes taken by the research team during the meeting were analyzed using qualitative research methods. Close-ended questions on the evaluation form were analyzed using quantitative research methods, and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was run for descriptive data.

Results:

The participants' statements where they explained the concept of standards development were placed into two categories: (1) participants' perceptions about standards development and (2) participants' questions regarding standards development.

• Participants' perceptions about standards development: Under this category, participants discussed their understanding of four key concepts within standards development: content standard, performance standard, implementation, and professional development. By explaining each concept and its relationship to overall standards development, the participants demonstrated their understanding by stating:

• content standards are broad enough to remain the same across different levels and subject areas; i.e., ASE/GED, ABE, and ESOL,
• performance standards are measurable and generally tied to a task, and
• standards give rise to curriculum and align with state's goals.

• Participants' questions regarding standards development: Questions repeatedly asked by the taskforce members included: “What is content standard?,” “Where is TSCF on the map (of standard diagram)?,” “(If TSCF standards are not content standards) where is/are standards?” It was clear to the research team that there is confusion about the meanings of those terms - content standards, performance standards and competency statements.

Two categories emerged from the qualitative analysis: (1) benefits of the TSCF and (2) problems with using the TSCF.

• Benefits of the TSCF: According to the taskforce members, using the TSCF checklist help them to:

• track learners' progress,
• stay informed about learners' levels when they move from class to class or from program to program, and
• structure classes, especially for inexperienced adult education teachers.

Some taskforce members also stated that the TSCF is beneficial because it had good content. For example, it includes work, life, academic skills, and reflects learners' needs.

• Problems with using the TSCF: During the taskforce meeting, four main problems with using the TSCF emerged.

• The TSCF checklist is too lengthy.
• The TSCF lacks adequate explanation for its application.
• There is confusion about the meanings of content standards, performance standards and competency statements.
• The TSCF is not aligned with assessment instruments.

Participants' most common problem with the TSCF was the way standards and levels are presented in the TSCF. The lengthy checklist and lack of explanation on how to use the TSCF confuse the teachers and the learners. This confusion makes it hard for the teachers to teach it and for the students to understand it.

After the definition exercise and small group work of comparing the TSCF to other states' standards, several taskforce members pointed out that some of the standards in the TSCF were not content standards but performance standards at best. As a taskforce member stated:

TSCF standards were not standards, but most of them were benchmarks.

Some of the TSCF standards are competencies and some are tasks. So where are the standards?

Other problems with using the TSCF included:

• The teachers and administrators felt that the TSCF was imposed on them.
• The TSCF does not correlate with the TABE or BEST.

To answer this question, three categories merged from the analysis: (1) things practitioners wanted to learn more about, (2) suggestions they made for the future standards development and implementation, and (3) concerns they wanted the state to address.

• Things to learn: The participants wanted to learn more about issues relating to:

• adult education standards development/implementation,
• other states' adult education standards and the process of development/implementation, and
• EFF standards development/implementation.

• Suggestions to consider: The suggestions made for future standards development were to:

• restructure the existing TSCF and provide professional development that would go along with the restructured TSCF,
• involve practitioners and adult learners in standards development which would result in endorsement from local programs and practitioners,
• align the checklist to the National Reporting System (NRS),
• supplement activities that go along with the TSCF, and
• incorporate technology into the standards implementation.

The taskforce members perceived the first two suggestions as the most important ones.

• Concerns to address: For future standards development/implementation, the participants' main concerns were to have:

• endorsement from adult learners, local practitioners, and business partners or possible employers of adult learners,
• professional development to assist the existing TSCF implementation for the programs who choose to use the TSCF before the restructured or revised standards become available,
• representation from the diverse population that adult education programs in Texas serve, and
• alignment with assessment instruments.

Twenty-six participants completed the evaluation form. Twenty (77%) considered themselves skilled/knowledgeable on the topic of standards development/implementation, and 5 (19%) considered themselves novices. One did not respond.

On the evaluation form, participants were asked if they agreed with the following statements about the taskforce meeting:

Statement 1: The training materials used were of excellent quality.

Statement 2: The meeting was well organized and had clear objectives

Statement 3: The facilitators had in-depth knowledge of the topic.

Statement 4: The facilitators created a positive learning environment.

Taskforce members' responses are in Table 3.

Table 3 Evaluation of the Taskforce Meeting

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Statement 1	12 (46%)	10 (39%)	2 (8%)	2 (8%)
Statement 2	8 (31%)	12 (46%)	4 (15%)	2 (8%)
Statement 3	20 (77%)	4 (15%)	0	2 (8%)
Statement 4	16 (62%)	7 (27%)	1 (4%)	2 (8%)

* n = 26

The participants' narrative responses to the above 4 statements were also analyzed to address this question - How favorably did the participants respond to the taskforce meeting?

• Well: Many of the participants responded favorably to the taskforce meeting because:

• the taskforce meeting had taken a bottom up approach by including their voice,
• they were informed as to what other states were doing with standards,
• they realized that the process of reviewing the TSCF is important, and
• they understood that it takes time to develop appropriate standards for the state.

• Not Well: On the other hand, a few participants did not respond favorably to the taskforce meeting. The reasons provided by the participants were:

• the meeting lacked clear objectives which made them feel lost as to why they were there and wasted their time, and
• the facilitators were a bit pushy in promoting the EFF.

Table of Contents | Next