From Janet_Isserlis at Brown.edu Wed Jul 1 08:53:18 1998 From: Janet_Isserlis at Brown.edu (Janet Isserlis) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 08:53:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NLA: practitioner inquiry on line Message-ID: <199807020339.XAA16518@europe.std.com> [Moderator's note: Thanks to Janet for taking this on, and please continue to post teaching inquiry websites to the nla list, which Janet can then add to her Web page. David J. Rosen, NLA List Moderator] Dear all, David Rosen, reviewing my Web page, noticed that I've already listed some teacher inquiry links. He's asked if I'd be willing to list others (which I am - and have done with those mentioned in this recent round of discussions). I'll be very glad to add others to the webpage (http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Swearer_Center/Literacy_Resources/), if people want to send them to me, unless someone else is doing that or has plans to do that. It might make sense to post the sites to the list. I'll post them to the website as they arrive. Thanks. Janet Isserlis Literacy Resources/RI From DJRosen at world.std.com Thu Jul 2 14:43:23 1998 From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 14:43:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NLA Info: Call For Proposals, Women and Literacy Conference Message-ID: <199807021848.OAA12180@europe.std.com> [The NLA List policy on conference postings is that if a conference clearly includes adult literacy public policy-related sessions, an announcement can be posted on the list. This one, for example, has public policy related themes which have been raised on the NLA list such as welfare reform and domestic violence, and it invites proposals from, among others, policy makers. If you have questions about this conference, please contact Sandy Vaughan (contact information below.) Do not post them to the NLA list. Thanks, David J. Rosen, NLA List Moderator.] CALL FOR PROPOSALS International Conference on Women and Literacy January 24-26, 1999 Atlanta, Georgia The Center for the Study of Adult Literacy at Georgia State University, in collaboration with Georgia Tech's Lifelong Learning Network, Laubach Literacy Action and the Centre for Literacy of Quebec, is pleased to announce the International Conference on Women and Literacy. Proposals for presentations are invited from Researchers, Policy Makers, and Practitioners. Proposals with an international perspective are particularly encouraged. Individuals or groups may propose sessions on Women and Literacy as they relate to: Welfare Reform Domestic Violence Health Ethnicity Proposals should address Research, Practice, and/or Policy, and can be presented as a lecture, workshop, demonstration or panel discussion. Lectures, workshops, and demonstrations will be scheduled for forty-five minute periods, while panel discussions will last for one and a half hour periods. All proposals will be considered, however, special attention will be given to those focusing on the above mentioned topics. All proposals will be reviewed by two to three individuals. First authors will be notified by October 1, 1998, regarding proposal acceptance. Guidelines for submission -Two copies of the following: -Proposal Form completed -Bio of presenter(s) (maximum of 100 words) -Abstract of proposal (maximum of 500 words) including the following headings: -objective(s) or purpose of program -content of program -data/information sources or evidence -results/conclusions -methods of presenting content To submit a presentation for consideration, mail, fax or e-mail the above materials no later than September 10, 1998 to: Sandy Vaughn Center for the Study of Adult Literacy Georgia State University University Plaza Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 Fax (404) 651-1415, or e-mail alcsvv at langate.gsu.edu For further information, call (404) 651-1400. International Conference on Women and Literacy Proposal Form Name_____________________________________________________ Institution________________________________________________ Address__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Phone____________________________________________________ FAX______________________________________________________ E-mail____________________________________________________ Names of other presenters and affiliated institutions:________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Title of Proposal________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________ Major focus of proposal (check one): ______Research ______Policy ______Practice Topic area of proposal: ____Welfare Reform ____Domestic Violence ____Health ____Ethnicity ____Other (please specify:__________________________________________) Preferred format for presentation (check one): ____Lecture (Presentation of findings from a research study, or of observations about practice and policy.) ____Workshop (Focus is on a "hands on approach" where participants learn how to implement a specific strategy.) ____Demonstration (Speaker(s) demonstrates a new product or approach.) ____Panel Discussion (Presenter solicits two or three other participants who all examine a specific issue of interest.) Audio/Visual Requirements: _____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ From DJRosen at world.std.com Fri Jul 3 07:09:34 1998 From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 07:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NLA Announcement: Summer on the NLA List Message-ID: <199807031132.HAA01284@europe.std.com> NLA List Members, I will be out of the country from July 5th through July 30th. During this time I will be assisted in moderating the NLA list by able colleagues Lou Wollrab 617-482-9485, and Steve Reuys 617-782- 8956. I will be available during most of the time I am away at my regular email address, . >From July 31st to August 11th the NLA list, like the NPR Car Talk Puzzler, will be on vacation. Please do not send messages to the NLA list between July 30th and August 11th. Thanks. A good summer to all. David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator From gdemetrion at juno.com Fri Jul 3 16:57:49 1998 From: gdemetrion at juno.com (GEORGE E. DEMETRION) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 16:57:49 EDT Subject: NLA Discussion: Research and practice Message-ID: <199807040213.WAA08483@europe.std.com> I was struck by Loren's comments in her recent posting , particulaly the following On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 08:48:43 -0500 Loren McGrail writes: >. I am interested in the dynamic of how practice >and theory relate to each other and how in the end policy is made or >constructed from this understanding or not. >It seems to me that what is being suggested here is something quite >different from the split between research and practice. The challenge >I hear in his [Freire's] words are that we all, those of us interested in adult >education -- researchers and practitioners must take the object of our >intuitions and grasp them theoretically. It's not an either or >situation. >How do we take the objects of our intuition and grasp them >theoretically to make informed choices or take action that makes a >difference at the individual, social, or political level? These are >the issues that concern me and I'm wondering if we might go there. Let's assume that there is no unprocessed experience and that all "data" have meaning only within the contexts of various interpretative strands in which they may be embedded. On this reading the most practical minded discourse is grounded in theory (whether implicit or explicit; whether conscious or subconscious). We are all theory builders regardless of where we stand and however "practical" we may view ourselves. A long time ago, there was a discussion on this list on various metaphors of literacy. Those metaphors are embedded forms of praxis (theory and practice joined). What about the metaphors that shape literacy organizations and adult basic education entities? We live by the various metaphors that consume us and shape our environments. One avenue in exploring the relationship between theory, practice and policy, then, is to examine the metaphors that shape our literacy and ABE agencies, organizations, and institutions and to probe the relationship between overarching conceptual paradigms and the multiplicity of action and behavior (from the complex to the mundane) that flows from them. One metaphor for a literacy/ABE organization/entity is that of a business. What are the implications of such a metaphor for theory, practice and policy? Another metaphor is that of a "delivery system." What are the implications of such a metaphor for theory, practice and policy and where do such ideas come from? Another metaphor is grounded in missionary assumptions. The purpose of the literacy organization is to "reach" or "save" those who are "deserving" by their own efforts and "right" attitude. This metaphor has shaped and still does to some extent many (obviously not all) volunteer literacy efforts. Another metaphor views literacy as a form of community development. What are the implications of such a metaphor for theory, practice and policy and where do such ideas come from? Another metaphor views literacy as school. Ditto, ditto, ditto Other metaphors can be discerned and the various institutions and organizations often have conflicting organizational cultures which are often fought out in intensive battles and skirmishes for the lifeblood as what counts as literacy. There is a point here which goes to the issues and questions raised by Loren. Theory, practice, and policy are complexly joined in some obvious and not so obvious ways. A depth exploration of the organizational cultures that shape our literacy/ABE institutions and entities can play a significant role in helping us to discern their connections. That effort, in turn, can result in a profound grappling on the nature and meaning of adult literacy; who has power and voice and who doesn't; and what counts and doesn't count as knowledge, information, and even data. Also of interest and concern are the relationships (the ebb and flow of culture) between the "macro" structure of our society and culture and the microstructure of our literacy/ABE organizations and entities. Is literacy essentially a maintaining function to buttress the economic, political, and social status quo or is it part of a reformist movement to enhance democratization in the U.S. More complexly, how do the two purposes entwine within the broader macro structure and how does this play out within our literacy organizations? Or, to state it otherwise; how does theory, practice, and policy interact within our literacy organizations and supportive entities? Happy 4th of July George Demetrion LVA-CT River East GDemetrion at juno.com _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From DJRosen at world.std.com Fri Jul 3 22:26:36 1998 From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 22:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NLA Advertisement: NIFL-ESL and Reversing Language Shift Message-ID: <199807040228.WAA09731@europe.std.com> NLA Colleagues, Surprised to see a message header on the NLA list with the word *Advertisement*? Well, it's not a commercial advertisement. I am urging you to turn your attention to a discussion which has been taking place on the NIFL-ESL list, one of the most interesting, profoundly personal and political discussions of first language loss that I have seen. It has been going on for a couple of weeks now, so you might want to look at the thread of messages archived at http://novel.nifl.gov under forums/listservs , then NIFL-ESL. To join in the discussion, subscribe to nifl-esl by sending an email message to: listproc at novel.nifl.gov saying: subscribe nifl-esl yourfirstname yourlastname Below is a recent message to the nifl-esl list from Charlotte Ullman which summarizes some of the contributions to this discussion. David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 19:39:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Charlotte C Ullman Reply-To: nifl-esl at literacy.nifl.gov To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-ESL:2033] dRe: Topics for Discussion- Reversing Language Shift Dear colleagues, I've been out of town for several days, and came home to quite a fascinating discussion. Wow! What wonderful points and touching stories you had. Thank you. I'd like to mention a few points about Fishman's theory of reversing language shift. First of all, the big three success stories are Hebrew, Quebec French, and Catalan. In examining their specific situations, Fishman urges those interested in reversing language shift (RLS) to pay special attention to the historical contexts that surround the languages, and never to assume that one case might act as a template for another. He argues, against the common assumptions that if something can be done for a language, why not do it? He comes from a decidedly non-postmodernist stance, noting that many cultural traditions include a story about the sacredness of their language. This tie to sacredness is what makes languages worth saving. He states that even if you don't accept an essentialist-type of world view philosophically, the reality is that most people experience their ethnicity in an essentialist way, whether it is or not. I think he's calling for a kind of cultural essentialism that might be necessary in order to do this work of RLS, rather than a biological essentialism that can lead in directions that I find rather harmful. He sees the key to language revitalization as 1.) intergenerational transmission (elders speaking with children -- the only way to produce child-speakers), 2.) diglossia (societal bilingualism, not just the personal or familial decision to be bilingual, 3.) corpus planning (this is key for more threatened languages) When Hebrew was revitalized, whole semantic domains had to be created, as it had not been used vernacularly for thousands of years. One of the first semantic domains developed had to do with carpentry, as people were building homes in Israel. And the people involved in language revitalization efforts in Hawaii contacted the Tohono O'odham tribe here in Arizona to ask them about their words for deserts, as the O'odham have many words referring to deserts (that's their home) and if there were words for deserts in Hawaiian, they had been lost. So the folks in Hawaii took the O'odham words, Hawaiianized them, and brought them into the language. This is another example of corpus planning. Anyway, I did want to respond to some of the things that other people have written about. Chris Rademan wrote movingly about her familial loss of Swedish and many other issues. She brought up the point of domains, and this is one that Fishman speaks of emphatically. If all home activities, for example, are conducted in the native language, then it can maintain an intimate function, and perhaps thrive to some extent. Chris mentioned a theorist who said that languages can co-exist provided they have separate functions. I'd love to know who that theorist was. I think Fishman would agree. However, Switzerland might contradict that claim, or it might be that when a language has a function of identity, that this counts. What do you think? Loren McGrail wrote beautifully about what using two