Oct-26-2003 9:37 PM Message
1 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: DJRosen
The second part of our
discussion begins Monday, October 27th, and continues through Friday, November
7th.
In this part we will focus on:
¥ defining specific student subgroups based on instructional need
and goal, and
¥ design of the Òbaseline models.Ó
The two questions are:
1. How would you fit students into subgroups?
2. What would models look like for each?
Oct-27-2003 5:51 PM Message
2 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: DJRosen
Reply to: DJRosen
[ Message 1 ]
Since no one has
responded yet to this part of the discussion, I wonder if the questions are
clear, or anyone feels more elaboration is needed.
Oct-28-2003 10:22 AM Message 3 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: andresmuro
Reply to: DJRosen
[ Message 2 ]
Yes, I'm not sure I
understand the questions, can you ellaborate? Thnx,
Andres
Oct-30-2003 1:46 PM Message
4 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: Marg.Rose
Reply to: andresmuro
[ Message 3 ]
In our province, we
track accountability by the use of an articulated series of Stages in Adult
learning, that acts as a portfolio of student learning. It is now accredited to
be 2 credits in a Mature High School diploma. You can click on this link, and
search for the Stages in Learning levels 1 through 4 which are roughly
equivalent to IALS stages ( your NALS) as well.
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/aet/all/index/html
Also, in Canada, we are now calling for a pan-Canadian accord on
adult learning. Go to www.literacy.ca and you'll see our lobbying efforts. We
want to position adult literacy as a legitimate part of the educational
spectrum. It is grossly underfunded in Canada, drawing on charitable groups,
volunteers, and project funding, around a bare core of ongoing delivery
supports. In our province of 1.3 million people, there are 35 community based
programs that have an average of $33,000 each to deliver adult literacy--that
is supposed to cover teachers, overhead, learner supports, etc. My question to
the rest of you is: how do we motivate the public to see literacy as a legitimate
pursuit, since only 2% step forward into programs?
Oct-30-2003 2:39 PM Message
5 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: curriculumresearcher
Reply to: Marg.Rose
[ Message 4 ]
I would agree, that at
$33000 a year, adult literacy in Canada is grossly under funded.
I believe, there is a need to develop a multi-pronged approach
when educating the public about literacy. First, I think you need data; what
are the costs to society when literacy levels are low, health, crime, and
employment rates, etc. Emotional appeal is good also; what quality of life is
the government promoting by such a low level of investment. It is also
important to have "developed intuitions" understand and promote
learning as a life long process. Equally important, literacy consumers need to
advocate for themselves.
Oct-30-2003
6:39 PM Message 6 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: sanstr
Reply to: curriculumresearcher
[ Message 5 ]
From my perspective,
the complexity of the questions posed in this part of the discussion makes it
difficult to respond. Nonetheless, I'd like to offer a few thoughts from a
practitioner perspective.
I like what Alisa said about simultaneously establishing an
evidence based system and identifying program models. These two steps seem
mutually reinforcing and a necessary prerequisite to a deeper investigation of
other program elements. I won't repeat what I said in part 1 of this
discussion, except to reiterate that I simply don't know the most effective way
to group learners for a given outcome. The model we use is a funny combination
of the K-12 system and the NRS levels -- unless it's in a rural area or
specific workplace setting in which case everyone's in the same pot of soup
regardless of educational level or goal or English language ability.
Ideally, I'd start by identifying broad learner subgroups that
practitioners deal with every day such as job seekers (at a local one-stop) or
English language learners (at a cultural or community center) or 1st level
learners (at a literacy council) or GED students (in a high school program). In
my experience, there is often a correlation between setting and subgroup (which
in and of itself suggests some interesting areas for investigation). This is
the raw customer base that pracititoners have to work with on a daily basis so it
only makes sense to me that this is where implementation (and investigation)
begins.
