[AAACE-NLA] Webcast Casts Web of Doubt

[tsticht at znet.com]

August 31, 2003

National Institute for Literacy Webcast Casts
Web of Doubt About Commitment to Adult Literacy Education

Tom Sticht
International Consultant in Adult Education

On 15 August 2006 the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) presented a
webcast about the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) of 2003.
Entitled "Adults with Basic and Below Basic Literacy Levels:  Findings from
NAAL and Implications for Practice" the webcast focussed on the adults who
scored at the lowest two levels of the NAAL, those in the Basic and Below
Basic levels, and implications for reading instruction and workforce
development. Unfortunately, as far as I can discern, the webcast presented
nothing of any substance for policy or practice for adult literacy/numeracy
education nor for workforce development. In fact, it presented a number of
statements about education, literacy, and workforce development of dubious
validity. Here are some of these statements.

1. Sheida White from the National Center for Education Statistics, which
sponsored the NAAL, made the statement that "Nearly two-thirds, which is
actually 67% of all the jobs created over the next decade, will require a
college degree."  But in the Statistics and Facts section of the NIFL web
site it is claimed that 69.8% percent of job openings from 2000 through
2010 will NOT require college but only some sort of work-related training,
57% of which will be short or moderate term training. Other data from the
Department of Labor indicates that in 1998 78% of jobs required non-college
levels of education while in 2008 76% will be non-college jobs. A 2006
report from the Educational Testing Service (ETS) by Paul Barton also
raises questions about the education levels required by jobs. He presents
data showing that the 44 occupations that account for half of the 26
million average annual job openings  during  2001-2012 require only
short-term education or on-the-job training, not post-secondary education,
and 25 of the 44 occupations have workforces with 50 percent or more having
high school or less education. Clearly, there is reason to question the
claim that two-thirds of all jobs created over the next decade will require
a college degree.

2. John Strucker called attention to the well known gaps in performance on
the tests among whites, blacks, and Hispanics, but he had nothing to say
about what to do about the situation other than we need to do something. He
talked about age and literacy and focussed on the problems of younger
adults, but he did not comment on the fact that the NAAL may not be valid
across the lifespan, especially for older adults, as other research has
suggested. He also commented on the fact that quantitative literacy
(numeracy) had larger percentages of adults in the lower two levels than on
the prose or document literacy scales. He also mentioned that there could be
real problems with decoding, vocabulary, and  fluency for adults in the
Below Basic and Basic levels, and there could be large numbers of learning
disabilities in these groups. But there was really nothing that I read that
lead to insights regarding how teachers or programs should go about changing
their adult reading, numeracy, or English language instruction.

3. Brian Bosworth simply repeated the oft stated notions that low literacy
can consign workers to low paying jobs and reduce America’s global
competitiveness. He made a plea for a demand side approach to skills
development that seemed very much like a call for a return o workplace
literacy programs in which employers and employees determine their skills
needs and work together to design and deliver instruction. Again, however,
there was nothing that I read that produced solid evidence of how workers
with low skills actually perform important job tasks in specific jobs or
what returns to investment in workforce education business, workers, or the
rest of the nation might experience if investments in worker literacy or
numeracy education were increased.   It would be useful if the NIFL or some
other government agency  would support this type of research.

Noticeably missing from the presentation was a discussion of just how
arbitrary the whole enterprise of literacy assessment in the NAAL was,
including the naming of levels as Below Basic or Basic (instead of Below
Average and Average for instance). There was also no discussion of how
Prose, Document, and Quantitative literacy might "add up" across the three
scales to form a person’s total literacy ability.

Nor was there any discussion of the very large differences between what the
test developers said about adults’ reading and math skills based on the
standardized tests and what adults have said about their own skills as they
perceive their adequacy to be for work and daily life. Some 95 percent of
adults in the NALS thought their skills met their needs and the recent
international Adult Literacy and Life Skills (ALL) report developed a
methodology for examining the mismatch between workers skills and their job
demands for these skills. The report said that 80 percent of adults had
literacy and numeracy skills that matched or exceeded their job demands,
while 20 percent were working in jobs with demands that exceed their skills
in these areas.

These huge differences between tested and self-perceived skills should
receive considerable study because it is adults’ self-perceptions of their
skill needs that will eventually move them to seek help in upgrading their
skills. Perhaps a future webcast can address some of these serious issues
in determining the scale of need for and the desire for adult literacy
education.

Brian Bosworth said "I think that it's unlikely that we are going to see a
significant change and reform from the federal level to deal with most of
these workplace literacy issues." I think this was probably the most
significant policy- and practice-related statement in the entire webcast.
It has been clear since the NALS of 1993 in which 90 million (47%) of
adults were said to lack the skills needed to cope with contemporary
society, including the world of work, that the federal government that
produced this result did not actually believe it. For three years after
that report the federal budget for the Adult Education and Literacy System
went down. After that it rose for a while, but stayed at a pitiful level in
which per adult enrollee funds equaled about $200. After the 2003 NAAL which
indicated that over 93 million adults possessed only Basic or Below Basic
prose literacy, the present administration (1) asked for a cut in funding
for adult literacy education from around $575 million to $200 million and a
complete drop of funds for the Head Start family literacy program; (2)
formed an interagency committee to coordinate their work; and (3) the
committee met in early 2006 and it was reported that the meeting went well
and it would meet again later on. At no time in the Bush administration has
it called for more funding for the Adult Education and Literacy System, even
while repeatedly making dire warnings of impending disasters in global
competition and the American economy due to the poor literacy  skills of
the workforce.

Perhaps the webcast about the NAAL, reading instruction, and the workforce
will have some positive effects on some aspect of adult literacy education.
Clearinghouses, committees, meetings, and web discussions may possibly be
useful in meeting the need for adult literacy education in the Nation. But
there is nothing like a large infusion of money into an obscenely
under-funded education system to move the Nation forward.

So far, for me, the NIFL NAAL webcast has reinforced a web of doubt about
the federal government’s sincerity and commitment to providing the funds
needed to move the Adult Education and Literacy System from the margins to
the mainstream of education in the United States.

Thomas G. Sticht
International Consultant in Adult Education
2062 Valley View Blvd.
El Cajon, CA 92019
Tel/fax: (619) 444-9133
Email: tsticht at aznet.net