languages -- Khmer and English -- in the classroom can look like. Stunning. I was also moved by the story about the Mayan speakers. Very powerful examples. And where can I find Adrienne Rich's poem "Open Door". I love her poetry, and would be delighted to know what volume it's in. It's true, change is inevitable after immigration, but the form it takes is not predetermined. I know their situation is historically specific, but the Pennsylvania Dutch are an example of people who maintain firm community boundaries and who continue to produce native speakers of Pennsylvania Dutch who are also totally bilingual in English. And Aliza, your words rang true for me with your reminder that our ancestors used their best thinking when they chose to leave their languages behind. This reality has been ever-present for me while taking these courses in the American Indian Language Institute. Many of the participants in the program are people who made the decision to not speak their language to their children because they themselves were so severely punished in Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) boarding schools for speaking their languages. People were beaten, denied food, put in solitary confinement, and sometimes killed -- all for speaking their native languages and for maintaining their traditions. But now, many of these people are lamenting these choices, because their languages are dying. Some have just a few speakers left. I'm not saying that it wasn't a good decision they made at the time, but just because they raised native English-speaking children doesn't mean that they can't learn the languages of their heritage as second-language learners, and even teach both languages to their children. As Aliza pointed out, we as teachers can make a conscious effort to bring these issues to the fore in the classroom. There are so many possibilities. I also appreciated the many specific teaching suggestions (I don't have the printouts in front of me to know who made them, though I will find them). Thanks so much for the wonderful ideas...more later, Char From agorman at ala.org Mon Jul 6 17:12:34 1998 From: agorman at ala.org (Audrey Gorman) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 16:12:34 -0500 Subject: NLA Request for Information: Beyond 2000 Message-ID: <199807062303.TAA09066@europe.std.com> Tom, I strongly believe that learning disabilities, which affect over 40 million Americans, need to be among the issues discussed. I highly recommend that you look at the Spring 1996 issue of the _National Institute for Literacy Newsletter_ for possible article or at least ideas for contributors on this vital topic. Reid Lyon (research, NIH), Meg Schofield (literacy provider in Chula Vista, CA), and Glenn Young, now at the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) all have much to contribute. So do Mary Ann Corley and Eve Robins at the National Adult Literacy and Learning Disabilities Center (NALLDC), which is connected to NIFL. On the web, go to http://novel.nifl.gov. Add /nalldtop.htm for NALLDC. Audrey J. Gorman Director, Roads To Learning, The Public Libraries' Learning Disabilities Initiative 50 East Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611 Voice: 1-800-545-2433 Ext. 4027 From comingjo at HUGSE1.HARVARD.EDU Mon Jul 6 17:08:35 1998 From: comingjo at HUGSE1.HARVARD.EDU (John Comings) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 17:08:35 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: NLA Info: NCSALL Message-ID: <199807062300.TAA08676@europe.std.com> Most of NCSALL's research projects are long-term efforts that require at least a year, and in some cases three or four years, of work before they produce findings ready for distribution. We are trying to begin answering some of the field's most important questions and this takes time and effort. Very few people would find monthly reports of our work interesting, but some of the projects are beginning to publish their first products. All of our research findings will be shared in Focus on Basics, through our website, and in full reports of the research (with all of the methodology and data) that will be available as NCSALL Reports. The researchers will also publish their findings in journals so that there will be an easily accessible source after NCSALL goes out of business. For most practitioners and administrators, Focus on Basics (there are now 6 issues available) will be the best source of information on our research. We make 8000 copies available free through state ABE directors and each state is given unbound copies as well and are encouraged to make as many copies as they wish. There is no restriction on copying and distribution of all or any part of an FOB issue and some states have lifted full articles out and reprinted them in their newsletters. Everyone is free to do that. FOB is on our website for free and can be subscribed to for $8 per year, which is as cheap as we can make it. Those who want more information or who want to contact the researchers directly should email their request to ncsall at harvard.edu and we will forward the request. Since we are just now finishing our second year, we have not had a lot to share. Starting this summer, products will start coming out from our research and, in fact, the present issue of FOB, which focuses on the GED, has findings from two of our first reports. For those who want more than that, they can wait for the full NCSALL Report on the research. If you really want the details of what NCSALL is doing, you can request copies of our first two annual reports to OERI by sending an email to the NCSALL address. As Cris Smith mentioned, we are experimenting with a direct connection through a practitioner (PDRN) at the state level paid for 100 hours a year to make that two-way connection for us. I think that before the end of our five years, NCSALL staff and the PDRN practitioners will figure out how to make such a system work and then we will be able to suggest it to the state directors. We are allocating a lot of our budget to dissemination, and I'm not sure that more funding would produce more dissemination. As a field we need to tackle the demand side of this equation and NCSALL is not really set up to do that. I believe the PDRN concept is a possible approach to this, but eventually each state would have to support someone whose job was to connect practitioners and the research community to each other. As the products of our research become available, we'll post notices on the email lists. ---------------------- John Comings NCSALL -- Nichols House john_comings at harvard.edu Harvard Graduate School of Education http://hugse1.harvard.edu/~ncsall Cambridge MA 02138 (617) 496-0516 Fax: (617) 495-4811 From basbell at npo.state.vt.us Wed Jul 8 11:26:10 1998 From: basbell at npo.state.vt.us (Bill Asbell) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 11:26:10 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: How Practitioners get Information and Knowledge Message-ID: <199807090044.UAA16403@europe.std.com> This message is in response to David Rosen's call for feedback from ABE colleagues in the field on how NIFL can better serve us as an information disseminating body. Since the questions are asked very specifically, I will give specific answers. I am glad that this two-way communication is happening, because it is the best way for research to be directed to solving the problem, ie. to know what field practitioners are up against as they go about teaching adults, what the students struggle with the most, and how scientific inquiry can provide possible solutions to overcome these obstacles. 1. I think the idea of taking courses online is an excellent one. This would have the greatest potential to reach the largest number of practitioners at the lowest cost. As Adult Education is given the short end of the stick when it comes to public funding, cost is always an important factor to consider. The courses should be ones that cost little or nothing for those practitioners who want to and can enroll. They would be taught in plain English and perhaps public funding could be found for two or three professors who have these courses as their exclusive mission so that literally thousands of literacy tutors could be reached and given professional development to improve their knowledge of best practices in ESL, Phonemic Awareness, Motivational Strategies, etc.. This would be a coup for the whole Adult Education movement. The organization for which I work, Central Vermont Adult Basic Education, has for the past three years worked with local college faculty and educational professionals to provide a one-day conference of workshops for our volunteer literacy tutors and America Reads volunteers. It is a community service initiative and costs the participants nothing. Local efforts are almost always inherently philanthropic. We need to see greater leadership at the Federal level to support the grass-roots philanthropy of volunteer literacy tutors around the country. Free on-line courses in literacy teaching would be an ideal opportunity to do this. 2. Lincs and Listservs are wonderful for those with daily access to computers and for those who have the time or make the time to participate in the reading and writing that they require. I work at a small ABE organization that serves @900 students a year in central, rural Vermont. I am the only person in the organization that regularly uses listservs and have only done so for two months at that. Most people in the field are not aware that they exist, nor do they feel that they have "the spare time" to investigate what dialogues are taking place, when there is so much "actual work" to be done. The way I use this listserv is to be the messenger for the @400 others who work as staff, but principally volunteer tutors in the three counties that we serve. I get valuable infomation especially from Focus On Basics, which I find to be very good in its articles, that are by and large of a practical nature, using practitioner inquiry to provide possible strategies for solving the most common dilemmas that we face when educating our students, who are not "typical" students, but ones with many problems and ongoing crises in their lives, including profound learning disabilities, poverty, attitudinal problems etc. The last edition of the journal had as its theme, "Motivation" and how to instill it in ABE students. It was the kind of theme that other practitioners and field based research is best suited to address, and I like that the journal is written in plain English, which means I have less editing to do. I am responsible for recruiting and providing support for @400 volunteer literacy tutors a year who do the bulk of the instruction to try and educate the undereducated in our local Vermont towns. These volunteers come from all walks of life to give back to their communities and help an individual improve his or her chances in life. By being part of the global community of "adults who can read" they also want to share that much fuller life that only an access to literature can provide. As you can imagine, academic jargon is of little use for conveying best practices to this group of educators, however I do produce edited and unedited versions of Focus On Basics articles in our volunteer newsletter, because they are more accessible. I also receive and use NIFL Policy Updates, NIFL News and an ESL teacher journal called "Hands-On English" which I find useful. I am of the opinion that Education scholars (unlike English or Music scholars) need to approach research first with the questions: "Why am I studying this subject? Is it because a societal problem must be addressed? If so, how can my work best contribute to finding the solution or solutions?" If these questions and this route in research is not pursued then much of what Education departments produce in the way of scholarship is what Kevin Mattson was describing earlier, as merely a self-perpetuating word game for those in the club. 3. (Not directly related to David's questions) While NIFL can obviously not take a partisan or otherwise "political" stance regarding ABE funding, I think it does have an obligation to promote the needs of the country vis a vis adult basic education, and inform politicians of the ability and/or evidence of progress that family literacy programs and adult basic education programs can create among the growing numbers of functionally illiterate adults in America. Thomas Sticht refers to adult basic education as "Double Duty Dollars" and he presents a convincing argument why ABE money can be referred to this way. NIFL, I hope, can be engaged in this kind of lobbying. Thank you all for tolerating my long-windedness. Bill Asbell, Director of Volunteers Central Vermont Adult Basic Education 18 N. Main St., Barre, VT 05641 (802) 476-4588 <> David J Rosen wrote: > NLA Colleagues, > > The recent discussion about plain English vs academic English prompts me > to ask practitioners on this list -- especially those we may not have > heard from very much -- how do you, or how would you prefer to get > knowledge about theory and research results? And how would you prefer > to get information about public policy which affects adult learners and > the field of adult literacy? > > Research and Theory > > For example, would you prefer to take a graduate course? Would you like > to take such a course on-line? Would you like those who post to this > listserv -- or other listservs -- to suggest useful books and articles to > read? Would you like to see practitioner articles about theory and > research? Would you like to see them on-line on a Website such as one of > the LINCS regional Websites? Do you like _Focus on Basics_? (Its > purpose is to help practitioners and others know about research in the > field. Do you get this? Do you read it?) Are there other publications > that help you get this information? If so, which ones? Share this > information with your colleagues here! > > Public Policy > > Is this listserv giving you all the information you need on public policy, > or are there other sources? For example, do you read the NIFL Policy > Updates? Are there other, on-line or print sources of adult > literacy-related public policy information? Do you read _Report on > Literacy Programs_? The New York Times or other newspapers? > > Are there other, better ways of getting knowledge and information? Would > you like to see new ways developed? Ways which are participatory and > collegial? If so, what? > > I hope we get a good discussion going on this. It seems to me that both > practitioners and academics would want to know the answers to these > questions. > > David J. Rosen > NLA List Moderator > --------------ED07051EB78E1529722BF5CA Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This message is in response to David Rosen's call for feedback from ABE colleagues in the field on how NIFL can better serve us as an information disseminating body. Since the questions are asked very specifically, I will give specific answers. I am glad that this two-way communication is happening, because it is the best way for research to be directed to solving the problem, ie. to know what field practitioners are up against as they go about teaching adults, what the students struggle with the most, and how scientific inquiry can provide possible solutions to overcome these obstacles.

