[AAACE-NLA] Supporting the Senate Version-Reasons Given

[George E. Demetrion]

Supporting the Senate Version of the WIA Reauthorization Act 

 What We Know

 1. The sharp focus on adult literacy which has been characteristic of
NIFL since its inception is now expanded across the lifespan, lending to
the potential dilution of its focus on adult literacy.
2. The background of the NIFL Advisory Board is predominantly focused on
childhood and youth literacy (i.e., reading).
3. There has been a strong focus on reading in the USDoE and a
corresponding shift away from the broader concept of literacy evident of
much of the practice and research of the adult literacy of the 1990s.
4. There is a strong focus on scientific-based educational research and a
corresponding shift away from much of the scholarship which informed the
field of adult literacy in the 1990s based on cultural anthropology and
critical theory.

 All of these factors play into the House and Senate WIA reauthorization
proposals and raise serious apprehensions among those concerned about
federal support of adult literacy and NIFL as we have known it.

 The House version sharply focuses NIFL on programs and research
supporting reading based on scientific-based educational research.  The
Senate version is more flexible, first, in focusing on literacy rather
than reading, and second, not being as tightly committed to
scientific-based educational research as the singular litmus test to
justify NIFL programming.  Also, the Senate version includes a proviso
for family literacy, while the House version focuses only on children,
youth, and adults.

 Neither the House or Senate version mention the specific programs NIFL
could support under the new authorization; so there is no specific
mention of LINCS, Bridges to Practice, EFF, and the electronic discussion
forums.  That does not mean there is no reason for concern, though they
cannot be addressed conclusively through the legislation.  That is
because the ultimate decision as to the specific programs NIFL will come
to support will depend on the direction set by the Director and the
Board, though the legislation provides an overall direction and rationale
for such policy.  For example, if the Director wanted to dispense with
EFF or the lists, he or she could point to the reauthorization (the House
version) and argue that NIFL needs to focus exclusively on supporting
reading programs based on scientific-based educational research.   

 Even with the Senate version, the Director, with the support of the
Board, could decide to eliminate or restructure current NIFL programming.
 However, it would be somewhat more difficult to make the case through
the justification of the legislation under the Senate version, given its
more inclusive language on reading and research, as well as the
preservation in the Senate version of clauses E-G of the original 1998
legislation, as highlighted below.

 Thus, there is a significant difference in that the Senate version
preserves key sections from the 1998 Adult Education and Family Literacy
Act (AEFLA) that is not included in the House version.  Specifically, the
Senate version adopts wholesale clauses E,F and G of the AEFLA, which the
House version eliminates.  What follows are are the key statements from
the original law as applicable to NIFL:

 (E)     to provide policy and technical assistance to Federal, State,
and local entities for the improvement of policy and programs relating to
literacy;

 (F)     to fund a network of state or regional adult literacy resource
centers to assist State and local public and private nonprofit efforts to
improve literacy by--
 (i)     encouraging the coordination of literacy services;
(ii)     enhancing the capacity of State and local organizations to
provide literacy services; and
(iii)  serving as a link between the Institute and the providers of adult
education and literacy activities for the purpose of sharing information,
data, research, expertise, and literacy resources

(G)    to coordinate and share information with national organizations
and associations that are interested in literacy and workforce investment
activities

 In short, the Senate version includes strong leadership and coordinating
roles for NIFL in the promotion of adult literacy.  While neither version
includes specifics on NIFL programming, clauses E-G lead one to conclude
that the preservation of LINCS, EFF, the listservs, and Bridges to
Practice have a better chance of survival in the Senate version. That
assumption is amplified in considering the more inclusive terminology of
literacy and research in the Senate version. 

 Advocating for the Senate version is an important step in the
preservation of NIFL as we have known it, though the more difficult work
will be in influencing the permanent Director, the Board, and OVAE. 
Alternative strategies beyond support for the preservation of current
NIFL programming also need to be considered.

As a strategic matter, I would recommend focusing on the E-G clauses that
lay out the rationale for NIFL's leadership and coordinating roles that
includes a strong emphasis on adult literacy.  On that there is likely to
be broad unanimity  within the adult literacy/ABE sector.  The
definitional issue of the difference between reading and literacy and a
more inclusive approach to research can be brought in supplementary
manner, though there is not as much unanimity in the field against the
current policy focus on these points.  

I expect to have my letter sent by the end of the week.

George Demetrion


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!