[AAACE-NLA] Tom Sticht's "Fall from Literacy Summit continues..."

[AndresMuro@aol.com]

Quality of life is hard to document, because the impact on quality of life may, or may not emerge during the training period and it is too broad to account for. So, if a woman moves to the shelter for battered women, as a result of being enrolled in a literacy class, this is not considered success. If a student is able to help his/her grandchild with homeowrk, this is not documented as success. If a person is able to understand English and interpret for a relative at a hospital, this is not considered success. If a student seeks a pap smear, diabetes treatment, a mamogram, or other health services, this is not considered success. 

The only success that we can consider is if a student shows measurable progress in the BEST, ABLE, or TABE, etc. Ironically, in an economy that wants quantifiable progress, improved scores in the standardized tests don't have a positive economic impact in a community. However, procuring adequate health care, leaving a domestic violent environment, understanding instructions from a health worker, helping your kids with school, and moving more effectively within a community all have positive economic outcomes. 

Unfortunately, using a standardized test brings economic benefits to the companies that campaign extensively for our leaders. On the other hand, documenting quality of life successes doesn't. Shuuckss!!!

Andres   

In a message dated 9/3/2003 11:21:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Gail Spangenberg <gspangenberg at caalusa.org> writes:

>Tom Sticht's recent posting titled "Fall from Literacy Summit 
>continues" prompts me to post these thoughts.
>
>I wish we could come up with a better way to "count" the hundreds of 
>thousands of people served by AELS who are not now included in the 
>federal government tallies.  These people are indeed being served and 
>they count even though they may not meet the federal criteria for 
>inclusion.  Also community colleges, through their developmental 
>education and adult education programs, appear to serve somewhere in 
>the neighborhood of another million adults annually.  I personally 
>don't find the 2.7 fed figure very helpful for determining the real 
>scope of services or program need; though it may well foreshadow the 
>loss of services at the lower end of the spectrum because people at 
>that end don't meet current federal "standards" for counting and 
>inclusion. To me the crucial issue -- an enormous policy question -- 
>is how the change in federal number usage (and the heavy federal 
>emphasis on reading) is likely to affect program service at the local 
>level (e.g. through CBOs and voluntary organizations and prisons, 
>etc.) because these changes will probably be powerful "drivers" of 
>state policy and federal and state funding.  I keep hearing about CBO 
>programs that are closing down for lack of funds.
>
>-- 
>Gail Spangenberg
>President
>Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy
>1221 Avenue of the Americas - 50th Floor
>New York, NY 10020
>212-512-2362, fax 212-512-2610
>_______________________________________________
>AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
>http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
>LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
>http://literacytent.org
>


-- 
go here: www.geocities.com/andresmuro/art.html