[AAACE-NLA] Funding is simply Political sans Obligation

[Dmartin336 at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/4/2006 10:46:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
gdemetrion at msn.com writes:

If so, then funding adult education in the U.S. is not  only supporting 
sentimental "social programs," but is also a political  obligation for those who 
have been privileged enough to become the  Congressional representatives of "The 
People."  
 
Our adults are first and foremost "The People."   To leave "The  People" 
uneducated is to damage or even break the bridge between "The People"  and their 
Congressional representation.



I've been following the thread with interest as it parallels the issues  
shared by people advocating for individuals with disabilities, though I would  
hazard a guess we share some similar population members ] .  Most specifically my 
personal focus is on the sub-population of individuals  who most often are 
presumed non-literate, non-readers--mental, cognitive  and developmental 
disabilities --those individuals who encumber  society so much so that supreme courts 
now must weigh wrongful life cases ..go figure.. see:
 
[Prenatal ruling is limited in scope-- Couple wins ‘wrongful birth’ case,  
but not much money 
Saturday, March 04, 2006, by James Nash. THE COLUMBUS  DISPATCH ..
 
Could it be due to the fact that Medicaid is also an encumbering  
political/social value:
   
_A Case for Inclusion_ (http://www.ucp.org/medicaid/)  

UCP has issued “A Case for Inclusion” to spotlight how  state Medicaid 
programs are serving people with developmental disabilities and  mental 
retardation.  The analysis includes rankings for all 50 states and  the District of 
Columbia, as well as letter grades in key  Medicaid service areas.  

 
Then of course there's the lasted on funding within OSEP--who cares what  the 
data dictates.. we don't need no stinking data...or is it only "dat" data  
which we deem valued
 
 
_GAO:  Rules were bent on education grants 
_ 
(http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/03/03/gao_rules_were_bent_on_education_grants) Saturday, March 4,  2006
Boston Globe
By Ben Feller 
WASHINGTON -- The  Education Department bent the rules to award grants worth 
millions of dollars to  hand-picked applicants in 2001 and 2002, congressional 
investigators have found.  The moves were not characterized as illegal and no 
corrective action was  required.
 
 
 
It appears, that our subsets of "The People" are so cumbersome that  they out 
weigh any intrinsic social value so that even terms of  measurement are now 
redefined by the funding policy makers, and our  social value systems 
restructured based upon economics in such a way as to  ostracize our fellow community 
members--non readers, welfare recipients,  disabled (would be interesting to 
see the intersect of those populations).
 
 
 
See what is next on the cutting table:
 
From: Justice For All Moderator <jfa at jfanow.org>
To:  justice at jfanow.org 
Subject: NIDRR Proposes Significant Changes to  DBTACs
Advocacy Alert: NIDRR Proposes Significant Changes to the
ADA  Technical Assistance Program (DBTACS). Action Is Needed
by March  9th.

On February 7, 2006 the National Institute on Disability  
Rehabilitation and Research (NIDRR) issued their proposed 
program  priorities for public comment. Priority 10 and 11 
address the future of the  Regional Disability and Business 
Technical Assistance Center (DBTAC) program  (also known as
ADA and Accessible IT Centers). 

The proposed NIDRR  Priorities essentially eliminate the 
widespread technical assistance,  training and material 
dissemination program that has been operating for the  past 15
years. The proposed changes to the program will  significantly
reduce the amount of free or low cost, objective ADA  technical
assistance and training available to employers, businesses,  
architects and designers, local code officials, state and  local
government officials, educational institutions, organizations
that  provide services to people with disabilities, people with
disabilities and  their family members. 

The proposed shift in the program will mean fewer  resources 
will be available to promote voluntary compliance with the  ADA
at the local level. The proposed research focus for the DBTACs
will  mean people with disabilities will be the subject of more
"study" instead of  partners in the fight for their civil
rights.

The DBTAC program is the  only comprehensive source for 
information on all titles of the ADA and they  intersect with
other disability related laws. Some statistics regarding  the
extensive services provided include:

* Technical Assistance  Provided: Over 2 million contacts

* Documents Disseminated:  12,773,987

* Website Visits: 27,501,643

* Individuals Who Received  Training: Over 1 million

Action is needed now if the program has any  chance of being 
saved. NIDRR's public comment period regarding these  proposed
priorities ends on March 9th. They are accepting public 
comments  via email or traditional mail. It is recommended that
you send your comments  via email because of significant delays
that mail may experience due to  increased security systems.

If you have questions regarding the proposed  changes please 
contact the DBTAC (ADA and IT Center) that serves your  area.
Go to www.adata.org to locate the Center serving you or  call
800-949-4232 (V/TTY).

Comments may only be submitted to Donna  Nangle via regular
mail or email at the following address:

Donna  Nangle
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room  6030
Potomac Center Plaza
Washington, DC 20204-2700
Donna.nangle at ed.gov  


Please submit your comments on this proposed priority changes
and  let them know today how much you will need the services 
provided by the  DBTACs tomorrow! 

Below is a list of some key points you may wish to  include in
your comments. Select those that are important to you. 

KEY  POINTS:

* The public has continually shown a steady demand for the  
personal and direct community-based core services offered  by
the DBTACs. NIDRR needs to affirm this continuing need.

*  The DBTACs are the only comprehensive regional-based 
confidential  resource available for the American public on
all aspects of the ADA  and related laws across all time zone
and who have staff that can  respond in different languages

* NIDRR needs to continue or increase the  current level of 
funding in order to maintain the DBTACs' current  personal and
direct community-based core services.

* The  evaluation process is not described in the Proposed 
Priority. The  evaluation process should put 15% of the points
in technical  assistance, 15% in training, 15% in material 
dissemination, and a  maximum of 10% in research.

* Funding is not described in the Proposed  Priority. If 
research is to be added as described, then additional  funding
needs to be included in order to cover this new component.  Do
not take money away from the existing direct core  services.

* Creating DBTACs that have as a primary focus "rigorous  
research" significantly increases the indirect rate applied
by Universities and Colleges thereby further reducing
available  funding devoted to achieving desired outcomes.

* The Review Panel should  be composed of entities that are 
directly affected by this Proposed  Priority (e.g.,
architects, contractors, disability organizations,  persons
with disabilities, and ADA professionals).

* Congress  and NIDRR implemented this program in its current 
structure. What  scientific research is NIDRR using as the 
impetus for this paradigm  shift?

* NIDRR currently funds nearly 200 research projects, with  
several dozen new projects added each year. These research 
projects cover disability issues ranging from employment to 
community  integration. With this broad portfolio of research
the imposition of a  requirement for the DBTACs to conduct 
additional research is  duplicative. Why should NIDRR demand
that the DBTACs conduct  duplicative research at the expense
of the only national network for  knowledge translation and
dissemination of the results of those  research projects? 

* A key element of the NIDRR long range plan (LRP)  issued in 
February of 2006 is Knowledge Translation. The DBTACs are  
identified in the plan as a key contributor to this element
of the LRP. The proposed priority neglects this fact entirely
and  instead reduces the DBTACs' ability to conduct Knowledge
Translation  by demanding that they conduct research
activities which would be  generally duplicative of existing
NIDRR research  projects.


Donna  Martinez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/aaace-nla/attachments/20060305/6c76ff23/attachment.html>