[AAACE-NLA]Discussion: H.R. 1261, the Senate, and whither NIFL?

[David J. Rosen]

NLA Colleagues,

I understand that this week, perhaps as early as today, H.R. 1261 -- the
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act -- will come to the full
House floor for a vote.  Most of its content is known at this point and,
as Jon Randall pointed out here on April 12th, a number of provisions
are "vehemently opposed by the National Coalition for Literacy."  Hopes
for improvement of this Act now rest in the Senate, and advocacy by
practitioners (including volunteers), students, philosophers, curriculum
developers, librarians, researchers, graduate students,  and other
friends of adult literacy will be very important now.

Jon said he would post to this list as soon as it was clear what we
should do to educate the Senate.

Meanwhile, I would like to call your attention to one area in the
Reauthorization that I believe deserves special attention, the National
Institute for Literacy.

Recently there have been threats to its existence (evidenced most
clearly by its actual disappearance from the initial version of H.R.
1261,) to its mission and programs for adults, and to its ability to be
responsive to the field.  Some in Congress, in the Administration, and
possibly some on the new NIFL board, see eye-to-eye on this issue; they
want to transform NIFL to focus on children's reading. But there is not
universal agreement, and there may not be unanimity within the
administration or in Congress.  There is room for discussion and change
of H.R. 1261.


A narrow "children's reading" definition of literacy differs greatly
from functional literacy definitions put forth by previous
Administrations,  the National Governors Association,  and Congress (in
W.I.A. and in the National Literacy Act before it.) Adult functional
literacy has guided the nation's work with adults since 1979, when
Hunter and Harman defined it as:

"the possession of skills perceived as necessary by particular
persons and groups to fulfill their own self determined objectives
as family and community members, citizens, consumers, job-holders,
and members of social, religious, or other associations of their choosing."
Hunter, C. & Harman, D. (1979). "Adult illiteracy in the United States."
New York: McGraw-Hill.

(For a quick comparison of narrow and broad definitions of literacy, see
Thomas Henry and Samantha Andrus-Henry "Guide to Common Ambiguous Terms
for the New Graduate Student in Rhetoric and Composition
in Mostly Plain, Understandable and Accessible English at
http://www.hu.mtu.edu/~sgandrus/guide6-4.html )

Other issues concerning the National Institute for literacy include:

1) its ability to bring about a partnership with its sponsoring
agencies.  It is currently sponsored by three federal agencies: Health
and Human Services, Labor, and Education, recognizing that adult basic
skills (reading, writing, numeracy, English language skills, and other
basic skills) are important to those seeking jobs, receiving or
providing health care, reading to their children, and going on to post-
secondary education.  This interagency collaboration makes sense.  An
effort to put this under any one agency, for example under Education
only, would weaken the potential for partnership and collaboration.

2) maintenance of several national programs which matter to the adult
literacy education field,  Equipped For the Future, LINCS and Bridges to
Practice have all shown their value to the field as evidenced by the
numbers of states which have adopted and used their standards, staff
development materials, electronic discussion lists, and special
collections.  Through the LINCS discussion lists, the LINCS archives,
extensive collections of reviewed materials, and whole text documents
online, LINCS has advanced communication, access to information and
research, and use of technology in adult literacy more than any
government-funded national program before it. Unraveling LINCS would set
the field back at least decade.

There appear to me to be several efforts to (further) marginalize adult
literacy education.  Perhaps this is because some want to harness more
public education resources to serve children.  Perhaps it is personal
agenda politics by some in the Administration or Congress. Perhaps it is
an effort to reform, to put the new Administration's stamp on education.
    Whatever the reason, the loss of NIFL, the restructuring of OERI's
research centers (which will eliminate having a center focused
specifically on adult literacy education,) the threat to the ERIC, and
its adult literacy clearinghouse, and the evident lack of interest by
the White House in adult and family literacy make up a pattern leading
to fewer resources for adult literacy education at a time when the need
is greatest.

Please make sure you make time in the next few weeks to advocate for
changing this pattern, and, in particular, to advocate for changes in
H.R. 1261.

David J. Rosen