1.  I think the idea of taking courses online is an excellent one.  This would have the greatest potential to reach the largest number of practitioners at the lowest cost.  As Adult Education is given the short end of the stick when it comes to public funding, cost is always an important factor to consider. The courses should be ones that cost little or nothing for those practitioners who want to and can enroll.  They would be taught in plain English and perhaps public funding could be found for two or three professors who have these courses as their exclusive mission so that literally thousands of literacy tutors could be reached and given professional development to improve their knowledge of best practices in ESL, Phonemic Awareness, Motivational Strategies, etc.. This would be a coup for the whole Adult Education movement.

The organization for which I work, Central Vermont Adult Basic Education, has for the past three years worked with local college faculty and educational professionals to provide a one-day conference of workshops for our volunteer literacy tutors and America Reads volunteers. It is a community service initiative and costs the participants nothing. Local efforts are almost always inherently philanthropic. We need to see greater leadership at the Federal level to support the grass-roots philanthropy of volunteer literacy tutors around the country. Free on-line courses in literacy teaching would be an ideal opportunity to do this.

2. Lincs and Listservs are wonderful for those with daily access to computers and for those who have the time or make the time to participate in the reading and writing that they require.  I work at a small ABE organization that serves @900 students a year in central, rural Vermont.  I am the only person in the organization that regularly uses listservs and have only done so for two months at that.  Most people in the field are not aware that they exist, nor do they feel that they have "the spare time" to investigate what dialogues are taking place, when there is so much "actual work" to be done.  The way I use this listserv is to be the messenger for the @400 others who work as staff, but principally volunteer tutors in the three counties that we serve.

I get valuable infomation especially from Focus On Basics, which I find to be very good in its articles, that are by and large of a practical nature, using practitioner inquiry to provide possible strategies for solving the most common dilemmas that we face when educating our students, who are not "typical" students, but ones with many problems and ongoing crises in their lives, including profound learning disabilities, poverty, attitudinal problems etc.  The last edition of the journal had as its theme, "Motivation" and how to instill it in ABE students.  It was the kind of theme that other practitioners and field based research is best suited to address, and I like that the journal is written in plain English, which means I have less editing to do.

I am responsible for recruiting and providing support for @400 volunteer literacy tutors a year who do the bulk of the instruction to try and educate the undereducated in our local Vermont towns. These volunteers come from all walks of life to give back to their communities and help an individual improve his or her chances in life. By being part of the global community of "adults who can read" they also want to share that much fuller life that only an access to literature can provide. As you can imagine, academic jargon is of little use for conveying best practices to this group of educators, however I do produce edited and unedited versions of Focus On Basics articles in our volunteer newsletter, because they are more accessible. I also receive and use NIFL Policy Updates, NIFL News and an ESL teacher journal called "Hands-On English" which I find useful. I am of the opinion that Education scholars (unlike English or Music scholars) need to approach research first with the questions: "Why am I studying this subject? Is it because a societal problem must be addressed? If so, how can my work best contribute to finding the solution or solutions?" If these questions and this route in research is not pursued then much of what Education departments produce in the way of scholarship is what Kevin Mattson was describing earlier, as merely a self-perpetuating word game for those in the club.

3. (Not directly related to David's questions) While NIFL can obviously not take a partisan or otherwise "political" stance regarding ABE funding, I think it does have an obligation to promote the needs of the country vis a vis adult basic education, and inform politicians of the ability and/or evidence of progress that family literacy programs and adult basic education programs can create among the growing numbers of functionally illiterate adults in America. Thomas Sticht refers to adult basic education as "Double Duty Dollars" and he presents a convincing argument why ABE money can be referred to this way. NIFL, I hope, can be engaged in this kind of lobbying.

Thank you all for tolerating my long-windedness.

Bill Asbell, Director of Volunteers
Central Vermont Adult Basic Education
18 N. Main St., Barre, VT 05641
(802) 476-4588
<<basbell at npo.state.vt.us>>
 
 
 
 

David J Rosen wrote:

NLA Colleagues,

The recent discussion about plain English vs academic English prompts me
to ask practitioners on this list -- especially those we may not have
heard from very much -- how do you, or how would you prefer to get
knowledge about theory and research results?  And how would you prefer
to get information about public policy which affects adult learners and
the field of adult literacy?

Research and Theory

For example, would you prefer to take a graduate course?  Would you like
to take such a course on-line?  Would you like those who post to this
listserv -- or other listservs -- to suggest useful books and articles to
read?  Would you like to see practitioner articles about theory and
research?  Would you like to see them on-line on a Website such as one of
the LINCS regional Websites?  Do you like _Focus on Basics_?  (Its
purpose is to help practitioners and others know about research in the
field.  Do you get this? Do you read it?)  Are there other publications
that help you get this information?  If so, which ones?  Share this
information with your colleagues here!

Public Policy

Is this listserv giving you all the information you need on public policy,
or are there other sources?  For example, do you read the NIFL Policy
Updates?  Are there other, on-line or print sources of adult
literacy-related public policy information? Do you read _Report on
Literacy Programs_? The New York Times or other newspapers?

Are there other, better ways of getting knowledge and information?  Would
you like to see new ways developed? Ways which are participatory and
collegial?  If so, what?

I hope we get a good discussion going on this.  It seems to me that both
practitioners and academics would want to know the answers to these
questions.

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator
<DJRosen at world.std.com>

  --------------ED07051EB78E1529722BF5CA-- From comingjo at HUGSE1.HARVARD.EDU Thu Jul 9 09:47:50 1998 From: comingjo at HUGSE1.HARVARD.EDU (John Comings) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 09:47:50 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: NLA Discussion: How Practitioners get Information and Knowledge Message-ID: <199807091855.OAA12050@europe.std.com> I want to thank Bill Asbell for his effort to get FOB articles to a larger group of practitioners. All issues of FOB can be found on the NCSALL web site in text-only form, which allows anyone to down load an article or a whole issue into a text file. That should make it easier for you to reprint articles and to edit since you can start with an electronic file. You can go to our website through www.nifl.gov or directly to http://hugse1.harvard.edu/~ncsall If in reading or reprinting FOB you find that the language is difficult or unclear, please let us know at fob at worlded.org, and we'll try to make changes. We are trying to educate the field about research as we present research findings, and that is why the first issue focused on research and we explain research methods in some of the articles. In editing the FOB articles, you might consider leaving in the research terms but add a definition of each term into the text. ---------------------- John Comings NCSALL -- Nichols House john_comings at harvard.edu Harvard Graduate School of Education http://hugse1.harvard.edu/~ncsall Cambridge MA 02138 (617) 496-0516 Fax: (617) 495-4811 From fran at cal.org Thu Jul 9 10:50:44 1998 From: fran at cal.org (Fran Keenan) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 10:50:44 -0400 Subject: NLA Question: Hill Update? Message-ID: <199807091902.PAA12938@europe.std.com> What's happening on the Hill with Reauthorization. Appropriations, Higher Ed Act, etc.? Can someone who knows, post a short update to this list? Thanks! Fran Keenan National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education (NCLE) fran at cal.org ************************************ Visit NCLE's homepage at http://www.cal.org/ncle and download free information about teaching English to adults! From ajohnson at nifl.gov Thu Jul 9 16:58:44 1998 From: ajohnson at nifl.gov (Alice Johnson) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 16:58:44 -0400 Subject: NLA: URGENT Message-ID: <199807100109.VAA13007@europe.std.com> The Senate may vote today on an amendment by Sen. Paul Wellstone that would increase education opportunities for welfare recipients -- and it might even pass! As I understand it, the Wellstone amendment would do the following: 1) Allow states to count education activities towards the work requirement for recipients for 24 months -- as opposed to the current 12 month limit. 2) Remove teen parents from the cap, which would allow more adults to participate in education activities. To refresh your memory, this is the latest in an effort that originated with Sen. Paul Simon's attempt to do this in the original welfare bill, and Sen. Patty Murray's subsequent efforts in this area. For a complete overview of the issues this amendment addresses, please see the two Policy Updates in the "How to Prepare for Welfare Changes" series, both available on LINCS (www.nifl.gov). Alice Johnson National Insitute for Literacy From ajohnson at nifl.gov Thu Jul 9 17:07:58 1998 From: ajohnson at nifl.gov (Alice Johnson) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:07:58 -0400 Subject: NLA Question: Hill Update? Message-ID: <199807100107.VAA12064@europe.std.com> Fran and NLA Colleagues: The latest Policy Update, "House Panel Proposes Education Spending for Next Year," should be posted on LINCS by now: www.nifl.gov. It discusses the latest on adult education and literacy appropriations. In terms of the workforce development bill, the conferees are still meeting and it may actually pass this year. The Higher Education Act is on the Senate floor today and will likely pass tonight. Stay tuned for details in future Policy Updates! (If you're not on the Policy Update mailing list and you'd like to be, call 202-632-1500 and choose option 6.) Alice Johnson National Institute for Literacy ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: NLA Question: Hill Update? Author: nla at world.std.com at inet Date: 7/9/98 10:50 AM What's happening on the Hill with Reauthorization. Appropriations, Higher Ed Act, etc.? Can someone who knows, post a short update to this list? Thanks! Fran Keenan National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education (NCLE) fran at cal.org ************************************ Visit NCLE's homepage at http://www.cal.org/ncle and download free information about teaching English to adults! From ajohnson at nifl.gov Thu Jul 9 17:11:12 1998 From: ajohnson at nifl.gov (Alice Johnson) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:11:12 -0400 Subject: NLA INFO: New VP Lifelong Learning Initiative Message-ID: <199807100113.VAA14593@europe.std.com> NLA Colleagues: I thought the following would be of interest. Alice Johnson National Institute for Literacy THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Vice President ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release July 9, 1998 VICE PRESIDENT GORE TOUTS INITIATIVE TO PROMOTE 21ST CENTURY SKILLS FOR 21ST CENTURY JOBS Announces that 82,000 Iowa Adults Can Now Get College Tax Credits Washington, DC -- Vice President Gore announced today that up to 82,000 Iowa adults can get $46.7 million in Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. The Vice President has previously announced that 67,000 Iowa students can get $61.7 million in Hope Scholarships next year to attend college or take post-college courses to improve their skills. President Clinton proposed both of these measures and signed them into law last year as part of the balanced budget legislation. The Lifetime Learning Tax Credit went into effect last week, meaning that, for the first time, millions of Americans can use these tax credits. The Hope Scholarship went into effect in January 1998. Together, these initiatives represent the largest increase in federal support for access to higher education since the GI bill. "These new investments in the education and training of college students and adults will give them the 21st century skills they need to get and hold good jobs in an increasingly competitive new economy," Vice President Gore said. "The more educational tools our students and adults have at their disposal, the more we can hope to increase what they can earn." The Lifetime Learning tax credit is targeted to adults going back to school to improve their skills or take more courses, and to college juniors, seniors, graduate and professional students. A family will receive a 20% tax credit for the first $5,000 of tuition and fees paid each year through 2002, and the first $10,000 thereafter. The Hope Scholarship gives students a tax credit of up to $1,500 for tuition and fees for the first two years of college. Both are targeted to help especially working and middle-income families and students. Nationally, 7.2 million adults could receive Lifetime Learning Tax Credits and 5.9 million students could get Hope Scholarships. The President and Vice President are working to build on these investments by further expanding access to lifetime learning for all Americans. They have called on Congress to enact the President's education agenda, including: reducing class size in the early grades to a national average of 18; hiring another 100,000 well-prepared teachers nation-wide; constructing and modernizing buildings in over 5,000 schools; expanding access to quality after-school care to another 500,000 children a year; linking every school and classroom to the Internet by the year 2000; and supporting college-school partnerships that will give students and their families mentoring and information about attending college. "We have worked hard to make college more affordable and accessible for all Americans," U.S. Education Secretary Richard W. Riley said. "These tax credits and increased investments in education will continue to make college and additional training possible for many students of all ages who want and need it." Today, students over 24 make up 40 percent of all recipients of Pell grant college scholarships and nearly 30 percent of all recipients of federal student loans. ### From ajohnson at nifl.gov Thu Jul 9 18:51:15 1998 From: ajohnson at nifl.gov (Alice Johnson) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:51:15 -0400 Subject: NLA URGENT: welfare amendment passes! Message-ID: <199807100115.VAA15076@europe.std.com> The Senate today passed an amendment by Sen. Paul Wellstone that increases education opportunities for welfare recipients by: 1) Allowing states to count education activities towards the work requirement for recipients for 24 months -- as opposed to the current 12 month limit. 2) Removing teen parents from the cap, which would allow more adults to participate in education activities. In order for the amendment to become law, the House will have to agree to it during the conference with the Senate on the Higher Education Act. I am preparing a Policy Update, which I will post to this list, that explains the amendment in greater detail. Alice Johnson National Insitute for Literacy From ajohnson at nifl.gov Mon Jul 13 15:54:59 1998 From: ajohnson at nifl.gov (Alice Johnson) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:54:59 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: How Practitioners get Information Message-ID: <199807132030.QAA04309@europe.std.com> Bill Asbell wrote: 3. (Not directly related to David's questions) While NIFL can obviously not take a partisan or otherwise "political" stance regarding ABE funding, I think it does have an obligation to promote the needs of the country vis a vis adult basic education, and inform politicians of the ability and/or evidence of progress that family literacy programs and adult basic education programs can create among the growing numbers of functionally illiterate adults in America. Thomas Sticht refers to adult basic education as "Double Duty Dollars" and he presents a convincing argument why ABE money can be referred to this way. NIFL, I hope, can be engaged in this kind of lobbying. Bill and NLA Colleagues, I just wanted to respond to the above comment. While we do not "lobby" per se, the National Institute for Literacy IS actively involved in promoting sound public policy around literacy. I feel that we are making a positive difference in this area, but we need to do a better job conveying to the field what we are doing. Thanks for the opportunity to provide an update. OVERVIEW OF POLICY ACTIVITIES AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY Before getting into the specifics of our activities, I think it is important to explain the process we use to set our agenda each year. Every January, we host a one-day policy retreat where a group of 20-30 literacy leaders with an interest in policy come together to create a policy agenda for the year. The Institute's policy work for the next year focuses on implementing this agenda. At the retreat, we first bring in Congressional staffers (Democrats and Republicans from both the House and Senate) to brief us on their education agendas for the coming year. Members of the Administration also brief us on their education agenda. Next, using this information, we discuss literacy issues, and how literacy can fit into other key issues. Then we collaborate to create a literacy policy agenda. This includes a lot of give-and-take, as well as a discussion of what each of our respective organizations can do in each area. The Institute helps implement the field's policy agenda primarily in the following 3 ways. 1. Bringing together policymakers and the literacy field to work together for better public policy. 2. Providing timely and useful information on literacy to policymakers. (This often includes connecting literacy to other issues they care about and showing them how investing in literacy will provide a payoff in their area of interest.) 3. Providing timely and useful information on policy issues to the literacy field. A list of some of our activities in each of these areas follows. 1. BRINGING TOGETHER POLICYMAKERS AND THE LITERACY FIELD TO WORK TOGETHER FOR BETTER POLICY. * Bringing in experts from the literacy field to brief policymakers about an issue they are working on -- or that relates to legislation they are working on. Recent briefings include: 1) bringing in trainers from LVA, Laubach, and SCALE to meet with policymakers about the importance of strengthening training provisions of America Reads legislation; and 2) bringing in experts on learning disabilities to brief staffers on the latest research findings on this issue. * Compiling ideas from the field around a given topic and sharing that info with the policymakers working on the issue at a time when the ideas can still be incorporated. For example, I solicited and compiled comments on America Reads from about 60-70 literacy practitioners, and shared them with the Senate staffers who were writing the bill when they began that process. Many of your ideas WERE incorporated, and -- while the bill hasn't passed yet -- there is still a possibility that it will later this year. More on that to follow! * Recommending names of leaders in the literacy field to testify at House and Senate education committee hearings, both here in DC and at field hearings across the country. 2. PROVIDING TIMELY AND USEFUL INFORMATION ON LITERACY TO POLICYMAKERS. * Reaching out to policymakers -- in Congress (Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate), the White House, and the Department of Education and other federal agencies -- and their staffers through frequent meetings and calls that support the field's policy agenda. This includes discussions around the national literacy need, literacy needs in their states, and how literacy is connected to other issues that are priorities to them. * Responding to requests for information on literacy from policymakers. The number of these requests is rising significantly each year. All of our responses include not just NIFL information but names and phone numbers of literacy programs in their state/district. * Sharing all of our publications -- including the State of Literacy Report, our campaign kits, fellowship reports (including two on welfare and literacy), directory of state and local literacy programs, etc. -- with policymakers. Some publications, such as the State of Literacy report, we have sent to every member of Congress, Governors, and many state legislators, mayors, etc. Materials always have more bang for the buck, however, when literacy practitioners give them to policymakers directly. Policymakers are much more inclined to pay attention to something a constituent gives them than from an envelope postmarked Washington, DC. * Sending a bimonthly report to members of Congress letting them know how many people in their state called the National Literacy Hotline for assistance. This has sparked several members' interest in getting more involved in literacy issues, requesting more information about literacy needs in their states. * Helping create -- and sometimes participating in -- an informal, bipartisan Congressional Literacy Caucus, through which key Congressional staffers get together regularly to learn more about literacy and how it can be incorporated into other issues they are working on. * Participating in meetings at the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services (along with several other agencies, such as Justice and Commerce) around issues they are working on -- and being a voice at the table for literacy and how it fits in and can help them achieve their goals. * Providing materials for and participating in the Congressional Black Caucus' annual national conference, which always includes a session on adult literacy. * NIFL staff testifying about literacy at House and Senate education committee hearings. * Helping organizations that conduct regular Hill briefings include literacy on their agendas. 