If, for example, you start with job seekers at a local one-stop
center, it would be very interesting to look at learning gains, goal
attainment, and customer satisfaction with learners grouped according to career
clusters versus learners grouped according to academic levels. Or, if you start
with a school-based GED program, it might be intersting to look at learning
gains, goal attainment, and customer satisfaction with learners grouped
according to variables such as academic level (the old standard); age (our
16-21 year old students talk about this often); comfort with, and access to,
technology in the home that can be used for extended learning; interest in
post-secondary education.
I think regardless of how you start, it's important just to start.
If you create the partnership between researchers and practitioners and both
groups bring their expertise to a particular program context, the model will
emerge. I don't think it's possible to find a theoretical model of practice
that can be replicated anywhere regardless of local context. Creating and
documenting baseline models would become the first order of business in an
evidence-based partnership between researchers and practitioners at the local
level.
Sandy Strunk
Oct-30-2003 6:54 PM Message
7 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: DJRosen
Reply to: DJRosen [ Message 1 ]
Andres has asked for
clarification on:
"In this part we will focus on:
¥ defining specific student subgroups based on instructional need
and goal, and
¥ design of the Òbaseline models.Ó
The two questions are:
1. How would you fit students into subgroups?
2. What would models look like for each? "
Perhaps we could look at it this way:
what groups/kinds/types of students do you think we should study
(first), groups with what kinds of instructional needs and goals? For example,
should we study ESOL SPL level 1 and 2 students whose goal is "learn
English" ? Or whose goal is "get U.S. citizenship," or whose
goals include those and possibly others such as "talk with a doctor or
nurse on the telephone," or "get a driver's license" or.....?
What are the pros and cons of studying groups of beginning level ESOL students?
Suppose you had $10M for adult education research over 5 years, and it were up
to you (anyone reading this) how to spend this? What group(s) with what needs
and goals would you choose and why?
Oct-31-2003 7:48 PM Message
8 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: 4128st
Reply to: DJRosen
[ Message 7 ]
Just to start
discussions. I would, if I had the dollars, start a group with goals as
priority in this order 1. wanting to learn english, 2.filling out government
forms, , applications to vote, bank statements, resumes etc. work related
skills, math skills etc. 4 culture events or community event particpation. I
have worked with both Vietmanese and Thai boat people and some do want to keep
their old ways, but learning english is a big hurdle for some. Imagine the
grade schooler learning english in school and the parents not wanting to change
or one parent not wanting to change to our ways. This is a real challege in
rural communities. More emphasis is needed here, to learn English. If I had the
dollars,I'd give them a stipend to learn English or a reward or sugar coat them
into it. We pay for much more crazy things in government than this. Lets put
the dollars where we want things to succeed.
Nov-3-2003 10:23 AM Message 9 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: mariecora
Reply to: 4128st
[ Message 8 ]
I think the better way
to think about group type is not about the student per se, but about WHY the
student comes to a program. It's the conversation with the student about what
they need from us that helps me think about a structure ('model?') for them.
It's not enough to know that a person "wants to improve their
English" - it's not helpful, not specific enough, too broad. So I guess
I'm saying that I see content driven models as being more successful than
'learning theory' models. There needs to be a particular outcome, that is
reached through a particular avenue.
I worked for a couple years teaching English Through Drama in NY
in the 80s. Even though it was a multilevel class (14 students, 9 languages,
levels ranging from 0 English to native-speaker-like conversations about world
politics) everyone of those students produced and learned at whatever level
they were at. The reason: they cared so much about the play they were writing
and the actors that they were creating that the language was in a way
irrelevant to them - it could have been Martian, but they needed it and they
used it, and they succeeded with it.
So for me, I think that we should examine programs where some of
this phenomenon happens (and it happens everywhere: in citizen classes, women's
groups, special interest stuff). We say all the time that what's important is
to find out what's important to the student, that that is where the motivation,
drive, interest, and understanding comes from. But for some reason, I feel like
an awful lot of what gets developed is based on a theoretical model of how to
acquire basic skills.
