I have been pondering the fast track vs. in-depth education dilemma for
years so this has been a very interesting discussion. In-depth teaching
would seem to serve the student better, but my observation is that many
never reach the goal of passing the GED Test because they drop out
before getting that far. Many are willing to spend a few months in class
but not the six or more that are required to be well prepared. Even some
who are committed when they begin class are blind-sided by life
circumstances beyond their control and need to get a job, care for sick
family member, etc. 

Because of all this, I have tended in recent years to lean toward
fast-track teaching, or at least "faster-track." We do get a few more
graduates this way, but I still feel unsettled about the ultimate value
of this method. One solution is for graduates to remain in class even
after passing the GED Test, with the goal of building a stronger
foundation for their next step in life. I suppose this is a transitional
class, but we do not use that designation. Only a few avail themselves
of this option.

In conclusion, I have a question: Is there information available showing
how long the average student who starts at "x" level takes to be ready
for the GED Test?  We use CASAS Life Skills as our assessment tool so I
would especially like to find information based on CASAS scores, e.g.
how many hours of class time does it typically take a student with a 226
CASAS Math score to prepare for the GED Test?  Thanks for any help you
can give me on this.
Pat Handy

Pat Handy
410-749-3217
Coordinator, Wicomico County Adult Learning Center
Philmore Commons, Salisbury

Confidentiality Note: 
This message may contain confidential information intended only for the
use of the person named above and may contain communication protected by
law.  If you have received this message in error, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of
this message is prohibited and you are requested to notify the sender
immediately at his/her electronic mail.

>>> khinson at future-gate.com 11/29/05 2:38 PM >>>

I just finished reading the emails related to this discussion. 
Personally, I'm not sure I like fast track programs at all although I
understand the dire need some of our students are in when it comes to
attaining their GED. It's almost as if it's a competition to "complete"
the most students, especially when like in NC, we are moving to
performance based funding.  The number of GED Graduates has a direct
impact on the amount of funding received. If what I've learned is
correct, not only does it affect the funding we have at the state level
but also at the federal level. With this kind of pressure, programs are
bound to feel a strong need to "complete" a student - regardless of how
and in some cases to how well educated the student leaves the program.  

That said, I think there is a need for a "fast track" in some cases. It
really depends on the needs and goals of the student.  That doesn't mean
an instructor should sacrifice "knowledge" for a "test". I agree with
Dr. Mumford comments in that students often are in such a hurry to
"finish" that they rush and end up not having learned anything.
Sometimes that "rush" feeling is prompted by outside factors out side of
the school or basic skills program. I've encountered Department of
Social Services workers who want a student to finish in X number of
weeks or hours and who have no knowledge or understanding that a student
may not be academically ready to do so. They don't understand that a
student coming into a program at  say a 3.9 or 5.1 TABE level may or may
not be able to learn everything they need to know in such a short time
span. I've encountered colleagues who commented that if  I was worried
about completion numbers and had DSS students in my class, that if I
called the social worker they'd pull them out of class and replace them
with someone who would finish. For me, it's not all about numbers. I
understand and respect the need to meet performance standards as it
relates to funding but I'm more concerned with ensuring that my students
leave my class with SKILLs not just to pass the GED Test but to make
them successful beyond my class whether they go to college or whether
they enter the workforce.

Each student that comes into my class has his or her own individual
goals and needs. If I know a student does not plan to immediately attend
college but rather to enter the workforce,  and depending on the
assessment outcomes of instructor made assessment material other than
the TABE, I will work to move a student as quickly as he or she
demonstrates capability.  I definitely don't want to hinder a student
from putting a roof over his or her head or finding a job, at the same
time, I want them to be able to move beyond a low paying, low skill
minimum wage job. If they don't have a solid foundation academically,
even if they are stopping with the GED - they are limited in terms of
accessing or attaining their full potential.

AT the moment, it feels like there is no balance and a definite lack of
understanding by those that develop state and national policies  for the
process and barriers faced by an adult learner.  There seems to be a
disconnect between the classroom and the policies themselves. 

We require students to pass the Official GED Practice test. I have found
that the Practice Test is a good indicator of a students ability to pass
the GED test. My school requires that a student attain a 500 or better
on the practice test - this guideline is flexible to some degree.  In
the long run, I have been able to see that the stronger a person's
practice test score the better he/she peforms on the actual test, not
all the time but the majority of the time. Conversely, the weaker a
student's practice test scores, the weaker he/she may do.  

While there may be a need to want to see student's "employed" and
"completed"  one of the goals should also to develop an "educated
citizenry" that can actively shape his or her own future and the lives
of those they are around - to educate people to be active participants
in their community, schools, churches etc....to educate students to the
voices they do have and to teach them to use that voice proactively in
their own lives and the lives of their families - it's about giving
students the necessary skills to succeed in MULTIPLE facets of their
lives.  It's NOT just about "passing the test".  Without real knowledge
- without giving our students the skills they need to think critically,
analytically etc - we are doing them a disservice.  If all we're after
is fast tracking them towards a "GED" certificate - it would seem to me,
we're only applying a band aid to the problems associated with low
literacy skills.

That's my two cents on the issue.


_______________________________________________
National Insitute for Literacy
Assessment mailing list
Assessment at dev.nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
http://dev.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment