The position I hold was the first of its kind in Virginia. In the summer of 1993, I joined the staff of Virginia's first Day Reporting Center (DRC). My responsibilities include teaching basic literacy, GED prep, and affective domain lifeskills to offenders in Fairfax County. I am employed 30 hours per week for a maximum of 1500 hours per year. Although I am the only educator at this facility, I am supported by a principal in Harrisonburg and central office staff for the Department of Correctional Education (DCE) in Richmond. I am accountable to them and have always been able to call on them for help, resources, training, and advice. However, in the day to day operation of the program, I'm pretty much on my own.

Offenders are mandated into our program either by the parole board, judges, or parole/probation officers. Referrals seem to come in waves, but basically clients are entering and exiting our program on a weekly basis. Once in the program, they may stay as long as a year. We usually have 85 to 90 students, mostly male. Most are substance abusers, which greatly complicates educational issues. In addition to intensive supervision and my services, clients receive on-site drug treatment and monitoring. They also have the services of a social worker who specializes in offenders' issues. Quite frankly, with all these agencies vying for the opportunity to provide services for these clients, education is usually not a priority for them.

Students meet with me either in my office or in a large conference room which doubles as a classroom and meeting room for other groups. If the large room is available, as it is during my Monday and Wednesday morning sessions (10:30 - 12:00), students sit at a 2' x 4' table to work. The floor is carpeted and the furnishings are modern. (However, I must note that one student recently complained that he could not work because there are no pictures on the wall!) Sometimes we are disturbed by parole officers who use the room as a passageway to their offices beyond. Staff members can be heard laughing and talking in an open area near the room.

On Monday and Wednesday evenings (5:30 - 7:00), GED students must use my office because other groups are meeting in the large room. There are plans to move my group into an open reception area adjacent to the meeting room, but so far the class has remained small enough that a move hasn't been necessary. If we move to the open area, I will not have access to a copy machine or to my office where materials are stored during class. At this writing there are six people regularly attending the morning class, and an average of three in the evenings. My office is extremely cramped with more than this number, but it works well enough with only three learners. At times, when there has been a fourth in attendance, I have had to station him at a desk in the open area outside my office. I leave the door open partly for security reasons, but mostly because it's just plain stuffy with four people. Unfortunately, sound carries extremely well through the duct system, and we can often hear and understand what is being said in the group meetings across the hall as well as in conversations between surveillance officers and offenders.

I often have a difficult time getting started on time. Clients are frequently late, only to arrive and be further delayed in order to leave a urine test. This entails waiting until a Department of Corrections staff member is free to administer the test. I've lost as much as half an hour of available time for this reason. Consequently, I never wait until all expected clients have arrived to begin class. If someone arrives five or ten minutes early, I begin the testing procedure as soon as possible, but the student may then be disturbed by the arrival of another student.

Assessment Interviews

New clients' first exposure to the DRC is through an orientation with one of the parole/probation officers. They then enter the assessment phase of the program, during which they are interviewed by the social worker, the substance abuse counselors, and me. Just before the interview I read the client's Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) report which includes information about education prior to incarceration (for a parolee) or prior to sentencing (if on probation). Often this information is outdated and at times is in error. The investigator attempts to verify diplomas or certificates, but this is not always possible. When I interview the client I attempt to update or correct this information. I must do this for every client who enters our program, no matter what educational credentials are claimed ( i.e. college degree, high school diploma, or GED.)

Over the years I have developed a list of questions to determine the suitability of my program for these clients:
What was your last grade completed in public education?
Do you already have a GED?
Have you ever worked toward a GED? Taken the GED test or practice test? If yes, what were your scores? (I usually have to request these from the DOE in Richmond.)
Were you ever in Special Education classes?
If so, for how much of the school day?
How do you feel about working toward the GED?
Which were your best subjects when you worked on the GED?
Which gave you the most trouble?
Which subtests had the highest or lowest scores?
What are your other commitments? (to determine class placement.)

As an assessment tool, these interviews serve many purposes. They make me aware of a potential student's commitment to further education, attitude towards working on a GED, and general education and functional literacy levels. For example, if a client brings in numerous certificates awarded for skill mastery or for attendance in an adult education program I know that this is an individual who values learning. If a client carries a novel and has been reading in the waiting room, I know I have an individual who will succeed. Thus, informal subjective assessment has a real place in my adult education program.

If I am able to obtain current (within the last year) information about previous adult education programs or test results, I usually will not do further testing on intake, but place a student at the level indicated by this information. This works well with parolees who have recently been in DCE programs in state prisons and have therefore taken either the TABE , GED, or the practice GED. Local adult education programs are also helpful. (But wouldn't it be wonderful to have a central computer network with test scores on any adult in the state who had been enrolled in an adult education program?)

Once a client has been interviewed by the three service providers, and the staff agrees that the DRC program is suitable, an individualized contract is signed. This contract spells out what services will be received and what the student's responsibilities are. Technically if a student fails to follow through with these responsibilities, a sanction may be issued.

One factor that I feel has an impact on every aspect of my program including assessment is that most of our clients are substance abusers. This impacts my program in several ways that I can directly observe, and in many that I cannot. My students may be under the influence when they arrive, may be in withdrawal, may be sent to detox or residential treatment. I'm never really sure what their true ability is, and how much affect drugs have on their performance. (One substance abuse counselor told me I should be sure to test addicts when they are under the influence as they perform better then.)

Assessment Testing

Based on the interview and information in the DCE file, I may elect to administer either a practice GED or the TABE. This may take two or three sessions depending on the client's employment, use of public transportation, participation in groups, or other issues. This is not a problem, as I see it, as our clients tend to have limited attention spans and don't do well in sessions lasting over about 75 minutes. Testing is done in my office or in the large conference room. I have never had to test more than two students at one time; but I often have to test one or more students while others are working. Since I have no aides, this does get a little difficult.