Nov-3-2003 5:46 PM Message 10 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: DJRosen
Reply to: mariecora
[ Message 9 ]
Let's hear from some
practitioners on this issue Marie Cora has posed. I would like to re-frame
Marie's "I think the better way to think about group type is not about the
student per se, but about WHY the student comes to a program" this way:
What reasons/purposes/goals that students' have for coming to
programs would you like to see program models address? Which adult learner
purposes would you like to see as starting points for program model research?
For example, any of these below?
Program models designed to help:
1. adult native speakers of English (at a basic literacy level)
who want to learn to read and write;
2. adult immigrants who want to learn to understand and speak
English (at a beginning level;)
3. adults who want to get their GED or adult diploma;
4. adults who want to improve their basic reading and writing
skills so they can enter/succeed in a professional certificate program (such as
an early childhood education, classroom paraprofessional, LPN or other
certificate program required to keep or get a particular kind of job;)
5. adults who want to be able to read to their children or
grandchildren; or
6. adults who have a GED or diploma who want to prepare for
college.
What's missing from this list? With which student
purposes/goals/reasons should we start first as we think about program models
to study?
David J. Rosen
EBAE discussion work group moderator
Nov-3-2003 6:34 PM Message 11 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: andresmuro
Reply to: mariecora
[ Message 9 ]
Hi Mariecora. I agree
with what you are saying, and part of the work has to do with knowing who your
students are. In our program, we serve mostly middle aged Mexican women. When
we ask why they come, they say: "to learn English or to get the GED" Nobody
says that they want to get treatment for diabetes, to move to the shelter for
battered women, or to transition to college. Yet, we understand that these may
be needs for some of our students and we create spaces for them to explore
these needs.
so, if someone discovers that they have diabetes and starts to get
treatment, we consider this a positive outcome. If someone happens to be an
abused spouse and and moves to the shelter, or if someone decides to go to
college, we consider these as positive outcomes.
Of course, nobody gives us credit for these outcomes, however, we
feel that they represent literacy behaviors that are more important than just
passing a standardized test. Also, in many cases, these outcomes may occur, but
we may never find out.
Andres
Nov-4-2003 8:05 AM Message 12 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: HSilverP
Reply to: DJRosen
[ Message 10 ]
David, I understand
that we need some parameters with which to start collecting data. However, I
would be hesitant to use the goals and/or needs that learners state as they
come into programs as a parameter. Education is largely about learning what
there is to learn and finding out what you are interested in and eligible for.
A very big part of the learning that happens in ABLE is that people grow in
their goals, their understanding of needs and rights, and their worldview. We
talk about this type of learning regularly, as Andres did in his post, but it
is very difficult to capture in quantitative research. I'd much rather see
baseline data reflect things like:
a) literacy skills and habits (use V. Purcell-Gates's NCSALL work)
b) self perception/self efficacy
c) knowledge of and use of community resources for which a person
is eligible (we could at least start with health resources, there is plenty of
literacy/health research to draw from)
d) ways of knowing/ways of learning (Robert Kegan's NCSALL work)
These parameters obviously will take more time to elicit and
establish than a checklist of goals, but those incoming goals are often way off
base to what the true growth is in the educational endeavor.
Nov-4-2003
9:54 AM Message 13 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: atrawick
Reply to: DJRosen
[ Message 10 ]
(long response)
I may be getting too basic here, but I canÕt help but think we
need to be systematic in deciding which sub-groups to focus our first baseline
models around. Here are a few things that have occurred to me:
1) First of all, we need to ask, ÒWhat do we know about how we are
serving certain sub-groups of students?Ó This might be a little tricky. Several
years ago when I was on the administrative end of things in an ABE/GED program,
the NRS was touted as a tool that would help us make data-based decisions.
