[AAACE-NLA] nifl, research, advocacy

[Janet Isserlis]

Dear all,

(with apologies for cross-posting, but with keen interest in 
responses from as broad a group of educators as possible c-- this is 
being sent to all NIFL lists.  This list may be a place to ask deeper 
questions and to not only ask, but work towards an advocacy-oriented 
response, or set of responses so that individuals and programs might 
be able to act in ways that enable us to use research in aid of (and 
not as a barrier to) doing the work we need to do.


There are many reasons for us to continue to support the critically 
important work of NIFL, including its focus on adult  learning.  In a 
recent conversation with a legislative aide, a practitioner reported 
that the aide said "that he didn't necessarily  see 
'researched-based' [practice/teaching] as a problem [for adult 
literacy practitioners], as he put it, 'that means you just have 
studies showing that what you do works, and you don't just go 
doing whatever you want to do'."

What are these 'studies'?  What passes for research that informs our 
work, what research 'counts' to legislative people and who will 
ultimately decide what counts for programs that receive federal 
funding?

What do you think about that? If NIFL were to change, to 
provide resources only on scientifically-based reading research 
practices, how  would that impact adult literacy and basic 
education?What does this mean to you?   Do you see that  as posing a 
problem?  What are the implications in terms of our work of all of 
the above - both as professional development workers and as classroom 
teachers?

Janet Isserlis