If my interview has indicated a need, I acquaint the learner with the GED or the TABE before testing. I explain the kind of material covered, the length of time required to take both the GED and the practice test, and Virginia's requirements for passing. Especially for literacy level clients, I spend time trying to make them more comfortable with the test. I try to make all prospective students feel it is a method of allowing us to be more efficient in our use of time by letting us skip material already mastered.

Most recently I have been giving just the TABE Locator test if a learner seems to be on the literacy level. I feel it gives me enough information without exhausting the learner with hours and hours of test-taking. These same students will be given the entire TABE in August and again in December, so I don't feel they are "slighted" in any way.

For those students who have been working on their GED elsewhere but have no scores, I had been giving the Practice GED test. However, that test is extremely time-consuming to grade, as it must be done by hand. It indicates only that an individual should study for a particular sub-test. To correlate each question to a skill and subject area—analysis/economics, for example—is prohibitively time-consuming; however, I have done just that for math. Another disadvantage to the Practice GED is the shortness of the test.

Recently, I have been administering a number of the "predictor tests" from the front of study books. These have the advantage of providing charts which correlate each question to both reading skill and subject area. I go over the completed test with the student and fill in the chart with the areas in which further study is needed. Usually these charts indicate the pages in the book where each skill is taught. I explain this to the student and we discuss a "plan of attack" for developing these skills (i.e. the order in which they should be done, whether the learner will go straight through or intersperse math with other subjects, whether work will be done at home or only at the DRC, and my expectations of what will occur during class.)

Informal Assessment

Assessment does not end with the completion of tests. As many of my colleagues in the study group and outside it have said, assessment is on-going. I illustrate this with a student who is new to my program. Stacy is a 38 year old woman who is working on her GED in my morning class. Right now her concentration is on math. Her pretest, the practice GED, revealed mastery of basic math, but some problems beginning with decimals. However, as she began working in this area, I quickly realized that she had forgotten operations with fractions—something she got right on the test. I was able to make that determination because I assessed each problem as she did it during her first few days in class.

This process of informal assessment is so well integrated into the teaching/learning process that I never really analyzed it until now. Upon reflection, I realized how the assessment occurred. I was able to learn which skills Stacy lacked by the questions she asked and by the kinds of mistakes she made. The formal test didn't give me this information; in fact, the formal test was somewhat misleading. Through immediate, ongoing informal assessment I was able to determine that this learner didn't know how to divide fractions even though she had gotten questions dealing with changing decimals to fractions right on the formal assessment.

Time

The time it takes to assess one student is determined mainly by that student's level of academic competence. Generally speaking, the lower the functioning level of the learner, the more time it takes for the administration of the test. For a literacy level learner, it typically takes me an hour or more of one-on-one involvement in initial assessment. For a GED student, it takes 4 hours of the student's time to take the practice test; however, I spend about five minutes at the beginning of each subtest (for a total of 25 minutes) with the student. I keep time and check that the student is following directions but carry out other tasks while the student is working on the test.

Conclusion

How does assessment affect learning/teaching in my practice?
Identifying strengths and weaknesses allows me to set objectives for the learner; determining a present level of performance guides me in the selection of materials; and isolating gaps in previous learning or identifying things the learner has forgotten tells me when to let a learner work independently, when to step in with help, or when to take another approach in explanation.

I have always valued formal assessment as a validation of teaching/learning, for accountability to funders and other authorities, and as a validation for my learners and myself. However, reflecting on the assessment process (as this study group has forced me to do), has convinced me of the importance of informal ongoing assessment that is done on a daily basis. As the example of Stacy illustrates, the measurement of the time spent in on-going informal assessment is impossible to pin down. It is woven so intricately into the fabric of day-to-day instruction that you don't even realize that assessment is taking place or is assessment. However, this type of assessment provides information that is at least as valuable as that provided by the more formal kind. The information is immediate and so is your response to it. It has the greatest impact on learning, for through it the instructor prevents learner frustration and burn-out, changes materials or approaches, provides explanations, encourages, or leaves the student to accomplish on his own. The information derived from informal assessment can never be measured, but it is the real substance of adult education.

Postscript

While my principle job is with DCE at the Day Reporting Center, I also have significant experience assessing adults' educational needs outside that setting. From January of 1994 until July of 1995 I served as a learning disabilities consultant for the Literacy Council of Northern Virginia. My job was to administer an assessment to learners who, in the opinion of their volunteer tutor, were not making progress. I administered a test devised by the Greater Richmond Literacy Council called the "Adult Screening Key" based on the "Screening Test for Adults With Learning Difficulties."

I administered this test one-on-one to about 50 learners during that time. Administering the test took 50 to 70 minutes. Checking it took another 30 minutes. When that was done, I interpreted the results and wrote a one-page report advising the tutor which modalities were strongest for the student. I also recommended specific teaching strategies the tutor could use with the student, and sometimes suggested a change in materials. I provided the tutor with an independent reading grade level, an instructional level, and the student's frustration level. Writing the report took from 1 to 1 1/2 hours for each learner. After the tutor had time to read it, we met for about an hour to discuss the contents.

I also interviewed the learner about interests, hobbies, and desire to read better. I found that talking with these learners revealed much about their learning strengths and weaknesses. For example, a woman who likes to sew and knit would be a good tactile learner. One talented in music would be strong auditorily. As I administered the formal portion of the test, it almost always bore this out. Again the informal assessment proved at least as valuable as the formal one.

Linda Mattson
Fairfax County Day Reporting Center