However, in working with programs/states over the last few years, IÕve been rather
amazed at how difficult it is to actually use NRS data for this purpose. For
instance, IÕve been principally curious in what we know about how students
entering at different NRS levels are achieving in reading (i.e., do
intermediate readers seem to make the most progress, or do the beginning
readers?) With professional development dollars limited, decisions have to be
made at times about what level of reading instruction we want to focus on. It
seems to me that making this decision would be helped by knowing where the
strengths and gaps are in reading achievement and then seeing if this is
related to the instruction occurring in the classrooms. Even if the TABE and
CASAS provide limited information, they do have something to contribute (when
used with other measures as well). However, the inconsistencies with the ways
these assessments are administered affect with what confidence one can
interpret the scores. Even more problematic, is that IÕm finding that states
find it difficult, if not impossible, to disaggregate the math scores from the
reading scores for each Educational Functioning Level. *And*, many programs
don't even report reading scores for students--they either enter the lowest
score only, usually math, or the score that will show growth the most easily
(also math). But surely there is a way for us to determine how different
sub-groups are progressing within the larger system, and that seems like a good
place to start.
2) Once we know which groups of students we are serving well/not
so well, I would want to consider, ÒDo we want to focus on our strengths or our
gaps, as a system?Ó In other words, if we find that we do pretty well with GED
candidates, we could identify how and why through the baseline models and
perpetuate these. Or, we might also find that we do an abysmal job with our
intermediate students. Perhaps we need to focus our attentions there. SIDE
NOTE: I think a powerful alternative to the paperÕs plan to develop baseline
models would be to somehow identify programs/states that have consistently had
success with a particular sub-group and do a grounded study of what aspects of
these programs contribute to the high achievement. A baseline model would then
be built around the findings.
3) A third question might be, Are there political consequences to
consider? For instance, to ensure continued program funding, does the field
need to beef up its capacity to ensure that students who have work goals are
meeting those, or that ESOL students are learning English and passing the
citizenship test? Issues of whoÕs going to fund the research might be relevant
as wellÑwho has money to pay for these studies and what are they interested in?
These are just a few ideas, but I do think that determining the
criteria would be a reasonable first step.
This is an important discussion. Thank you, David, for
facilitating.
Amy Trawick
Nov-4-2003 8:48 PM Message 14 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: DJRosen
Reply to: atrawick
[ Message 13 ]
In a posting on
October 28th to the NIFL-AALPD electronic list, Heide Wrigley wrote "It
would be great to find models where different service provider[s] in a
community work together to lay out [a] service map of sorts and then offer some
joint orientations that let students see where the best place for them might
be. "
The adult learning context for Heide's comment was ESL/ESOL
learning. For example, she refers to: "community colleges [which] offer low
level ESL/ABE classes and then transition students to credit classes,"
"basic literacy," and "accelerated learning models that focus
English for Special Purposes (certification)"
For a large urban area, where many different models can exist, an
adult education "service map" (perhaps with counseling in the native
language) might be a good step to help programs as well as potential students
get clear about how the program models differ from each other with regard to:
kinds of students served, levels, students' goals and purposes, intended
program outcomes, and program philosophy or approach. Several models within
this system of services could be studied. There could be parallel growth
between a system of comprehensive services and a system of evidence-based adult
education research, with the goal of improving the system of services as well
as the models within the system.
Nov-4-2003 9:34 PM Message 15 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: DJRosen
Reply to: DJRosen
[ Message 14 ]
Replying to Heide
Wrigley's message on NIFL-AALPD, Sara Martinez, from El Paso Community College,
offers what I think is a clearly articulated model (copied below). I would be
interested to see other -- perhaps very different -- models described here,
especially models which show promise for study.
David J. Rosen
____________________________________________
From: "Sara Martinez"
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2003 3:49:38 PM US/Eastern
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:784] Re: Question for Sara M.
Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov
Heide, the farm worker retraining program is designed with the
sponsoring organization's goal in mind, which is to provide the students with
the necessary English and construction skills to be able to obtain an entry
level job in the trade. Students attend classes eight hours a day, five days
per week. Again, the design is centered on the requirements of the sponsor so
that the students are able to receive minimum wage stipends for eight hours
while attending school. The average farm worker in our classes earns $3,500 per
year prior to the retraining and after completion of the 20 week training they
are employed earning anywhere from $6.50 to $9.75 per hour. After the goals of
the sponsor are met in the design, the specific needs of the population are
integrated. The program is composed of three phases: Phase I) instruction is
conducted in Spanish and is composed of study skills with some leadership
modules, GED, and technology literacy; Phase II) instruction is conduc!
ted bilingually and is composed of 4-hours of construction and
4-hours of VESL, math (which includes document reading such as interpreting
blue prints, measurements, and other job specific tasks), and technology
literacy; Phase III) three months of on-the-job training with a construction
company. The components of Phase I and III are modified according to the needs
of the students and funding available.
Key Elements: 1) Committed partnerships with sponsoring
organizations
2) A
thorough understanding of the goal of the program
by all of the stakeholders
3) Coordination
of very frequent meetings by the instructors in the construction and the VESL,
Math and computers.
4) The
components of the program provide a combination of classroom instruction and
hands-on training.
5) The
outcomes are a finished home in 20 weeks with the majority of the students
employed.
What I have learned from the farm workers and workplace literacy
programs is that professional development is essential. We pay instructors to
attend PD and for developing materials. Instructional strategies can be learned
to address a diverse population or a bilingual one and good follow-up on the
implementation of the strategies in the classroom is another key element. The
instructors in our area are "ambassadors of tact and knowledge" in
the classroom and at the worksites. These ambassadors make or break an entire
program. The bread and butter of customized programs are repeat business. Based
on intuition and experience, instructors are the number one motivators and
creators or destroyers of dreams for a fragile population. We also use
consultants who are experts in leadership development. By raising the self-esteem
of our students, the use of the language outside the classroom is more evident
(this was reported by employers). I am thoroughly enjoying the PD di!
scussions on-line, and I am just thrilled to have discovered this
new world of knowledge. Thank you all for such a candid and informal approach
to sharing.
Sara Martinez
Workplace Literacy
El Paso Community College
saram@epcc.edu
Nov-5-2003
4:50 PM Message 16 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: BOP6751
Reply to: DJRosen
[ Message 15 ]
We are working on a
design for a literacy model for the Bureau of Prisons that will satisfy
CongressÕ mandate to provide inmates with literacy instruction leading to a GED
and to help them prepare for re-entering society. I do not see these two
fundamental purposes as comprehensive, and I see the need to accommodate
learner-centered purposes as critical. SaraÕs comment Òafter the goals of the sponsor
are met, the specific needs of the population are integratedÓ was helpful.
We make grouping decisions about literacy learners in our system
based on three broad criteria:
(1) Does the learner speak sufficient English to function in an
English-based literacy class, or does he/she need to be placed in ESOL or the
Spanish literacy program?
(2) How does he/she perform on component tests of literacy and
language? (We plan on applying Strucker & DavidsonÕs Adult Reading
Components findings to this project in the near future.)
(3) How much time does the inmate have left to serve, and which
re-entry needs (e.g., housing, health literacy, finances, employment,
transportation, family-related concerns, parenting support, survival reading,
drug treatment...) are most pressing.
We probably will not group inmates based on their learner-centered
goals. Rather, I see these deeply personal (and powerful) goals integrated into
the program they way Sara described earlier.
-Bill Muth
Nov-6-2003 3:30 PM Message 17 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: mariecora
Reply to: BOP6751
[ Message 16 ]
Actually, I would not
use the goals learners state as parameters for determining baseline components
or program models either. All I'm saying is that I think it's not the person we
need to look at, but why they come (their purpose, as David put it). David, you
asked what purposes, then, program models should address, and then you list out
a number of common education practices in ABE. What that makes me ask myself
is: well, how can we study what the successful common elements of each of these
programs are that you list? Wouldn't that yield at least one promising practice
that we can then say all programs should really contain? The problem, and it's
large: how do we first identify which are the programs that should be looked at
for those common elements. It's that chicken/egg/circle thing.
