[AAACE-NLA] Comparing the House and Senate WIA

Wed Jan 14 09:55:30 EST 2004

George, Daphne,

I read George's post and couldn't come up with an appropriate response.  Daphne has done it for me.  Thank you.

I think what we see is the chasm between the grass roots and upper level admin/legislative that has always been.  Adult literacy hasn't been around long enough for grass roots folks to infiltrate upwards into administrative and influential positions.

I see but I don't have any answers either.  

Art

Art LaChance
Gilmer Learning Center
Ellijay, GA

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Daphne Greenberg 
  To: George Demetrion ; National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] Comparing the House and Senate WIA

  George,
  Thanks for doing this work for us! It is greatly appreciated. You write towards the end of the message:
  "If I may comment here, and with all due respect, these issues should have been resolved at the inception of this campaign."

  I agree, as I am sure everyone does. The problem is that the field of adult literacy does not have an organization that does this type of thing for us. The people that put together the campaign are not being paid to do this, had to put something together at the last minute without time to do all the homework, and did this under stress of other committments, and pressure not to break any laws.

  I know that the intent of your message was not to be critical, and the intent of my response is not to be defensive. Rather, I think that you raise a very important point. What do we as a field do about being prepared to "galvanize the forces" to do the work that needs to be done?  How does a grass roots movement develop and nurture leaders to do the kinds of work that we need to be done on our behalf?

  Any ideas????

  Daphne Greenberg

  Georgia State University

  ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: George Demetrion 
    To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE 
    Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:07 PM
    Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] Comparing the House and Senate WIA

    Colleagues:

    Someone has sent me some raw text comparing the House and Senate version that includes a column for the 1998 Adult Education and Family Literacy Act.

    My understanding is that some folks are working on fine-tuning the comparison for what would be relevant for the current advocacy effort.  I cannot stress how important it is to get that formal statement on the table ASAP.

    Essentially what I see is that the House version is more mired in the language of scientific-based research on reading, whereas, while the Senate bill contains some of that, it speaks more broadly about literacy.  That, BTW, would conform to much the of field's research in which reading is a viewed as a subset of literacy, but not its definition.  I speak in particular on the research on the New Literacy Studies.

    Here's an example of the comparison in versions;

    HR 1261 House
    The National Institute for Literacy.provide[s] national leadership in promoting reading research, reading instruction, and professional development in reading based on scientifically based research

    S 1627  Senate

    The National Institute for Literacy.provides national leadership regarding effective literacy programs for children, youths, adults, and families.

    Obviously, in these statements the Senate's version is more inclusive, though others might view the House version as more "rigorous."

    Some other statements in HR 1261 (the House version) include a NIFL

    "serving as a national resource for information on reading instruction programs that contain the essential components of reading instruction as supported by scientifically based reading research, and that can lead to improved reading outcomes for children, youth, and adults;" and

    "developing print and electronic materials that describe and model the application of scientifically based reading research."

    The comparable Senate (S. 1627) version for NIFL is:

    "coordinating and participating in the Federal effort to identify and disseminate information on literacy that is derived from scientifically based literature, or the most rigorous research available and effective programs that serve children, youth, adults, and families."

    HR 1261  House

    "The Interagency Group shall appoint a Director of the Institute, who has an understanding of, supports, and is familiar with scientifically based research, instruction, and professional development applicable to children, youth, and adults."

    In the Senate column, there is nothing written there.  Would I be right to assume that that statement is not in the Senate version?

    In the original law (1998), there is a statement supporting:

    "effective practices in the provision of literacy and basic skills instruction in phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension,and the integration of literacy and basic skills instruction with occupational skills training."

    There is nothing in the column for the House version, though that statement fits well with its sentiments on scientifically-based reading instruction and emphasis on phonemic awareness.

    The Senate version states the following:

    "Same as current law, but strikes 'phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension' and replaces with 'the essential components of reading instruction.''"

    That seems to me to allow for a broader flexibility, while the original version is more prescriptive.

    Both versions support a National Institute for Literacy.  Both versions focus on children, youth, adults, and families.

    Neither version mentions anything about LINCS, EFF, or the listsersv, though it seems reasonable to conclude that their preservation (including the current lists, which, generally, focus more on "literacy" than "reading") would have a better survivability impact with the Senate rather than the House version.  Though more realistically, their survivability may depend more on the direction set by the permanent Director and Board.

    This is all a very rough cut on my part.  If the focus is on supporting the Senate version, the reasons need to be linked to the ways in which that version better supports the preservation of LINCS, EFF, and the lists.  To the extent that it does, it is in the more inclusive appropriation of the term literacy and slightly broader approach to research. In that it may be that the Confrence reps.will compromise, perhaps the emphasis needs to be on the preservation of these core NIFL components regardless as to which version is passed.

    If I may comment here, and with all due respect, these issues should have been resolved at the inception of this campaign.

    As an alternative strategy, it will be more important than ever for the field to develop its own indigenous resources through its own institutions and expertise in the enactment of a national vision should the worst case scenario come to pass.

    George Demetrion

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    _______________________________________________
    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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/aaace-nla/attachments/20040114/7503fb63/attachment.htm