1. Fall Webinar October 30, 2013

2. Open and hide your control panel Join audio: Choose “Mic & Speakers” to use VoIP Choose “Telephone” and dial using the information provided Submit questions and comments via the Questions panel Your Participation

3. Welcome: Sharon Bush, LFN President, Grand Victoria Foundation LFN Update: Kim Scott, LFN Executive Director 2014 LFN Symposium National Results and Equity Collaborative Attendance Awareness Month New Member Spotlight: Joe Welsh, Administration Manager,Community Impact United Way of Allegheny County Featured Presentation: 2013 International Survey of Adult Skills Eugene Owen, PIAAC National Project Manager, National Center for Education Statistics Respondents: Gail Spangenberg, President & Founder, Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy Jeff Carter, Board Member, National Coalition for Literacy Closing: Sharon

4. Save the Date! February 17-18, 2014 The Symposium will be held once again in partnership with Literacy Powerline and the National Center for Family Literacy and will take place at the Renaissance Washington, DC Downtown Hotel, in the heart of Penn Quarter.Literacy Powerline National Center for Family LiteracyRenaissance Washington, DC Downtown Hotel

5.  Initiative adopted by LFN in 2013  Working in partnership with Choice Neighborhoods, Campaign for Grade-Level Reading, Center for the Study of Social Policy, Coalition for Community Schools, Promise Neighborhoods Institute, Results Leadership Group and United Way Worldwide.  This initiative will enable us to:  tap into the a growing collective knowledge base, tools and technical assistance to support evidence-based strategies proven to lead to results;  recognize the importance of investing in community capacity – the necessary skills and knowledge – to do the results work;  define a set of common and powerful results and measures to which communities and initiatives add their unique indicators of progress, resulting in a common language about what the most important results are for children, families and communities, and agreement about what indicators are strong predictors of progress; and  measure progress and results with common tools that that can translate among different approaches to strategy development, aggregate and geo-map data (population level and individual), connect peers across the country and help coalitions and leaders keep track of collective action in ways that demonstrate both the costs and benefits of improved results.

6. Attendance Awareness Month Partnership Results The Literacy Funders Network received a huge thank you for participating in Attendance Awareness Month as a national partner. This was the first time for this effort and the results exceeded everyone’s wildest dreams. Consider the numbers: 1,318 people from 49 states and the District of Columbia joined the Attendance Awareness listserv 249 schools and communities from 42 states and the District of Columbia pinned events and activities on the Community Action Map 155 news articles, blogs and commentary pieces appeared in media outlets in 28 states At least four governors and 20 mayors issued proclamations The Count Us In! toolkit was downloaded 13,200 times, and the banners and flyers, 14,700 times. The parting message on Sept. 30 was sent to 189,000 Facebook and Twitter accounts at the same moment, courtesy of the folks who participated in our Thunderclap. The message was simple: #SchoolEveryDay = School Success!

7. Joe Welsh Administration Manager, Community Impact United Way of Allegheny County www.uwac.org

8. Roles: Funder Implementer Intermediary Focuses: Education Income Health Call to Action: Give - Advocate - Volunteer

9. Allies for Children

10. Establish a common language & messaging Leverage existing resources Provide shared learning opportunities Best Practices, Networking & Collaboration Create High-Level Branding Measure & Report Data

11. Contact Information Joe Welsh Administration Manager, Community Impact United Way of Allegheny County Tel. (412) 456-6740 | joe.welsh@uwac.org

12. Highlights from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), 2012 Eugene Owen PIAAC National Project Manager National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Washington, DC October 30, 2013

13. What is PIAAC?  International large-scale assessment administered in 2011-12 in 23 countries  16- to 65-year-olds, non-institutionalized, residing in the country, irrespective of nationality, citizenship, or language status  Laptop computer or paper-and-pencil:  In the U.S., 80% took the computer tests and 15% took the paper-and-pencil tests.  Assessment subjects:  Literacy, Numeracy, and Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments  Conducted in English in the U.S.:  Background survey in English or Spanish. About 4% could not complete the questionnaire because of language difficulties or learning or mental disabilities, and 1% could not complete it for other reasons. 13

14. 14 Participating countries 14 20122015 Australia Austria Belgium Canada Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea, Rep of Netherlands Norway Poland Slovak Republic Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States Chile Greece Indonesia Israel Lithuania New Zealand Singapore Slovenia Turkey