3. PROVIDING TIMELY AND USEFUL INFORMATION ON POLICY ISSUES TO THE LITERACY FIELD * Researching and writing Policy Updates. * Letting the field know of opportunities to comment on potential policy decisions (i.e. Listserv notices and a Policy Update that let the field know when literacy was not initially included in the Department of Labor's "Interim Final Rule" on how it planned to spend $3 billion in welfare-to-work funds -- info included the DoL's e-mail address for commenting directly on these regulations in time to make a difference.) * Speaking on policy issues at literacy conferences around the country. * With the help of Garrett Murphy, preparing a soon-to-be released report, "What Works: Integrating Basic Skills into Welfare-to-Work," which provides concise, plain language information on exemplary programs that use literacy effectively in helping people on welfare get and keep jobs. The report is designed to give literacy programs concrete ideas for how to improve their effectiveness in this area, and to show policymakers that literacy IS part of the solution. We have funded practitioners from the exemplary programs to speak about what works at several national conferences -- and will continue to do this next year. Some are literacy conferences, but some are outside the field because we believe it is also important to get this info out to the job training community, the welfare-to-work community, and state policymakers who have great influence over state welfare-to-work policies. One final note: I agree with your comments on "Double Duty Dollars." We have given copies of that article to dozens of policymakers. One, Senator Paul Simon, even took it upon himself to put it in the Congressional Record with a recommendation that all Senators read it! If others on this listserv have ideas for articles that you would like every member of Congress to receive, please send us a copy. It is relatively easy for us to get this information out, and it all helps! Please also feel free to e-mail me directly (ajohnson at nifl.gov) with ideas for other things you would like to see the National Institute for Literacy doing around policy. Thanks! Alice Johnson Policy Specialist National Institute for Literacy ajohnson at nifl.gov From DJRosen at world.std.com Tue Jul 14 16:27:49 1998 From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 16:27:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NLA Discussion: NIFL Message-ID: <199807142031.QAA22012@europe.std.com> NLA Colleagues, I want to thank Alice Johnson for her clear, comprehensive answer about NIFL's advocacy activities, and for all the work that Alice and her colleagues there do to help Congress and other policymakers understand, and better meet, the needs of the field. I think its especially important that Alice actively seeks out voices of the field and adult learners in presenting testimony to Congress. I also want to thank Andy Hartman for being available to answer questions about NIFL at the end of June. Both Andy and Alice continue as subscribers to the NLA, and I am sure would be glad to respond to questions -- and hear your thoughts about NIFL -- on the NLA list in the future. David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator Manila, the Philippines (until July 31st) On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Alice Johnson wrote: > > Bill Asbell wrote: > > 3. (Not directly related to David's questions) While NIFL can obviously not > take a partisan or otherwise "political" stance regarding ABE funding, I think > it does have an obligation to promote the needs of the country vis a vis adult > basic education, and inform politicians of the ability and/or evidence of > progress that family literacy programs and adult basic education programs can > create among the growing numbers of functionally illiterate adults in America. > Thomas Sticht refers to adult basic education as "Double Duty Dollars" and he > presents a convincing argument why ABE money can be referred to this way. NIFL, > I hope, can be engaged in this kind of lobbying. > > Bill and NLA Colleagues, > > I just wanted to respond to the above comment. While we do not > "lobby" per se, the National Institute for Literacy IS actively > involved in promoting sound public policy around literacy. I feel > that we are making a positive difference in this area, but we need to > do a better job conveying to the field what we are doing. Thanks for > the opportunity to provide an update. > > OVERVIEW OF POLICY ACTIVITIES AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY > > Before getting into the specifics of our activities, I think it is > important to explain the process we use to set our agenda each year. > > Every January, we host a one-day policy retreat where a group of 20-30 > literacy leaders with an interest in policy come together to create a > policy agenda for the year. The Institute's policy work for the next > year focuses on implementing this agenda. > > At the retreat, we first bring in Congressional staffers (Democrats > and Republicans from both the House and Senate) to brief us on their > education agendas for the coming year. Members of the Administration > also brief us on their education agenda. Next, using this > information, we discuss literacy issues, and how literacy can fit into > other key issues. Then we collaborate to create a literacy policy > agenda. This includes a lot of give-and-take, as well as a discussion > of what each of our respective organizations can do in each area. > > The Institute helps implement the field's policy agenda primarily in > the following 3 ways. > > 1. Bringing together policymakers and the literacy field to work > together for better public policy. > > 2. Providing timely and useful information on literacy to > policymakers. (This often includes connecting literacy to other > issues they care about and showing them how investing in literacy > will provide a payoff in their area of interest.) > > 3. Providing timely and useful information on policy issues to the > literacy field. > > A list of some of our activities in each of these areas follows. > > 1. BRINGING TOGETHER POLICYMAKERS AND THE LITERACY FIELD TO WORK > TOGETHER FOR BETTER POLICY. > > * Bringing in experts from the literacy field to brief policymakers > about an issue they are working on -- or that relates to legislation > they are working on. Recent briefings include: 1) bringing in > trainers from LVA, Laubach, and SCALE to meet with policymakers about > the importance of strengthening training provisions of America Reads > legislation; and 2) bringing in experts on learning disabilities to > brief staffers on the latest research findings on this issue. > > * Compiling ideas from the field around a given topic and sharing > that info with the policymakers working on the issue at a time when the > ideas can still be incorporated. For example, I solicited and compiled > comments on America Reads from about 60-70 literacy practitioners, and > shared them with the Senate staffers who were writing the bill when > they began that process. Many of your ideas WERE incorporated, and -- > while the bill hasn't passed yet -- there is still a possibility that > it will later this year. More on that to follow! > > * Recommending names of leaders in the literacy field to testify at > House and Senate education committee hearings, both here in DC and at > field hearings across the country. > > 2. PROVIDING TIMELY AND USEFUL INFORMATION ON LITERACY TO > POLICYMAKERS. > > * Reaching out to policymakers -- in Congress (Democrats and > Republicans, House and Senate), the White House, and the Department of > Education and other federal agencies -- and their staffers through > frequent meetings and calls that support the field's policy agenda. > This includes discussions around the national literacy need, literacy > needs in their states, and how literacy is connected to other issues > that are priorities to them. > > * Responding to requests for information on literacy from > policymakers. The number of these requests is rising significantly > each year. All of our responses include not just NIFL information but > names and phone numbers of literacy programs in their state/district. > > * Sharing all of our publications -- including the State of Literacy > Report, our campaign kits, fellowship reports (including two on welfare > and literacy), directory of state and local literacy programs, etc. -- > with policymakers. Some publications, such as the State of Literacy > report, we have sent to every member of Congress, Governors, and many > state legislators, mayors, etc. Materials always have more bang for > the buck, however, when literacy practitioners give them to > policymakers directly. Policymakers are much more inclined to pay > attention to something a constituent gives them than from an envelope > postmarked Washington, DC. > > * Sending a bimonthly report to members of Congress letting them > know how many people in their state called the National Literacy > Hotline for assistance. This has sparked several members' interest in > getting more involved in literacy issues, requesting more information > about literacy needs in their states. > > * Helping create -- and sometimes participating in -- an informal, > bipartisan Congressional Literacy Caucus, through which key > Congressional staffers get together regularly to learn more about > literacy and how it can be incorporated into other issues they are > working on. > > * Participating in meetings at the Departments of Education, Labor, > and Health and Human Services (along with several other agencies, such > as Justice and Commerce) around issues they are working on -- and > being a voice at the table for literacy and how it fits in and can > help them achieve their goals. > > * Providing materials for and participating in the Congressional > Black Caucus' annual national conference, which always includes a > session on adult literacy. > > * NIFL staff testifying about literacy at House and Senate education > committee hearings. > > * Helping organizations that conduct regular Hill briefings include > literacy on their agendas. > > 3. PROVIDING TIMELY AND USEFUL INFORMATION ON POLICY ISSUES TO THE > LITERACY FIELD > > * Researching and writing Policy Updates. > > * Letting the field know of opportunities to comment on potential > policy decisions (i.e. Listserv notices and a Policy Update that let > the field know when literacy was not initially included in the > Department of Labor's "Interim Final Rule" on how it planned to spend > $3 billion in welfare-to-work funds -- info included the DoL's e-mail > address for commenting directly on these regulations in time to make a > difference.) > > * Speaking on policy issues at literacy conferences around the country. > > * With the help of Garrett Murphy, preparing a soon-to-be released > report, "What Works: Integrating Basic Skills into Welfare-to-Work," > which provides concise, plain language information on exemplary > programs that use literacy effectively in helping people on welfare > get and keep jobs. The report is designed to give literacy programs > concrete ideas for how to improve their effectiveness in this area, > and to show policymakers that literacy IS part of the solution. We > have funded practitioners from the exemplary programs to speak about > what works at several national conferences -- and will continue to do > this next year. Some are literacy conferences, but some are outside > the field because we believe it is also important to get this info out > to the job training community, the welfare-to-work community, and > state policymakers who have great influence over state welfare-to-work > policies. > > One final note: I agree with your comments on "Double Duty Dollars." > We have given copies of that article to dozens of policymakers. One, > Senator Paul Simon, even took it upon himself to put it in the > Congressional Record with a recommendation that all Senators read it! > If others on this listserv have ideas for articles that you would like > every member of Congress to receive, please send us a copy. It is > relatively easy for us to get this information out, and it all helps! > > Please also feel free to e-mail me directly (ajohnson at nifl.gov) with > ideas for other things you would like to see the National Institute > for Literacy doing around policy. > > Thanks! > > Alice Johnson > Policy Specialist > National Institute for Literacy > > ajohnson at nifl.gov > > > From ajohnson at nifl.gov Tue Jul 14 18:14:15 1998 From: ajohnson at nifl.gov (Alice Johnson) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:14:15 -0400 Subject: NLA INFO AND ACTION: News from Wisconsin Message-ID: <199807142250.SAA10977@europe.std.com> NLA Colleagues: Good news from Wisconsin! My understanding is that Governor Thompson recently increased state funding for adult literacy by $1.9 million as a result of a meeting with the director of a local Laubach program. She met with him with the following: 1. INFORMATION ON THE NEED. A copy of the "State of Literacy in America" report, which shows the literacy need in Wisconsin -- and every other state. (You can get a free copy by calling 1-800-228-8813.) 2. INFORMATION ON WHAT LOCAL PROGRAMS ARE DOING. She told him how local literacy programs in the state are helping to address the need, including their successes. 3. A REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE. She then asked for his help. In addition to the $1.9 million, my understanding is that he is forming a Governor's task force on literacy to help better educate him and his Cabinet about literacy and how it connects to other issues they are working on. After we heard about this meeting's success from the program involved, we contacted Governor Thompson's office to ask him if he would be willing to help us get the report into the hands of all governors. The letter that resulted from those efforts follows. Since all governors have just received a copy of the report, now might be a good time for local programs in other states to follow up with their respective governor with information on literacy efforts in their state. Alice Johnson National Institute for Literacy July 9, 1998 Dear Governor: As Governors, you and I face many of the same challenges. The State of Literacy in America: Estimates at the Local, State, and National Levels is a new report that offer us important new information about one of these challenges. It has been very useful to me in developing education policy in Wisconsin, and has led me to focus even greater attention on the fundamental issue of literacy. The report contains equally important information about adults in your state, and I am pleased to be able to share it with you. The State of Literacy in America breaks down state-by-state the number of adults with significant literacy needs. Within each state, the report supplies this information for every congressional district, county, and city with a population over 5,000. As you know, low literacy is closely connected to poverty, immigration, and related issues, including welfare. Having reliable information about our national literacy problem can be a first step towards finding solutions, This report provides helpful insight on how to improve literacy in our states. I hope you will give it careful consideration. For further information, please call Chuck Hunter at 202-632-1517. There is no question that literacy is a serious issue for all of us. I hope this report is as useful for you as it has been for me. Sincerely, Tommy Thompson Governor From stange at gcnet.com Tue Jul 14 23:00:10 1998 From: stange at gcnet.com (Karen Stange) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 22:00:10 -0500 Subject: NLA Info: William Langner Message-ID: <199807150534.BAA23746@europe.std.com> [Karen Stange emailed me the following message. In response I am cross-posting Susan Green's email message to the NIFL-LD listserv from June 22nd. David J. Rosen, NLA Listserv Moderator] I have been a great admirer of Bill Langner for quite a number of years. He was always a great inspiration for me and many others. I did not know him well, but appreciated his efforts in the area of disabilities and adult education. I would appreciate seeing something about his life and death on the listserv. Thank you. "You cannot teach a man anything. You can only help him find it within himself" Galileo Karen Stange ABE/GED Coordinator GCCC-ALC 603 North 8th Street Garden City, KS 67846 316-675-7390\stange at gcnet.com ========================================================== I am deeply sorry to inform you that Bill Langner, a champion for adults with disabilities and special learning needs -- and a truly remarkable human being -- died last Friday. We don't know details, but he had recently been hospitalized with congestive heart failure. His death, however, was totally unexpected, because he had seemingly recovered from his hospitalization and was, as usual, back in the full swing of things, making plans for a move to Florida and doing his tireless work for the National Association for Adults with Special Learning Needs, which he co-founded. For over 20 years, Bill worked with the U.S. Department of Education's DIvision of Adult Education and Literacy as a tireless advocate for adults with special needs and the importance of building linkages between the programs serving these adults.. Among his many other related services to the field, he coordinated the International Network for Adult Learners with Disabilities and the First World Congress for Adult Learners with Disabilities. He was formerly a Presidential appointee to the National Advisory Council on Adult Education and a teacher in the School of Rehabilitative Counseling at Virginia Commonwealth University. But I think he would have said that the work closest to his heart was the 10 years he spent as the director of the Langner Learning Center in Richmond. Bill, who was in his 60's, had been paraplegic since his late teens as the result of a car accident. He had no self-pity, great optimism and humor, and enormous devotion to his work and the people he served. He was a world traveler and intrepid rider of camels and elephants. And he was the adoptive father of a Cambodian son and a proud new