Author: The Old Crank

GED Jitters – The Director’s Cut

/ The Old Crank / 1 Comment

I’m briefly quoted in this article on the GED, and so I thought I’d share a few more thoughts as to why I think it’s reasonable to be concerned that the revision to the test this time around is different from past revisions.

The first point, which is in the article, is that this time the switch was made under a significantly weaker adult education system, at least in terms of funding. While everyone in adult education, from the state directors to the programs directors, have been doing their usual heroic work and are adjusting to the new test(s), the fact is that federal funding for adult education has dropped by 25% since 2002. Enrollment numbers in federally funded adult education programs have been dropping accordingly over that time.

Secondly, while it may turn out that the situation will improve over the next year or two—as has been the case after previous revisions—the disruption this time has been significantly more complicated than in the past. First, there was a significant cost increase, and second, the GED test itself has become computer only. And two new tests came onto the market in addition to the GED. We actually have no precedent for changes of this magnitude or complexity.

Thirdly, while everyone is still in the process of adjusting to these changes, the adult education system itself is embarking on significant overhaul this year, as WIOA implementation gets underway. This will put further strain on the limited resources available to the field, particularly in professional development.

Most importantly—and I wish this particular point had made it into the article—while I agree with others that there is no need to panic, I don’t think it’s good enough to cross our fingers and hope for the best. This time we should be carefully studying the situation as it continues to unfold, and develop strategies to avoid such disruptions in the future. The test will be revised again in another decade or so. I continue to be flummoxed as to why huge drop-offs in test-takers and passers should ever be the norm. Let’s figure out how to make this not happen anymore.

Why Irregular Work Scheduling Matters

/ The Old Crank

Irregular work schedules and long hours are likely a significant barrier to many low-skilled adults who would like to participate in adult education. How much of a barrier I don’t know—this is yet another place where we are achingly lacking in data. But students dropping out of classes after being switched to a different shift, for example, is not an uncommon occurrence. It’s not the only barrier, by any means, but it’s an important one. Addressing the “upskilling” problem in anything other than a token manner will likely require significant changes in employment practices on a large scale.

The Volunteer Workforce in Adult Education

/ The Old Crank

Earlier this week, in preparation for a talk I was giving, I was pulling data out of the National Reporting System (NRS) on the adult education workforce. Just out of curiosity, I took a look at the states reporting the largest percentage of volunteers among their total workforce, and noticed something interesting. Here is a chart showing all states that count at least 30% of their workforce as volunteer:

Chart: States With High Proportion of Volunteers

While I’m not in a position to rank the relative quality of each of these state’s adult education systems, I can say with some confidence that most people in the field consider the systems in Massachusetts, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington to be relatively robust, high-quality, and/or innovative. Interestingly, as you can see from this chart, all of these states count a large proportion of volunteers among their workforce. In Minnesota, volunteers make up 65% of their adult education workforce.

My guess is that many people would be surprised to see so many volunteers represented among the workforce in these states because they view a large proportion of volunteers as an indicator of a relatively poor system. But while the NRS data is not the final word on adult education staffing (programs only report personnel who are administered under their adult education state plan and who are being paid out of Federal, State, and/or local education funds), it looks to me like there is probably no relationship at all between the proportion of volunteers in a state’s adult education workforce and the quality of it’s adult education system.

It would be interesting to learn more about the role of volunteers in those states that depend on volunteers to such a large degree.

Latest GED Stats Alarm, Confuse Experts

/ The Old Crank

Update: Please be advised that this was an April Fool’s post!

Released today, the latest statistical information produced by the GED Testing Service indicate that the severe downturn in the number of people taking the GED in 2014 has only been getting worse during the first quarter of 2015. In some states, the number of test-takers have slipped below zero for the first time, with Rhode Island reporting -2,177 people signing up to take the test in February alone. “If this trend continues,” said an unidentified source inside the Rhode Island Department of Education, “we’ll need to average at least 200+ new test takers per month over the next three quarters to have any hope of getting our total number of testers back to zero by the end of the year.”

Other states, including Maryland, Nevada, and Georgia, are experimenting with a new program called “Multiplying Success,” in which students who previously applied to take the GED are encouraged to apply again – in some cases as many as a half-dozen times – even if they have previously passed all of the sections of the test. As a result, these states are among the few experiencing dramatic growth in their numbers. Traditionally, students who have passed the test have been discouraged from applying to take it again, which critics say results in artificially depressed demand numbers. As one Nevada official noted, “while conventional wisdom—some might even say common sense—suggests that it makes little to no sense to sign up to take a test again after you have already passed it, it’s not the government’s role to decide. Limiting people to taking and passing the test just once is blatantly discriminatory.”

Again, I want to emphasize that all of this new information emerged just today. It’s too early to tell how seriously to take it.

See also More April Fool’s posts: