Establish the soundness of current assessment techniques. Use and evaluate a greater variety of assessment tools; emphasize assessment of non-academic areas. Increase adult education resources as they support assessment practices.

Recommendations for Assessment Practices When the Assessment Study Group gathered for our final meeting on June 20, 1997, we brought with us our written reports, our still unanswered questions, and our new questions about assessment practices in Virginia. We discussed these questions and some possible answers, envisioning an adult education environment conducive to systematic yet flexible assessment practice. We arrived at three main recommendations regarding adult education assessment practices in Virginia: 1. Establish the Soundness of Current Assessment Techniques. 2. Use and Evaluate a Greater Variety of Assessment Tools; Emphasize Assessment of Non-Academic Areas. 3. Increase Adult Education Resources as they Support Assessment Practices. Recommendation 1: Establish the Soundness of Current Assessment Techniques. The Assessment Group raised a variety of questions about assessment practices currently in use. A comparison of the practices and instruments used across the group provoked a call for more information and training on assessment tools. Questions focusing on the issue of dity or "soundness" of the current assessments include: 1. Is there really a way to evaluate whether current assessment methods are effective? 2. Is there any common ground regarding assessment or is each practitioner doing something different?" 3. Is the assessment aligned with learners' goals? 4. Once the goal setting process has been completed, who's goals and objectives are really being assessed? 5. Are we only assessing what certain assessments assess, or are we truly measuring progress toward appropriate learning objectives? 6. Do our current practices mesh with EFF's framework of 4 fundamental purposes for learning in the context of real world roles? Do they mesh with conclusions of the Performance Indicator retreat and with the goals of the HELIX initiative? 7. Do we need statewide testing standards? Descriptions of our own uses of "standardized" tests gave rise to many questions about the TABE and other standardized instruments: 8. To what degree are standardized tests being administered in a "standardized" way? 9. Is there a right or a wrong way to give a published, standardized instrument? 10. How important is adherence to time limits with standardized instruments? Some teachers time the TABE and some don't. How do these differences impact learners, teachers, programs, a state's accountability system, and a community's understanding of adult education services? Questions regarding the validity of current standardized instruments also focused on the STEPS process. We suggest that an evaluation of this process should focus on the following questions: 11. Are teachers and learners currently using STEPS? If so, how? 12. Does the STEPS process collect the information that we need and want to know? 13. Is it being implemented systematically in programs and across the state? Our other questions focused on the teacher's role in the assessment process: 14. Who decides what is an appropriate learning objective? 15. If the teacher alone identifies learning objectives and/or assessment methods, how valid are they? 16. Who decides when a student's initial testing (pre-post formal assessment) occurs? Recommendation 2: Use and Evaluate a Greater Variety of Assessment Tools; Emphasize assessment of non-academic areas. Group members expressed a keen interest in learning about assessment techniques and tools other than what we currently use. Though alternative formal and informal measures are included, we have a special interest in developing ways to document learning and achievement in terms other than reading, writing, and math, i.e., tools that assess the acquisition of life skills and changes in attitudes and behavior. The study group hopes that the State Office will officially adopt additional and alternative means of assessing growth and change. We would like to have a wider variety of "authorized" tools from which to choose. We want to know which instruments are appropriate, which are available, and how to get them. We suggest that someone compile and present a comprehensive overview of currently available assessment materials. The group is also concerned with who will help implement new techniques and who will provide on-going support. Exploratory activities could come in the form of regional workshops/institutes, individual research projects, and focus and study groups. The following questions relate to any investigation of new assessment materials and techniques: 1. What areas of growth should we be assessing in addition to or instead of what we are already documenting? 2. How credible are informal assessments? 3. Do we have a common understanding of what is meant by informal, authentic and standardized assessment? 4. Can we find a systematic way and a common language in which to communicate the accomplishments of all adult learners, i.e., those who are participating in family literacy and ABE programs with those who are incarcerated or learning the English language? 5. When and how could the bubble sheet become a more flexible, inclusive reporting form? And again: 6. Will these practices mesh with EFF's framework of 4 fundamental purposes for learning in the context of real world roles? Will they mesh with conclusions of the Performance Indicator retreat and with the goals of the HELIX initiative? Recommendation 3: Increase Adult Education Resources as they Support Assessment Practices The Study Group expressed the need for more training and professional development opportunities and raised the following questions related to education resources (i.e., time and money) as they support assessment: 1. Should someone other than the teacher be responsible for assessment/testing, e.g., para-professional/instructional assistants? 2. Should assessors be paid on a per student basis? 3. What policies exist regarding the number of student hours per teaching hour, and how do these policies impact teaching and learning? 4. What impact will initiatives such as HELIX and EFF have on existing programs that operate without a corps of full-time teachers or adequate facilities? 5. Can teachers who are only paid for hours of instruction be expected to keep up with and acquire new knowledge about best practices? 6. Can programs consistently deliver results that matter given the inconsistencies across the system with regard to frequency and intensity of services?