grandfather. Bill liked to call himself an adult education practitioner and a lifelong learner. For those of us who loved, admired, and relied on him, he was a hero, and a splendid example of how to live a life of service to its fullest every day. We will miss him terribly. When there are more details about arrangements, we will post them. Susan Green (sgreen at nifl.gov) =================================================== From basbell at npo.state.vt.us Wed Jul 15 09:28:18 1998 From: basbell at npo.state.vt.us (Bill Asbell) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 09:28:18 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: NIFL Message-ID: <199807152049.QAA15749@europe.std.com> I too, would like to thank Alice Johnson for her very comprehensive answer to the implicit questions I had about the interface that takes place between NIFL and policymakers in Washington. I was very encouraged by her responses. Bill Asbell David J Rosen wrote: > NLA Colleagues, > > I want to thank Alice Johnson for her clear, comprehensive answer about > NIFL's advocacy activities, and for all the work that Alice and her > colleagues there do to help Congress and other policymakers understand, > and better meet, the needs of the field. I think its especially important > that Alice actively seeks out voices of the field and adult learners in > presenting testimony to Congress. > > I also want to thank Andy Hartman for being available to answer > questions about NIFL at the end of June. Both Andy and Alice continue as > subscribers to the NLA, and I am sure would be glad to respond to > questions -- and hear your thoughts about NIFL -- on the NLA list in the > future. > > David J. Rosen > NLA List Moderator > Manila, the Philippines (until July 31st) > > > On Mon, 13 > Jul 1998, Alice Johnson wrote: > > > > > Bill Asbell wrote: > > > > 3. (Not directly related to David's questions) While NIFL can obviously not > > take a partisan or otherwise "political" stance regarding ABE funding, I think > > it does have an obligation to promote the needs of the country vis a vis adult > > basic education, and inform politicians of the ability and/or evidence of > > progress that family literacy programs and adult basic education programs can > > create among the growing numbers of functionally illiterate adults in America. > > Thomas Sticht refers to adult basic education as "Double Duty Dollars" and he > > presents a convincing argument why ABE money can be referred to this way. NIFL, > > I hope, can be engaged in this kind of lobbying. > > > > Bill and NLA Colleagues, > > > > I just wanted to respond to the above comment. While we do not > > "lobby" per se, the National Institute for Literacy IS actively > > involved in promoting sound public policy around literacy. I feel > > that we are making a positive difference in this area, but we need to > > do a better job conveying to the field what we are doing. Thanks for > > the opportunity to provide an update. > > > > OVERVIEW OF POLICY ACTIVITIES AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY > > > > Before getting into the specifics of our activities, I think it is > > important to explain the process we use to set our agenda each year. > > > > Every January, we host a one-day policy retreat where a group of 20-30 > > literacy leaders with an interest in policy come together to create a > > policy agenda for the year. The Institute's policy work for the next > > year focuses on implementing this agenda. > > > > At the retreat, we first bring in Congressional staffers (Democrats > > and Republicans from both the House and Senate) to brief us on their > > education agendas for the coming year. Members of the Administration > > also brief us on their education agenda. Next, using this > > information, we discuss literacy issues, and how literacy can fit into > > other key issues. Then we collaborate to create a literacy policy > > agenda. This includes a lot of give-and-take, as well as a discussion > > of what each of our respective organizations can do in each area. > > > > The Institute helps implement the field's policy agenda primarily in > > the following 3 ways. > > > > 1. Bringing together policymakers and the literacy field to work > > together for better public policy. > > > > 2. Providing timely and useful information on literacy to > > policymakers. (This often includes connecting literacy to other > > issues they care about and showing them how investing in literacy > > will provide a payoff in their area of interest.) > > > > 3. Providing timely and useful information on policy issues to the > > literacy field. > > > > A list of some of our activities in each of these areas follows. > > > > 1. BRINGING TOGETHER POLICYMAKERS AND THE LITERACY FIELD TO WORK > > TOGETHER FOR BETTER POLICY. > > > > * Bringing in experts from the literacy field to brief policymakers > > about an issue they are working on -- or that relates to legislation > > they are working on. Recent briefings include: 1) bringing in > > trainers from LVA, Laubach, and SCALE to meet with policymakers about > > the importance of strengthening training provisions of America Reads > > legislation; and 2) bringing in experts on learning disabilities to > > brief staffers on the latest research findings on this issue. > > > > * Compiling ideas from the field around a given topic and sharing > > that info with the policymakers working on the issue at a time when the > > ideas can still be incorporated. For example, I solicited and compiled > > comments on America Reads from about 60-70 literacy practitioners, and > > shared them with the Senate staffers who were writing the bill when > > they began that process. Many of your ideas WERE incorporated, and -- > > while the bill hasn't passed yet -- there is still a possibility that > > it will later this year. More on that to follow! > > > > * Recommending names of leaders in the literacy field to testify at > > House and Senate education committee hearings, both here in DC and at > > field hearings across the country. > > > > 2. PROVIDING TIMELY AND USEFUL INFORMATION ON LITERACY TO > > POLICYMAKERS. > > > > * Reaching out to policymakers -- in Congress (Democrats and > > Republicans, House and Senate), the White House, and the Department of > > Education and other federal agencies -- and their staffers through > > frequent meetings and calls that support the field's policy agenda. > > This includes discussions around the national literacy need, literacy > > needs in their states, and how literacy is connected to other issues > > that are priorities to them. > > > > * Responding to requests for information on literacy from > > policymakers. The number of these requests is rising significantly > > each year. All of our responses include not just NIFL information but > > names and phone numbers of literacy programs in their state/district. > > > > * Sharing all of our publications -- including the State of Literacy > > Report, our campaign kits, fellowship reports (including two on welfare > > and literacy), directory of state and local literacy programs, etc. -- > > with policymakers. Some publications, such as the State of Literacy > > report, we have sent to every member of Congress, Governors, and many > > state legislators, mayors, etc. Materials always have more bang for > > the buck, however, when literacy practitioners give them to > > policymakers directly. Policymakers are much more inclined to pay > > attention to something a constituent gives them than from an envelope > > postmarked Washington, DC. > > > > * Sending a bimonthly report to members of Congress letting them > > know how many people in their state called the National Literacy > > Hotline for assistance. This has sparked several members' interest in > > getting more involved in literacy issues, requesting more information > > about literacy needs in their states. > > > > * Helping create -- and sometimes participating in -- an informal, > > bipartisan Congressional Literacy Caucus, through which key > > Congressional staffers get together regularly to learn more about > > literacy and how it can be incorporated into other issues they are > > working on. > > > > * Participating in meetings at the Departments of Education, Labor, > > and Health and Human Services (along with several other agencies, such > > as Justice and Commerce) around issues they are working on -- and > > being a voice at the table for literacy and how it fits in and can > > help them achieve their goals. > > > > * Providing materials for and participating in the Congressional > > Black Caucus' annual national conference, which always includes a > > session on adult literacy. > > > > * NIFL staff testifying about literacy at House and Senate education > > committee hearings. > > > > * Helping organizations that conduct regular Hill briefings include > > literacy on their agendas. > > > > 3. PROVIDING TIMELY AND USEFUL INFORMATION ON POLICY ISSUES TO THE > > LITERACY FIELD > > > > * Researching and writing Policy Updates. > > > > * Letting the field know of opportunities to comment on potential > > policy decisions (i.e. Listserv notices and a Policy Update that let > > the field know when literacy was not initially included in the > > Department of Labor's "Interim Final Rule" on how it planned to spend > > $3 billion in welfare-to-work funds -- info included the DoL's e-mail > > address for commenting directly on these regulations in time to make a > > difference.) > > > > * Speaking on policy issues at literacy conferences around the country. > > > > * With the help of Garrett Murphy, preparing a soon-to-be released > > report, "What Works: Integrating Basic Skills into Welfare-to-Work," > > which provides concise, plain language information on exemplary > > programs that use literacy effectively in helping people on welfare > > get and keep jobs. The report is designed to give literacy programs > > concrete ideas for how to improve their effectiveness in this area, > > and to show policymakers that literacy IS part of the solution. We > > have funded practitioners from the exemplary programs to speak about > > what works at several national conferences -- and will continue to do > > this next year. Some are literacy conferences, but some are outside > > the field because we believe it is also important to get this info out > > to the job training community, the welfare-to-work community, and > > state policymakers who have great influence over state welfare-to-work > > policies. > > > > One final note: I agree with your comments on "Double Duty Dollars." > > We have given copies of that article to dozens of policymakers. One, > > Senator Paul Simon, even took it upon himself to put it in the > > Congressional Record with a recommendation that all Senators read it! > > If others on this listserv have ideas for articles that you would like > > every member of Congress to receive, please send us a copy. It is > > relatively easy for us to get this information out, and it all helps! > > > > Please also feel free to e-mail me directly (ajohnson at nifl.gov) with > > ideas for other things you would like to see the National Institute > > for Literacy doing around policy. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Alice Johnson > > Policy Specialist > > National Institute for Literacy > > > > ajohnson at nifl.gov > > > > > > From knoll at anoka.k12.mn.us Wed Jul 15 10:21:25 1998 From: knoll at anoka.k12.mn.us (Jeorgette Knoll) Date: 15 Jul 1998 09:21:25 -0500 Subject: NLA Discussion: State responses to Governors Message-ID: <199807152101.RAA17464@europe.std.com> RE>NLA INFO AND ACTION: News from... 7/15/98 Could we join with others to do a similar local response to our governor and/or legislators? I have a copy of the report mentioned in #1. jk Jeorgette Knoll -------------------------------------- Date: 7/14/98 6:04 PM To: Jeorgette Knoll From: nla at world.std.com NLA Colleagues: Good news from Wisconsin! My understanding is that Governor Thompson recently increased state funding for adult literacy by $1.9 million as a result of a meeting with the director of a local Laubach program. She met with him with the following: 1. INFORMATION ON THE NEED. A copy of the "State of Literacy in America" report, which shows the literacy need in Wisconsin -- and every other state. (You can get a free copy by calling 1-800-228-8813.) 2. INFORMATION ON WHAT LOCAL PROGRAMS ARE DOING. She told him how local literacy programs in the state are helping to address the need, including their successes. 3. A REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE. She then asked for his help. In addition to the $1.9 million, my understanding is that he is forming a Governor's task force on literacy to help better educate him and his Cabinet about literacy and how it connects to other issues they are working on. After we heard about this meeting's success from the program involved, we contacted Governor Thompson's office to ask him if he would be willing to help us get the report into the hands of all governors. The letter that resulted from those efforts follows. Since all governors have just received a copy of the report, now might be a good time for local programs in other states to follow up with their respective governor with information on literacy efforts in their state. Alice Johnson National Institute for Literacy July 9, 1998 Dear Governor: As Governors, you and I face many of the same challenges. The State of Literacy in America: Estimates at the Local, State, and National Levels is a new report that offer us important new information about one of these challenges. It has been very useful to me in developing education policy in Wisconsin, and has led me to focus even greater attention on the fundamental issue of literacy. The report contains equally important information about adults in your state, and I am pleased to be able to share it with you. The State of Literacy in America breaks down state-by-state the number of adults with significant literacy needs. Within each state, the report supplies this information for every congressional district, county, and city with a population over 5,000. As you know, low literacy is closely connected to poverty, immigration, and related issues, including welfare. Having reliable information about our national literacy problem can be a first step towards finding solutions, This report provides helpful insight on how to improve literacy in our states. I hope you will give it careful consideration. For further information, please call Chuck Hunter at 202-632-1517. There is no question that literacy is a serious issue for all of us. I hope this report is as useful for you as it has been for me. Sincerely, Tommy Thompson Governor ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by anoka.k12.mn.us with SMTP;14 Jul 1998 18:02:25 -0500 Received: by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id SAA10977; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:50:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807142250.SAA10977 at europe.std.com> To: nla at world.std.com Subject: NLA INFO AND ACTION: News from Wisconsin From: ajohnson at nifl.gov (Alice Johnson) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:14:15 -0400 Sender: nla-approval at world.std.com Precedence: list Reply-To: nla at world.std.com From AndresM at nmail.epcc.edu Wed Jul 15 10:40:31 1998 From: AndresM at nmail.epcc.edu (Andres Muro) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:40:31 -0600 Subject: NLA Info: Teacher Resists California Testing Policy Message-ID: <199807152105.RAA18042@europe.std.com> I found the posting below at the AERA list-serve. I though that you all may find it interesting. Andres I came across this article in today's New York Times. Briefly lifting three sentences: A Fresno Unified School District teacher has been suspended for five days because he refused to give a state-mandated standardized reading test, the Stanford 9, to his non-English-speaking pupils. The teacher, Silvio Manno, 43, said he thought that giving the test to his second graders at Rowell Elementary School here would have been "a humiliating insult" and ultimately harmful to them. The Fresno school superintendent, Carlos Garcia, said that although he disagreed with the state's requirement, it was his job to uphold the law and reprimand Manno. The article can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/teacher-suspend-exam.html My question: Which of these two men is the transformative leader? Doug Ganss doug at socialresearch.nu http://www.socialresearch.nu From arthur at ellijay.com Thu Jul 16 08:48:08 1998 From: arthur at ellijay.com (Art LaChance) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:48:08 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion:CA Tchr resists: Message-ID: <199807161402.KAA18095@europe.std.com> Andres' posting re: the CA teacher who refused to test his non-english students raises THE question again. Do we or do we not risk emotional trauma with 'testing' we know the student may not be successful at? At a staff development session a couple of years ago I overheard a fellow teacher of adult lit tell a small group re: mandatory TABE testing, "You just have to be a salesman!" Often siding with the students lack of confidence and feelings of anxiety, until then I had basically refused to administer initial level testing due to the emotional factors that came into play upon the mention of the "TEST". I began at that point to use testing to prove to the low-esteem students that in fact they had learned. How many times have we heard "Focus on what they CAN do" vs the failures? 3 or 4 million? Didn't CA recently reintroduce legislation mandating English as the official language of the state? Lots of dissenters out there involved in all areas of education who believe they have a better way of doing it. Unfortunately, current theories of brain functioning tell us that there's not that many better ways and that maybe the "old" way is probably the best for the masses. Is that why the Federal legislature is attempting to overhaul the current system? I don't think either one of them is a "Transformative leader". Art From ajohnson at nifl.gov Fri Jul 17 14:50:37 1998 From: ajohnson at nifl.gov (Alice Johnson) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:50:37 -0400 Subject: NLA Info:Funding Opportunity Message-ID: <199807172202.SAA04557@europe.std.com> The America Reads Office at the Department of Education asked me to post the following. Please note the deadline is August 13th. Alice Johnson National Institute for Literacy ********************************************************************** The U.S. Department of Education's Regional Educational Laboratories will award 60 subcontracts of $50,000 each to America Reads tutoring partnerships across the nation to implement tutor training programs. Subcontracts will be awarded to partnerships to provide direct training to Federal Work-Study and volunteer reading tutors. Partnerships may include colleges and universities that collaborate with local schools, other colleges and universities, and community or family literacy organizations. Additional partners may include America Reads/Read*Write*Now sites, AmeriCorps*VISTA programs, or other Corporation for National Service programs engaged in improving students' reading. Both new and existing partnerships are eligible to apply. The deadline for applications is August 13, 1998; awards will be made September 15, 1998. The Request for Proposals for these subcontracts is available at: www.ed.gov/inits/americareads/training.html From hwrigley at aiweb.com Fri Jul 17 13:18:43 1998 From: hwrigley at aiweb.com (Heide Wrigley) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:18:43 -0700 Subject: NLA Discussion:CA Tchr resists Message-ID: <199807172159.RAA04053@europe.std.com> Art and others, I am sorry that I have not been able to follow this discussion fully so I may be repeating things that have already been brought up. But I believe that no matter where you stand on the value of standardized tests, the first rule of testing (as it is in medicine) should be "First Do No Harm" - testing students who are frightened, unfamiliar with the testing procedures, or unable to understand what they are supposed to do on the test does not make sense. Not only is it "not nice" (as my friends from the southern states call anything that is unethical, uncouth, or too strange for words), but it is also not likely to yield valid data, that is, it does not really tell you what you want to know about a learner's skill levels (other than that the person was not ready to take that test) - As for California testing students who don't speak English on an English achievement test, Governor Wilson maintains that the test is purely designed as a "baseline" measure. He maintains (and the legislature backs him up), that there is no harm done in giving the test to students who don't understand it since after a year or so in ESL, they should know enough to understand at least some of the items and thus demonstrate progress. As for California and English Only, the English Only Amendment was voted in several years ago and it has made little difference in practical terms, although it did set the tone for a number of anti-immigrant propositions that have passed since then. The latest initiative, outlawing bilingual education (and presumably bilingual testing) just faced a challenge in court (in a suit brought by MALDEF) and the judge ruled that there was not sufficient reason to overrule the propostion. It's not yet clear what will happen next, although the San Francisco school district has already gone on record as saying that they will not dismantle their bilingual program (in fact Ess Eff just published their testing data that showed that students who went through their bilingual program scored significantly higher on the state mandated test than did studentss whose first language is English - Did someone already mention that the California courts ruled that while all students (ESL or not) can be tested, the state cannot publish the results until they are able to separate the scores of those who don't speak English from those who do (last I heard the testing agency was not able to do so) - More later Heide Spruck Wrigley San Mateo, CA (though not this month) hwrigley at aiweb.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Art LaChance [SMTP:arthur at ellijay.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 1998 5:48 AM > To: nla at world.std.com > Subject: NLA Discussion:CA Tchr resists: > > > Andres' posting re: the CA teacher who refused to test his non-english > students raises THE question again. > > Do we or do we not risk emotional trauma with 'testing' we know the > student may not be successful at? > > At a staff development session a couple of years ago I overheard a > fellow teacher of adult lit tell a small group re: mandatory TABE > testing, "You just have to be a salesman!" > > Often siding with the students lack of confidence and feelings of > anxiety, until then I had basically refused to administer initial > level > testing due to the emotional factors that came into play upon the > mention of the "TEST". I began at that point to use testing to prove > to > the low-esteem students that in fact they had learned. > > How many times have we heard "Focus on what they CAN do" vs the > failures? 3 or 4 million? > > Didn't CA recently reintroduce legislation mandating English as the > official language of the state? > > Lots of dissenters out there involved in all areas of education who > believe they have a better way of doing it. Unfortunately, current > theories of brain functioning tell us that there's not that many > better > ways and that maybe the "old" way is probably the best for the masses. > Is that why the Federal legislature is attempting to overhaul the > current system? > > I don't think either one of them is a "Transformative leader". > > Art From DocJN at aol.com Fri Jul 17 20:12:03 1998 From: DocJN at aol.com (DocJN at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 20:12:03 EDT Subject: NLA Discussion:Testing Message-ID: <199807180041.UAA19238@europe.std.com> I had the good fortune years ago to have Hanna Fingeret as co-chair of my doctoral committee and as the instructor of two of my graduate classes. I have never forgotten what she said about using TABE tests with adult literacy students. To paraphrase, if you're going to give adults such tests, then treat them like adults and tell them what the results mean. Otherwise, don't give it. Joye Norris From DJRosen at world.std.com Sun Jul 19 14:39:45 1998 From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 11:39:45 -0700 Subject: NLA Info: Literacy and Health Policy Message-ID: <199807190615.CAA12822@europe.std.com> NLA Colleagues, Earlier this month the National Institute for Literacy issued a press release entitled "New Report Explores Connection Between Low Literacy and Poor Health" which prompts me to raise here the question of what changes you would like to see in state and national policies to better support the integration of health education in adult literacy education classes. Over the past several years -- on the NIFL-HEALTH list -- there have been several discussions about participatory approaches to health education, and Marcia Hohn's NIFL Study report, "Empowerment Health Education in Adult Literacy: A Guide for Public Health and Adult Literacy Practitioners, Policy Makers and Funders," is an excellent discussion of such an approach. But action-oriented, participatory approaches may require changes in policy and funding if they are to become the rule rather than the exception in our field. Those of you who are using participatory methods in health education, what changes would you like to see in policy which would better enable you to do this work? The NIFL announcement may be found at [http://www.nifl.gov/Hohn.htm] . David J. Rosen Manila, the Philippines until July 31st From basbell at npo.state.vt.us Mon Jul 20 09:08:25 1998 From: basbell at npo.state.vt.us (Bill Asbell) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:08:25 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion:CA Tchr resists Message-ID: <199807201423.KAA15428@europe.std.com> I take issue with the notion that the outlawing of bilingual education is either anti-immigrant or effective or popular amongst those that it's supposed to serve. The reason why bilingual education was outlawed is because 1. it's been shown through various studies that I have cursorily read to be a failure in most instances. and 2. It was voted down overwhelmingly by the vast majority of Californians including Hispanic parents who have gone on record many times to say that they want their children to learn English as quickly as possible so that they can succeed in the workaday world. I lived in Spain for five years where bilingual education does not exist, and immigrants in Spain are clearly better off for it, nor do they complain that it doesn't exist. Those immigrants who quickly integrate into society and master the dominant language are no longer ghettoized, and they go on to successful careers with the advantage of being bilingual. Would people like Geraldo Rivera have been better off, if bilingual education existed when he was a kid? My answer is no. The history of immigration I think bears this out. I'm sure I'm in the minority opinion on this listserv, but I became fluent in Spanish while living in Spain thanks to the fact that I was NOT accomodated. I live in Vermont and have Mexican friends whose children go to the local school as did some Vietnamese children who are all now alumnae of excellent colleges. My Mexican friends and I have spoken about this subject and they are more adamant than I that bilingualism for immigrants who want to make the U.S. their permanent home is a big mistake. Bill Asbell Heide Wrigley wrote: > although it did set the tone for a number of > anti-immigrant propositions that have passed since then. The latest > initiative, outlawing bilingual education (and presumably bilingual > testing) just faced a challenge in court (in a suit brought by MALDEF) > and the judge ruled that there was not sufficient reason to overrule the > propostion. From wwlp at ix.netcom.com Mon Jul 20 11:27:59 1998 From: wwlp at ix.netcom.com (Marguerite Lukes) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 11:27:59 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion:CA Tchr resists Message-ID: <199807202158.RAA29972@europe.std.com> Bill Asbell wrote: > > I take issue with the notion that the outlawing of bilingual education is > either anti-immigrant or effective or popular amongst those that it's > supposed to serve. The reason why bilingual education was outlawed is > because 1. it's been shown through various studies that I have cursorily > read to be a failure in most instances. and 2. It was voted down > overwhelmingly by the vast majority of Californians including Hispanic > parents who have gone on record many times to say that they want their > children to learn English as quickly as possible so that they can succeed in > the workaday world. > For obvious reasons, the issue of bilingual education is a highly charged issue. I would like to comment on Bill Asbell's posting, which is excerpted above. Firstly, there are numerous studies (most recently by Virginia Collier, and previous to that by Ramirez), which indicate that programs which provide children with primary language support and content area instruction in their primary language serve to strengthen both their native language literacy skills AND their performance in academic English in the long term. Anecedotal accounts have shown that the implementation of some bilingual models have missed the mark, that teacher training, support, funding, etc., are all lacking. Well-implemented programs, especially dual-immersion programs which bring together both native speakers and non-native speakers of English with the goal of promoting bilingualism in both populations, have, when implemented well, been highly successful. Children who have attended such programs continue to reap benefits from their language and academic skills well into high school and beyond. Bill's second point, that immigrant parents want their children to learn English as quickly as possible, cannot be disputed. Yet sink-or swim is not a magic bullet. I am reminded of the multitude of ads I see in various magazines: "Learn a foreign language while you sleep!" "Speak Japanese like a diplomat in just 3 hours!" Perhaps we should invest national education funds in these programs??! Cutting off all primary language support is not the best means to help transition children into English. Many anecdotal accounts (e.g., "My grandparents came here knowing not a word of English and in no time they were fluent.") represent neither those who succeeeded economically despite their failure to master English, nor those who failed miserably in the highly touted sink or swim programs. The accounts of immigrant groups earlier in this century and of immigrant groups in other countries do not take into account some of the complexities of race and class and involuntary immigrant status which complicate the bilingual issue in this country. Given that we are part of a global economy, it is hard to see how DISCOURAGING bilingualism could be a valuable use of our national resources. It is also hard to see why we should completely scrap bilingual education when some well-implemented programs actually work. -- Marguerite Lukes, Project Manager What Works Literacy Partnership Literacy Partners, Inc. Tel: 212.802.1113 Fax: 212.725.0414 30 East 33rd Street, 6th floor E-mail: wwlp at ix.netcom.com New York, NY 10016 http://www.wwlp.org From pbryan at cabell.lib.wv.us Mon Jul 20 15:46:51 1998 From: pbryan at cabell.lib.wv.us (Pam Bryan) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:46:51 -0400 Subject: Low Literacy and Health Information Message-ID: <199807202212.SAA01798@europe.std.com> Dear Colleagues: This year I have participated in testing three new assessments in order to determine which type of assessment would be most appropriate for literacy or adult students in our state. As a direct result of one test (CASAS) I found that many of our students could not read medical information. This fall we will be holding Critical Reading for Medical Information Classes to directly address this problem to make the public aware of the problem as well as to educate our students. As regards, policy, I feel strongly that all medical information whether its on an aspirin bottle or inhaler should be at a sixth grade or lower reading level. Recently I tested the "readibility" of information that medicaid recipients are to fill out and found that it was on a college level. This is quite inappropriate at all levels. Pam Bryan ************************************************************************* Pam Bryan, pbryan at cabell.lib.wv.us Tri-State Literacy Council 304-528-5700 455 9th St. Plaza Huntington, WV 25701 ************************************************************************* From RBickerton at doe.mass.edu Tue Jul 21 08:42:27 1998 From: RBickerton at doe.mass.edu (Bickerton, Robert P) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:42:27 -0400 Subject: NLA Info: Good News in Massachusetts! Message-ID: <199807211352.JAA24837@europe.std.com> Friends & Colleagues: We're on the verge of celebrating another increase to our adult education budget in Massachusetts -- a $14 million increase this time around! Our legislature unanimously passed our state FY 1999 budget yesterday (just 20 days into the new fiscal year) and the Governor has indicated he will sign it. After decades of struggling with terribly inadequate resources, we are moving from only $4 million in state ABE funding to almost $34 million in just the past four years! It's true that a healthy state budget went a long way toward this growth, but it never would have happened without a lot of dialogue, agreement, tenacity and hard work over many, many years. Yes, "champions" have emerged (particularly in the legislature which understands and supports the "investment" side of ABE funding), but four consecutive years of growth (an "abundant harvest") is really the result of widespread and never ending "tilling the soil", i.e., grass roots organizing, educating and marketing. Two other key ingredient are: a very successful and well established collaboration among ALL ABE/literacy/ESOL constituencies across the state, and our common vision of quality/effective standards based adult education. This last component played an especially important role during a budget cycle that began with a challenge to the "governance" of adult education by one part of one sector of our very diverse delivery system. The belief among all possible types of service providers (community based organizations, school systems, higher education, municipal agencies, corrections, volunteer programs, etc.) held us together BUT what really did the trick was the Legislature's confidence that we are doing a good/the right job -- i.e., that we are committed to quality services and meeting high standards. They unanimously rebuffed the takeover bid, saving us from (a) year(s) of infighting and losing the opportunity for the funding increase we ultimately achieved! In fact, it appears that once again, out of adversity came opportunity. