NLA Discussion: A Thorny Issue

[David J Rosen]

NLA Colleagues,

I think the discussion on salaries and benefits for adult literacy workers
is getting at some important issues.  I also hope we can hear more
from teachers for whom salaries and benefits are _not_ a problem.  (Are
there any, you may ask?)  

To begin, I was talking with a colleague a couple of days ago, a talented 
teacher and curriculum writer who has chosen to remain an adult education
teacher for many years even though that has meant having at times to be
ridiculously underpaid, and always uncertain about how long any of the
grant-funded teaching positions he has held might last.  He told me that
he finally has a teaching position where he is paid at a level which is
comparable to someone with his number of years of experience in the K-12
system.

He's teaching in a new workplace education program, one supported
by private and public funds.  I think this is important for many reasons.
First, it shows that we _can_ pay adult education teachers fair salaries
and wages if, when we design new programs, we are _determined_ to do so.
And it suggests that one answer may be more public/private partnerships
because some companies  _expect_ to pay good education workers what they
are worth.  If there are enough programs which pay fair salaries I think it 
may change the market and more programs will then have to pay decent
salaries in order to get qualified teachers.

Teacher salaries versus the number of students who can be served has come
up in this discussion.  I would like to weigh in on the side of limiting
the number of students who can be served.  Our experience in Massachusetts
has shown us that we will be able to serve more students -- and serve them
better -- if we _limit_ the number of students.  A contradiction?  No.
Here's the way it works.  Reduce the number of openings for students so
that although you can serve fewer people you serve them better
(more service intensity, more program and staff development support, more
student access to technology, serious investment in curriculum 
development...and more reasonable teacher salaries.)  This results, of
course, in waiting lists. Because there are fewer openings, but also
because as programs improve, there will be higher demand for their more
effective services.  Waiting lists are an important part of an advocacy
campaign to bring to the attention of legislators the pressing demand
for adult literacy education services.  If there is no demonstrable demand
(not just need, but people pounding at the door who want classes) there
will only be small or no increases in resources.  When there is demand,
and when constituents are pounding at legislators' doors, too, resources
flow to meet the needs.  Granted, it's not quite that simple. It requires
a lot of hard organizing work.  And it doesn't happen overnight.  But
waiting lists _are_ an important ingredient.  Especially if people on
waiting lists routinely send postcards to their state and federal
legislators informing them of how long they have to wait to enroll in
classes.

David J. Rosen
<DJRosen at world.std.com>