Finally to Andres: you say that no one gives you credit for
capturing "unanticipated goals" (getting diabetes treatment, getting
to a shelter or to higher ed) - perhaps this is something that your state might
be willing to look at? In Massachusetts, unanticipated goals (sorry, I think
this is Massachusetts-speak) are collected and it is acknowledged that this is
highly important. The result or impact of reporting unanticipated outcomes in
Mass. is not earth-shattering: you don't get more money or gold certificates or
whatever. But it is not lost on the monitoring system - that is where it is
recorded.
Nov-7-2003 12:25 PM Message 18 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: mariedoerner
Reply to: mariecora
[ Message 17 ]
A question I always
ask students coming into my program is why now? I believe that whatever has
motivated students to come to school is going to have an effect on how
successful they will be. Often, they are in a junction in their lives and
education seems to be a logical place for them. It would be an important study
point.
I also ask students about how long they expect to be in school.
Mostly I work with students with cognitive disabilities who are pursuing the
GED/High School/Vocational goals. It is important for both teachers and
students to understand how long the goal will take to materialize. We generally
have most "success" with students who come in and quickly get their
GED. For students who dropped out in 8-9th grade, there is a lot of work to do.
We often lose these students because their lives are not stable enough to spend
the years needed to raise their skills to a high enough level.
Nov-7-2003 8:31 PM Message 19 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: AWilder106
Reply to: mariedoerner
[ Message 18 ]
I am trying to think
how prior research might be useful here. isn't it part of Comings et al finding
that program persistence is related to students' ability to work on their own
goals? And Purcell-Gates' finding that increase in literacy practices is
related to students' use of materials contextualized from their own lives? This
points to clustering student sub-groups by goals they wish to achieve., with a
greater likelihood that they will achieve these goals through persistence. I
think I am stating these findings correctly.
Nov-8-2003 6:17 PM Message 20 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: 4128st
Reply to: AWilder106
[ Message 19 ]
I feel what most
researchers and practitoners are saying is helping the learner reach goals of
independence. Where enough skills in English, reading, math help them to be
better citizens. If the criteria and bars are too high or not attainable it
will fail. If we can get the learner into a mode to go on to vocational, trade,
college or improve job skills it will be successful. Maybe alot of people are
just plain late bloomers and then take off to reach for the stars. I heard the
speaker who wrote Schools Without Failure by a man named Glasser. Can't
remember the first name. IF you want to learn you can and if you don't you
probably won't. Self motivation is a must.
Nov-11-2003 9:20 AM Message 21 of 21 Go to >
Subject:
RE: Discussion Part Two: How to Move Ahead with Implementing the
Evidence Based Adult Education System
From: mariecora
Reply to: 4128st
[ Message 20 ]
I'm still thinking
about models. In Rhode Island during the mid-90s, a state initiative called
"Child Opportunity Zones" were created. Some referred to this
initiative as the COZy system, others decided to refer to it as the
"Community Opportunity Zone". At any rate, start-up grants were
funded by the state - and there were a handful at first. From there, each COZy
had to pursue its own funding streams. By the time I left in 2000, there were
something like 24 COZys around the state. What were they? A "one-stop
service center" for the neighborhood. The state's parent involvement
program (don't recall the name) was very involved, and many neighborhood
parents were the COZ Coordinators. They did needs assessments in the
neighborhood, and then went out to find those services - all free pretty much.
So my programs (volunteer ABE/ESOL programs) were very much a part of several
COZys in the Providence area. Other providers typically included the local police
and fire depts, VNA, local schools or colleges, community centers, sites that
provided technology. So all sorts of services were gathered and provided around
that neighborhood COZy. They met with varying degrees of success. But my
experience working in that type of set-up was very productive and interesting -
people were able to stay in their programs (no matter which program: ABE,
health, tech, something else) longer since there were some set of comprehensive
services provided for participants.
I wonder if Janet can give an update on the COZy system in RI?
Does it still exist???
Finally, there was mention of programs that provided some
transition from one setting to another. Here at World Education, the College
Transitions Program helps GED and EDP graduates excel as they move to the
college level - not exactly the type of model I think you're looking for for
study, but nevertheless, this program meets with success and perhaps some of
the elements within it are worth examining. Go to www.collegetransition.org.