15. What PIAAC reports Average Scores: Reported on a scale of 0-500 for all domains. Proficiency Levels: Reported as the percentages of adults scoring at six performance levels in literacy and numeracy and at four performance levels in problem solving in technology-rich environments. 15

16. Literacy proficiency levels Locate single piece of information in familiar texts. Read relatively short digital, print or mixed texts to locate single text. Make matches between text and informatio n that may require low level para- phrasing and drawing low-level inferences. Identify, interpret, or evaluate one or more pieces of information and often require varying levels of inference. Perform multiple- step operations to integrate, interpret, or synthesize information from complex texts, and may require complex inferences. Integrate informatio n across multiple, dense texts; construct syntheses, ideas or points of view; or evaluate evidence based arguments. Below Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 16

17. Literacy example item Below Level 1: Election results  The stimulus is a report of the results of a union election. It consists of several brief paragraphs and a simple table identifying the three candidates and the number of votes they received.  The test taker is asked to identify which candidate received the fewest votes. To do this, the test taker must simply compare the number of votes that each candidate received.  The word “votes” appears only in the question and in the table. Therefore, the task consists of recognizing this direct relationship between the two to infer the answer. 17

18. Literacy example item Level 4: Library search  The stimulus displays the results of a bibliographic search from a simulated library website.  The test taker is asked to identify a book suggesting that the claims made both for and against genetically modified foods are unreliable. To do this, the test taker needs to read the title and description of each book included in the search results.  Many pieces of distracting information are present. The necessary information must be inferred from the statement that the author “describes how both sides in this hotly contested debate have manufactured propaganda, tried to dupe the public and... [text ends].” 18

19. 19 U.S. PIAAC Findings

20. U.S. average literacy score (270) lower than the international average (273) Lower than in 12 countries : Japan, Finland, Netherlands, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, Flanders-Belgium, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Canada, Republic of Korea Not significantly different than in 5 countries : England and Northern Ireland- U.K., Denmark, Germany, Austria, Cyprus Higher than in 5 countries : Poland, Ireland, France, Spain, Italy 20

21. 21 Below level 1 range: 0-175 Level 1 range: 176-225 Level 2 range: 226-275 Level 3 range: 276-375 Level 4/5 range: 376-500 Median Seven countries had higher percentages of adults reaching the highest proficiency level (4/5) in literacy Median

22. Higher proportion of U.S. adults at the bottom levels of literacy 22

23. U.S. average numeracy score (253) lower than the international average (269) Lower than in 18 countries: Japan, Finland, Flanders-Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic, Austria, Estonia, Germany, Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Republic of Korea, England and Northern Ireland- U.K., Poland Not significantly different than in 2 countries: Ireland, France Higher than in 2 countries: Italy, Spain 23

24. Fifteen countries had higher percentages of adults reaching the highest proficiency level (4/5) in numeracy 24 Below level 1 range: 0-175 Level 1 range: 176-225 Level 2 range: 226-275 Level 3 range: 276-375 Level 4/5 range: 376-500 Median

25. 25 Higher proportion of U.S. adults at the bottom levels of numeracy

26. U.S. average problem solving in technology-rich environments score (277) lower than the international average (283) Lower than in 14 countries : Japan, Finland, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Czech Republic, Republic of Korea, Germany, Canada, Slovak Republic, Flanders-Belgium Not significantly different than in 4 countries: England and Northern Ireland- U.K., Estonia, Ireland, Poland 26

27. Eight countries had higher percentages reaching the highest proficiency level (3) in problem solving in technology-rich environments 27 Below level 1 range: 0-240 Level 1 range: 241-290 Level 2 range: 291-340 Level 3 range: 341-500 Median

28. 28 Higher proportion of U.S. adults at the bottom levels of problem solving in technology-rich environments

29. Only oldest U.S. adults outperformed the international average in literacy 29 *p <.05. U.S. average score is significantly different from PIAAC international average.

30. Least educated adults below the international average in literacy 30 *p <.05. U.S. average score is significantly different from PIAAC international average.

31. Employed adults in the U.S. had lower average literacy scores than their peers internationally 31 *p <.05. U.S. average score is significantly different from PIAAC international average.

32. U.S. White adults had higher average literacy scores than either Black or Hispanic adults 32 *p <.05. Average score is significantly different from White average.

33. 33 U.S. gaps in literacy scores larger than international average by parental education and nativity status

34. 34 In literacy, U.S. gaps larger by educational attainment and skill level of job, but similar to international average by income and employment status

35. U.S. gaps in literacy scores similar to international average by gender, smaller by age, and larger by health status 35

36. U.S. average literacy score in 2012 not significantly different from 2003, but lower than in 1994 36 *p <.05. Average score is significantly different from PIAAC.

37. U.S. average numeracy score in 2012 lower than in 2003 37 *p <.05. Average score is significantly different from PIAAC.

38. U.S. PIAAC Findings Summary: 38 U.S. PIAAC Findings Summary:  Lower overall scores than international average in all subjects  Higher percentages of low performers than internationally  Larger gaps between less advantaged and more advantaged peers in literacy and numeracy, but not in problem solving in technology-rich environments  Relatively lower performance of young adults and those with high school education or less  Relatively higher performance of older adults in literacy and problem solving in technology-rich environments

39. Release Schedule Released in October 2013  OECD PIAAC International Report (October 8 th 2013)  PIAAC International Technical Report: an authored report by OECD ( October 8 th 2013 )  NCES PIAAC National Report: “First Look” Report ( October 18 th 2013 ) Will be Released between November 2013 to February 2014  OECD authored US country report ( November 12, 2013 )  NCES PIAAC Web Portal  Data Explorer (NCES)  US National Technical Report (NCES)  Public use data file (NCES)  Restricted use data file (NCES)  OECD Education and Skills Online (E & S Online) 39

40. Time for the United States to Reskill? What the Survey of Adult Skills Says (An OECD authored report)  Funded by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education  Report will:  Interpret the U.S. main findings  Offer a detailed profile of low-skilled adults in the U.S.  Identify policy implications and offer broad policy recommendations for the U.S.  Be released on November 12 th in Washington, D.C.  More detailed information regarding this event will be posted at www.piaacgateway.comwww.piaacgateway.com 40

41. NCES PIAAC Web Portal Content  Literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving in technology-rich environments proficiency levels by:  Country of birth  Informal training  Health status  Profile of the employed by: age, gender, whether they are born in the United States, education, industry of employment, occupation, and earnings  Profile of the unemployed by: age, gender, whether they are born in the United States, and education 41

42. NCES PIAAC Data Explorer  Interactive online data tool that allows users to produce customized PIAAC reports  Data displayed and exported in a variety of formats, including:  Tables  Charts  Maps 42

43. Education and Skills (E&S)Online What Is Education and Skills Online Uses and Benefits Education and Skills Online Components

44. What is Education & Skills Online  A joint initiative of the OECD and the European Union  An assessment tool designed to provide individual level results linked to PIAAC  Measures both cognitive and non-cognitive skills  Downloadable on demand over the internet and includes technical support  Available in multiple languages/versions  In the US it is available both in English and Spanish 44

45. Education & Skills Online components  Background Questionnaire  Cognitive Items:  Literacy  Numeracy  Problem-solving in Technology rich environment (optional)  Reading Components (optional)  Optional Non-Cognitive Module  Reporting Scores:  Proficiency levels  Descriptive reports of strengths and weaknesses in the skill areas assessed  Summary information for each of the non-cognitive areas  Comparative information for both the cognitive and non-cognitive areas 45

46. Uses and benefits of Education & Skills Online  Appropriate for use in both educational and workplace settings  Can be used to evaluate classes, programs or any group of respondents  Organizations will have access to their database for further analyses  Tests cover a wide range of skills and domains  Individuals and organizations have flexibility to determine which skills to assess 46

47. 47

48. For more information Contact: Eugene Owen NCES 202-502-7422 Eugene.Owen@ed.govPIAAC PIAAC at NCES: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/ http://piaacgateway.com/ ‎ 48

49. Gail Spangenberg President & Founder Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy gspangenberg@caalusa.org www.caalusa.org Jeff Carter Board Member National Coalition for Literacy jcarter@literacypolicy.org http://literacypolicy.org/

50. Thank you for attending! Any further questions/comments please contact Kim Scott Phone: 315.857.6960 Email: kim@literacypowerline.comkim@literacypowerline.com Website: funders.literacypowerline.comfunders.literacypowerline.com