[Assessment 1191] Re: (no subject)

Share: Share on LinkedIn! Print page! More options

Archived Content Disclaimer

This page contains archived content from a LINCS email discussion list that closed in 2012. This content is not updated as part of LINCS’ ongoing website maintenance, and hyperlinks may be broken.

Jodi Crandall crandall at umbc.edu
Fri Feb 8 13:09:22 EST 2008


Bravo! Making connections with such limited funds is critical. I
remember when major cities had councils which coordinated literacy/
ESL services. I wonder if any of you have some kind of even an
informal network that meets to discuss the most efficient and
effective ways to use the minimal funds that are available.

On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:50 AM, jhalaesl at aol.com wrote:

> Not always the reason for an LEA-to-local college turnover of those

> federal and state adult ed funds

> In my experience, it has simply and sadly been the result of

> limited resources and insufficient funds.

> And in some areas a CBO (not an LEA) manages those grant programs,

> offers classes free to the lowest literacy ESL/ESOL students, and

> is never able to fully bridge the gap between very part-time

> instruction and college.


> One key element to our small successes has been having colleagues

> in each institution (local college, LEA, CBO, gov't DOE/DOL) who

> understand the dynamics and the gaps. Granted, most are still

> limited by the systems in which they work and to which they must be

> accountable. But there is still much to be said for permitting

> ourselves some case-by-case thinking, making those simple phone

> calls, and asking.


> Joanne Hala

> Literacy Serrvices

> Jointure for Community Adult Education, Inc.


> ’ve heard an increasing number of stories about areas were the LEA

> runs the federal/state adult education ESL grant program and has

> asked the local college to take it over (because the LEA has

> concluded it’s an “adult” program). Have there been any rumblings

> of that in your area?




> -----Original Message-----

> From: Forrest Chisman <forrest at crosslink.net>

> To: 'The Assessment Discussion List' <assessment at nifl.gov>

> Sent: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:42 am

> Subject: [Assessment 1179] Re: (no subject)


> Kevin,


> Thanks for the explanation. I find it VERY useful. It’s a very

> interesting model. I’m not surprised that your students are

> motivated for college, because they’ve signed up for a college prep

> track! What worries me are the limited aspirations of many lower

> level ESL students who may have college potential.


> I understand now why you don’t have the resources to operate a more

> comprehensive program. I’ve heard an increasing number of stories

> about areas were the LEA runs the federal/state adult education

> ESL grant program and has asked the local college to take it over

> (because the LEA has concluded it’s an “adult” program). Have there

> been any rumblings of that in your area?


> Best of luck in your good work.


> Forrest


> From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-

> bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Hinkle, Robert

> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 9:42 AM

> To: The Assessment Discussion List; The Assessment Discussion List

> Subject: [Assessment 1174] Re: (no subject)


> I believe we do have a hard time getting enough students fed into

> our program and with the appropriate background to succeed if they

> do come to us. It is a real problem. There are some workplace ESL

> programs which are run through our Corporate and Continuing

> Education Office, but those students rarely, if ever, come to us.

> And they serve the employees of specific companies as opposed to

> the community at large.


> Our ESL program is within an academic department in the college

> (Communication and Languages) and so is run like every other. ESL

> students pay the same tuition and fees as all other students at the

> college. We do not receive special government funding beyond what

> the state and counties provide for the college as a whole as a part

> of our yearly budget.


> Finances are probably a big reason why we are getting fewer

> students at the low levels. Community programs are free or low

> cost; although in the scheme of higher education, the community

> college is less expensive, it may still be out of reach of many

> students.


> In terms of having a more comprehensive program, we are limited by

> a small staff, and the unlikelihood of being able to expand given

> college budgeting restraints. In addition, our three full-time

> faculty members (including myself) not only teach 15 credit hours

> per semester but also do the administrative work required. We do

> advising, scheduling, and the many other tasks associate with

> keeping the program afloat. The only "official" administrative

> support for the program is through the 3 hours of overload I

> receive to serve as Adjunct Coordinator.


> The belief that they can attend college does not seem to be a

> problem with our population although I can certainly see that it

> could be. A growing problem for us (and many around the country) is

> the disconnect between high schools and colleges in terms of

> student preparation. Either the high schools do not think the

> students are college-bound and so don't bother to give them a

> college-prep course of study, or there is simply a growing gap

> between the expectations of each. Additionally, students seem to

> think that a high school diploma equates to college readiness.


> We do our best to advise students, but we don't always have enough

> time - and as professors primarily - may not know ourselves what

> all of the options for students are.


> Kevin


> From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of Forrest Chisman

> Sent: Thu 2/7/2008 10:38 PM

> To: 'The Assessment Discussion List'

> Subject: [Assessment 1172] Re: (no subject)

> Dear Kevin,


> Many thanks for providing all of us with a profile of your program.

> Seeing the variety of college program goals and designs is

> extremely valuable in stimulating ideas about how to do a better

> job in delivering ESL.


> Personally, I think that it is perfectly valid for colleges to

> elect to offer solely pre-academic ESL at the non-credit level. But

> it does prompt the concern about whether other programs in the

> college’s service area are providing non-academic ESL to large

> enough numbers of students and at a high enough quality to “feed”

> the college program – as well as how well their efforts articulate

> with yours. I wonder whether this troubles you, and if so whether/

> how you have addressed the issue. Frankly, I think one reason why

> many colleges offer comprehensive ESL programs is that they would

> prefer to “make” pre-academic students themselves, rather than rely

> on others to do it. Another reason, of course, if that they may not

> be eligible for federal/state grant money unless they offer

> comprehensive programs. Does your college receive these funds to

> support its pre-academic program? If not, how is it supported

> financially?


> I heartily agree that helping students set realistic goals and

> understand their options is essential. I believe, however, that

> encouraging students to expand their goals as they succeed is also

> essential. For example, many immigrants come from countries where

> going to college is the privilege of very few, and thus may

> consider that an unrealistic goal unless they are encouraged to

> take the steps necessary (often one step at a time). The problem

> seems to be that it is hard for most programs to find the resources

> to provide very much guidance of any of these kinds to most

> students. I wonder if anyone has any solutions to THAT issue.


> In any event, many thanks for fleshing out an interesting model.


> Forrest


> From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-

> bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Hinkle, Robert

> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:19 PM

> To: assessment at nifl.gov

> Subject: [Assessment 1148] (no subject)


> Hi All,


> I have been reading most of the discussion comments and wanted to

> address a few issues. First, however, I'll give a summary of our

> program.


> I teach ESL at Raritan Valley Community College in New Jersey. Our

> program serves approximately 350 students from diverse language

> backgrounds. Our program offers two pre-academic levels of all

> skills ESL instruction (a six hour per week non-credit class). In

> addition, we have 5 levels of academic ESL preparation divided into

> three courses - Reading/Writing, Grammar, and Speaking/Listening).

> Our highest level Reading/Writing course gives successful students

> 6 elective credits that count towards RVCC graduation, but those

> credits do not transfer. Our semesters are 15 weeks. If a student

> misses 20% of any class, the instructor may withdraw that student

> (they are not, however, obliged to withdraw these students). At the

> moment, the late enrollment policy is that students may register

> for a course prior to the second week of class but not thereafter.

> Research, of course, indicates that students who begin a class late

> have a much higher rate of failure than those who begin on time.


> In our program, we have three full-time faculty and approximately

> 16-18 adjuncts.


> We have focused our program on academic prep ESL because we are a

> small program with limited resources, and we have a very difficult

> time finding qualified adjuncts. Also, a significant majority of

> our students have signalled their intention to obtain a college

> degree. Moreover, there are community programs that offer basic

> English skills although there is often a long waiting list to

> obtain the services. In other issues, we use the Accuplacer ESL

> test for placement and have in-house standardized tests at the end

> of each level of grammar and reading/writing


> Within our classes, highly educated non-native speakers usually

> progress much more quickly. One of the most challenging groups is

> students who graduated from local high schools but still have

> inadequate English skills - and not infrequently, weak academic

> skills in general. One of the strategies that I would personally

> wish for is real communication between K-12 and community colleges

> so that students get the language skills they need before they

> enter college. I understand that there is great pressure to move

> students out of ESL in many school districts, but ultimately, it

> does a huge disservice both financially and in terms of motivation

> to students whose skills remain more BICS than CALP.


> I agree with those who suggest that first language literacy issues

> should be addressed before students enter ESL. However, it becomes

> complicated to find funding and support for such efforts. In my

> experience, students with low level literacy skills become

> frustrated and are not ultimately successful - probably by any

> definition. I am uncomfortable with the idea that they are spending

> hard-earned money when the chances for success in ESL are minimal.

> We advise students that the program is academically-oriented; often

> they have little understanding of what that means.


> I do not agree with the suggestion that the bar be lowered so that

> students with low-intermediate skills be allowed in credit classes

> (at least at my college). Historically, other faculty have little

> experience handling language issues and are very unhappy when

> students cannot read, write and converse at an appropriate level of

> English. They end up feeling helpless. Students may pass classes;

> however, I suspect that instructors do not want to deal with the

> challenges and so turn a blind eye and let them through. Recently,

> there has been a problem in the nursing department with non-native

> English speaking students not passing board exams because they

> enter the college from other programs and circumvent ESL with us.

> They have trouble reading and answering questions on the exam. This

> is a significant problem because nursing programs are judged in

> terms of the success of their students on these standardized exams.


> I think the measure of success should be based on a realistic

> assessment of student goals combined with a real-life discussion of

> the possibilities and limitations. Ideally, students would have

> incremental goals so that success could build. If the goals for

> students with low literacy levels are not carefully discussed and

> planned, then they will likely encounter more failure than success

> because their expectaions will be unrealistic. The more we have the

> opportunity to talk to students, the more likely it is that they

> can develop short-term goals that are within their reach.

> Unfortunately, we have no control over the myriad of complications

> that accrue in their every day lives.


> Apologies for the length.


> Kevin Hinkle, Ph.D.

> Assistant Professor of ESL/Adjunct Coordinator

> -------------------------------


> National Institute for Literacy


> Assessment mailing list


> Assessment at nifl.gov


> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to


> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment


> Email delivered to jhalaesl at aol.com

> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

> -------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Assessment mailing list

> Assessment at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment

> Email delivered to crandall at umbc.edu

JoAnn (Jodi) Crandall
Professor and Director
Language, Literacy and Culture Ph.D. Program
Director, Peace Corps Master's Intl Program in ESOL/Bilingual Education
University of Maryland Baltimore County
1000 Hilltop Circle
Baltimore, MD 21250
tel: 410-455-2313
fax: 410-455-8947
eml: crandall at umbc.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lincs.ed.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20080208/5f78fbf1/attachment.html