[AAACE-NLA] FW: [aaace-nla] Heckman, Adult Education and Changing the end point of adult education

[Karen Limkemann]

David,

I agree but just exactly what do we do with those who
"fail to benfit from adult ed".  Just where do we
refer them?

Karen Limkemann
Ft. Wayne, IN

--- David Rosen <DJRosen at theworld.com> wrote:

> Hal, and others,
> 
> It is time to change the end point of adult
> education from "earning a  
> GED" or adult diploma, to preparation (for regular,
> not  
> developmental) college courses.
> 
> This needs to be reflected in federal and state
> legislation.  The GED  
> and adult diploma, as they are, are fine for some
> purposes -- for  
> those who want recognition of high school
> equivalency, or need a  
> diploma or certificate to keep their jobs.  However,
> they do not  
> necessarily stand for "preparedness for higher
> education."  There is  
> a gap between the end point of the adult ed system
> and readiness to  
> do college-level work.  We must address that gap in
> our programs, but  
> also formally, in legislation and regulation.
> 
> This is needed because adult education students
> deserve the  
> opportunity to improve their earning opportunities,
> to have new and  
> better jobs and careers, and to pursue higher
> education.  That  
> opportunity may be there now, but judging by the
> small numbers of GED  
> and adult diploma holders who actually succeed in
> post-secondary  
> education, and the larger numbers of students who
> have this as a  
> goal, one must conclude that it is limited, that our
> adult education  
> system needs to do more to make this a real
> opportunity, to move  
> beyond college entry as a goal, to make the program
> goal -- for those  
> who want to go to college --  preparation for
> college success.
> 
> The difference is not subtle and requires, for most
> adult learners,  
> substantially more time in an adult education
> program, and the  
> mastery of academic reading and writing, algebra,
> basic science, and  
> college-level learning to learn skills.  Programs
> will need  
> additional resources to pay for providing these. 
> Adult learners will  
> need to adjust to much more time in a college
> preparation program  
> before college.
> 
> 
> David J. Rosen
> Adult Literacy Advocate
> DJRosen at theworld.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 3, 2006, at 8:35 AM, Hal Beder wrote:
> 
> >
> > Add to the economic discussion the fact that the
> economic returns of
> > earning a GED are somewhat between having
> traditional high school
> > certification and having no certification.  This
> is well established
> > by Heckman's research as well as studies by
> Murnane, Tyler and
> > others.  Moreover, for GED-only graduates earnings
> are flat over
> > time.  At retirement they earn pretty much what
> they started
> > at.  However, just a little bit of post secondary
> education makes a
> > big difference in earnings and earnings
> trajectory.  To me this means
> > that in today's economy we can no longer think of
> success at adult
> > literacy [as measured by earning the GED] as an
> end point.  We must
> > think of adult literacy as a beginning and do much
> more to help move
> > those who are successful in adult literacy
> education into post
> > secondary education.  Otherwise we are simply
> preparing folks to toil
> > among the working poor.
> >
> > Yes, this is about Democracy [note the capital D].
>  What has happened
> > to our public discourse about Democracy?  In the
> global sense it
> > seems to me that we have reduced it to a
> structural equation; if a
> > nation votes, it's a democracy.  In the US,
> democracy has become
> > equated with economic rationality.  It's a
> democracy to the extent
> > that income is maximized for those who have power
> [I include the
> > middle class in this group].  Hence raising taxes
> to redistribute
> > income to the needy is anathema.  Even liberal
> Democrat governors
> > can't pull it off. If you define a democracy as a
> society where the
> > people get what they want, and if you agree that
> we are a democracy
> > under this definition, then if there is a problem
> it lies with those
> > who constitute the majority of voters in this
> country.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 03:31 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
> >> I agree completely.  What I think I've learned is
> that, when we talk
> >> about what helps "the economy" or whether the
> economy is working, we
> >> have to ask, "working for whom?"  "The economy
> encompasses (and  
> >> blurs)
> >> everyone, rich, middle and poor.  We can, at
> least up to a point,  
> >> have a
> >> well-functioning economy and yet declining wages
> and benefits for the
> >> poorest income levels.  It may be working for the
> wealthy, and not  
> >> for
> >> the poor, to be blunt about it.  Just calling it
> "the economy"
> >> completely obscures this.
> >>
> >> Andy Sum had an interesting study a few years
> back about the  
> >> declining
> >> return in the form of wages to lower-income
> workers, of their own
> >> productivity gains.   It was wonderfully stark.
> (This was picked  
> >> up by
> >> columnist Bob Herbert and widely publicized at
> the time in the
> >> newspapers.  But now, I hear little about it).  
> In other words,  
> >> you can
> >> work harder and harder, and still earn less and
> less money as much of
> >> what would be your earnings, end up flowing
> upward to corporate  
> >> profits
> >> and those in the highest income levels.  I do
> worry sometimes that  
> >> we in
> >> the ABE field, too can work harder and harder to
> increase literacy  
> >> and
> >> educational levels for the working poor, and
> unless we have some  
> >> kind of
> >> income redistribution, tax fairness, and/or
> mandatory sharing of  
> >> profits
> >> or productivity gains, folks will still become
> poorer and poorer, and
> >> income inequalities will just continue to grow.
> >>
> >> And in addition, as we well know, assets as well
> as income are highly
> >> relevant here.  If you are low income, it's
> awfully hard to amass the
> >> capital to ever get ahead, in terms of education,
> higher  
> >> education, home
> >> ownership, investments, etc.--all the things that
> help lead to
> >> increasing income, once you have enough to go
> after it.   And so--the
> >> rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
> >>
> >> A dismal science, indeed.
> >>
> >> Laurie Sheridan
> >>
> >>>>> ralf at selkie.ca 03/02 1:15 PM >>>
> >> Thanks for your thoughts, Hal.
> >>
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com