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble on -- is it possible to drink too much Champaign? With all that's going on here, I do miss spending as much time as I'd like on the national advocacy scene -- which I continue to believe is just as ripe for dramatic success -- sustaining a real "American Dream" requires ABE to have $100 million per year more in funding nationally until we reach $1 billion! LET's DO IT! take care, bob bickerton MA director of adult education From DocJN at aol.com Tue Jul 21 11:08:49 1998 From: DocJN at aol.com (DocJN at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:08:49 EDT Subject: NLA Info: Good News in Massachusetts! Message-ID: <199807212228.SAA24349@europe.std.com> Congratulations Bob - to you for lighting so many fires and keeping them lit - and to everyone else in your state for working TOGETHER. The best part is knowing how many lives will be touched and changed in so MANY ways. JoyeNorris North Carolina From AndresM at nmail.epcc.edu Tue Jul 21 11:33:19 1998 From: AndresM at nmail.epcc.edu (Andres Muro) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:33:19 -0600 Subject: NLA Discussion: Literacy and Health Policy Message-ID: <199807212235.SAA25304@europe.std.com> Regarding the health literacy question, I believe that most funding to do health literacy currently comes from foundations. Foundation funding is actually quite limited. We had a small grant form Laubach to develop some health literacy curriculum in El Paso. The total award was $7,000. We got a lot of mileage out of this funding, especially since we already have a large infrastructure and we were able to incorporate health literacy into our existing classes. However, $7,000 is really nothing. We are currently looking for additional funding to continue this. One of the things that we found was that students were very receptive to health literacy issues. Health literacy is a great way to incorporate content into an English class, since most students are interested in the topic. Furthermore, instructors can find health literacy related materials everywhere. I think that this is a content area that would probably be interesting to every single student attending a literacy program. In addition this topic relates to every aspect of our lives. It relates to family, workplace, and community (the three EFF areas). Going back to the funding issue, I think that the Dept. of Ed. together with the Dept of Health & HS might need to combine some funds to target health literacy. The could either create a formula, or make it available through competition. They should make this available on a yearly basis. I can see the Republicans saying that any such funding should be given to the states, and the states should decide whether or not the money should be spend in health literacy or any other issue identified by each of the states constituents (and we know who they are). They will decide (of course) that before people learn anything, they must "WORK FIRST". YEAH! Andres From jonette at lakecountry.net Tue Jul 21 13:02:39 1998 From: jonette at lakecountry.net (Jonette Thornhill) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:02:39 -0500 Subject: NLA Question: Low Literacy ESL Class Message-ID: <199807212240.SAA25874@europe.std.com> [Please reply to , not to the NLA list. David J. Rosen, NLA List Moderator] Can someone assist with suggestions for my class of 4 people that only speak Spanish and do not know even the Spanish alphabet? I am having problems making any advances with the class with the literature I have. I do not have a computer available for the classes. Jonette Thornhill jonette at lakecountry.net From ahartman at nifl.gov Tue Jul 21 00:35:38 1998 From: ahartman at nifl.gov (Andrew Hartman) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 00:35:38 -0400 Subject: NLA Question: Competencies for IT jobs Message-ID: <199807212255.SAA28222@europe.std.com> [Please reply directly to not to the NLA List. Thanks, David J. Rosen, NLA List Moderator.] The NIFL is working with Job Corps in the US Department of Labor and several IT companies (Microsoft and Cisco Systems for e.g.) to develop a list of competencies (and the related training/instruction and assessment) needed for entry level IT jobs. The hope is to create a credential and course work that would allow adults in basic skill programs to get such jobs and be eligible for higher level, product-specific training. We are already looking at some of the competencies developed by Job Corps and are working with a community college from Seattle which has done some work in this area. Does anyone know of any adult education programs that have integrated their basic skills instuction into job preparation for IT jobs, or any group that has identified the basic skills/competencies needed for initial entry into these occupations? I would like to get my hands on specific instances of this so that I could bring them to a meeting later this week. Thanks! Andy Hartman NIFL ahartman at nifl.gov 202-632-1522 From DocBSP at aol.com Wed Jul 22 07:53:25 1998 From: DocBSP at aol.com (DocBSP at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 07:53:25 EDT Subject: NLA Info: Good News in Massachusetts! Message-ID: <199807221240.IAA06792@europe.std.com> Dear Bob, Congratulations on a job well done! I know it has required a lot of hard work and persistent efforts over time to achieve the support of the legislature for ABE in Massachusetts. I agree that we are about to see the same evidence of support in other states, but it is still going to take the constant efforts of individuals like yourself and others who are committed to adult education to keep the issues in the public light. I think it was Thomas Paine who gets credit for the quote, "The price of democracy is constant vigilance." The same is true for adult education, which ultimately maintains a democratic society. Thanks for all of your diligent efforts. Sincerely, Brenda Peters From RBickerton at doe.mass.edu Wed Jul 22 08:37:11 1998 From: RBickerton at doe.mass.edu (Bickerton, Robert P) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:37:11 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: Literacy and Health Policy Message-ID: <199807221244.IAA07284@europe.std.com> Andres, et al, I agree with the high level of interest and value, re, incorporating health content/curricula into adult education teaching and learning. There are, however, other avenues for funding such initiatives. Massachusetts raised taxes on cigarettes a few years ago (as I imagine several states either have or are considering) and has dedicated much of this funding to education and anti- tobacco advertising. Generally, the education part of this would have been used only for K-12, however, because we've worked to integrate/coordinate adult education into every aspect of education (and other public policy arenas as well), we have received a portion of this funding -- between $300,000 and $400,000 per year. It's been a great boost for incorporating health education (using highly participatory methods, including paying students for their curriculum development contributions) into our adult education work. So, in addition to pursuing private and federal support, adult educators should very proactively and aggressively pursue partnerships with their state's health and education investments -- our adult students need/deserve this support too! (and besides, we're a very effective system to reach this audience on behalf of our state's preventative health objectives!) bob bickerton MA director of adult ed > -----Original Message----- > From: Andres Muro [SMTP:AndresM at nmail.epcc.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 11:33 AM > To: nla at world.std.com > Subject: NLA Discussion: Literacy and Health Policy > > > Regarding the health literacy question, I believe that most funding to > do > health literacy currently comes from foundations. Foundation funding > is > actually quite limited. We had a small grant form Laubach to develop > some health literacy curriculum in El Paso. The total award was > $7,000. > We got a lot of mileage out of this funding, especially since we > already > have a large infrastructure and we were able to incorporate health > literacy into our existing classes. However, $7,000 is really nothing. > We > are currently looking for additional funding to continue this. > > One of the things that we found was that students were very receptive > to health literacy issues. Health literacy is a great way to > incorporate > content into an English class, since most students are interested in > the > topic. Furthermore, instructors can find health literacy related > materials > everywhere. I think that this is a content area that would probably be > interesting to every single student attending a literacy program. In > addition this topic relates to every aspect of our lives. It relates > to family, > workplace, and community (the three EFF areas). > > Going back to the funding issue, I think that the Dept. of Ed. > together with > the Dept of Health & HS might need to combine some funds to target > health literacy. The could either create a formula, or make it > available > through competition. They should make this available on a yearly > basis. I > can see the Republicans saying that any such funding should be given > to > the states, and the states should decide whether or not the money > should be spend in health literacy or any other issue identified by > each of > the states constituents (and we know who they are). They will decide > (of course) that before people learn anything, they must "WORK FIRST". > YEAH! > > Andres From AndresM at nmail.epcc.edu Wed Jul 22 11:45:28 1998 From: AndresM at nmail.epcc.edu (Andres Muro) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:45:28 -0600 Subject: NLA Discussion: Literacy and Health Policy Message-ID: <199807230511.BAA04502@europe.std.com> I hope that Dr. Roussos reads this and shares it with George Bush. If anyone in TX would like to explore such an initiative, maybe, we could share our e-mail addresses and start conversing about this. Andres >>> "Bickerton, Robert P" 07/22/98 06:37am >>> Andres, et al, I agree with the high level of interest and value, re, incorporating health content/curricula into adult education teaching and learning. There are, however, other avenues for funding such initiatives. Massachusetts raised taxes on cigarettes a few years ago (as I imagine several states either have or are considering) and has dedicated much of this funding to education and anti- tobacco advertising. Generally, the education part of this would have been used only for K-12, however, because we've worked to integrate/coordinate adult education into every aspect of education (and other public policy arenas as well), we have received a portion of this funding -- between $300,000 and $400,000 per year. It's been a great boost for incorporating health education (using highly participatory methods, including paying students for their curriculum development contributions) into our adult education work. So, in addition to pursuing private and federal support, adult educators should very proactively and aggressively pursue partnerships with their state's health and education investments -- our adult students need/deserve this support too! (and besides, we're a very effective system to reach this audience on behalf of our state's preventative health objectives!) bob bickerton MA director of adult ed > -----Original Message----- > From: Andres Muro [SMTP:AndresM at nmail.epcc.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 11:33 AM > To: nla at world.std.com > Subject: NLA Discussion: Literacy and Health Policy > > > Regarding the health literacy question, I believe that most funding to > do > health literacy currently comes from foundations. Foundation funding > is > actually quite limited. We had a small grant form Laubach to develop > some health literacy curriculum in El Paso. The total award was > $7,000. > We got a lot of mileage out of this funding, especially since we > already > have a large infrastructure and we were able to incorporate health > literacy into our existing classes. However, $7,000 is really nothing. > We > are currently looking for additional funding to continue this. > > One of the things that we found was that students were very receptive > to health literacy issues. Health literacy is a great way to > incorporate > content into an English class, since most students are interested in > the > topic. Furthermore, instructors can find health literacy related > materials > everywhere. I think that this is a content area that would probably be > interesting to every single student attending a literacy program. In > addition this topic relates to every aspect of our lives. It relates > to family, > workplace, and community (the three EFF areas). > > Going back to the funding issue, I think that the Dept. of Ed. > together with > the Dept of Health & HS might need to combine some funds to target > health literacy. The could either create a formula, or make it > available > through competition. They should make this available on a yearly > basis. I > can see the Republicans saying that any such funding should be given > to > the states, and the states should decide whether or not the money > should be spend in health literacy or any other issue identified by > each of > the states constituents (and we know who they are). They will decide > (of course) that before people learn anything, they must "WORK FIRST". > YEAH! > > Andres From DEBBYDAM at aol.com Wed Jul 22 13:05:33 1998 From: DEBBYDAM at aol.com (DEBBYDAM at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:05:33 EDT Subject: NLA Info: Senate bill, no funding for Minorities in college Message-ID: <199807230527.BAA05610@europe.std.com> Dear Adult Education Colleagues: the attached message concerns us all, as it effectively closes off many avenues and steps on the ladder to the students we work with. Please take action to prevent this bill from passing. DEBBYDAM at aol.com Message-ID: <2.2.16.19980721104757.222f3fc2 at pop.igc.org> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:45:42 -0700 Reply-To: LABNEWS - News and Organizing about the Labor Movement Sender: LABNEWS - News and Organizing about the Labor Movement From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: FW: Senate passes bill on no funding for Minorities in College (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list LABNEWS > >Subject: Senate passes bill on no funding for Minorities in > >College > > > >A bill will be heard in Congress next week to prohibit affirmative > >action in admissions for ANY institution of higher education that > >receives ANY federal funding (pell grants, loans, etc.) . This would end > >affirmative action in EVERY COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY IN THE UNITED STATES! > >Rep. Frank Riggs (R-CA)Chairman of the House Education Subcommittee on > >Children, Youth, and Families is planning to offer an ANTI-AFFIRMITVE > >ACTION in admissions amendment when the Higher Education Act is voted on > >the floor NEXT WEEK (JULY 13-17). > >The amendment would prohibit all institution5 of higher education from > >using affirmative action in its, admission decisions. If even one > >student at the institution receives federal funds (i.e., Pell Grant or > >Student Loan) they would be violating federal law under this proposal. > >Affirmative Action would be illegal even if the school believes it is > >necessary to insure a diverse student body, or to remedy past or present > >discrimination. > >Call members of Congress (202) 224-3121 and the President (202)456-1414. > >They need to hear from us the importance of affirmative action. > >PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW! ALL OF US WILL LOSE IF THIS > >BILL BECOMES THE LAW OF THE LAND! > >To vote against this hill call the Capitol 0 202-224-3121. If you're > >from NJ, ask to be connected to Senators Torricelli and Lautenberg. Ask > >the operator for one and his secretary can connect you to the other one > >after she takes down your message. If you're not from NJ, tell the > >operator your state of voter registration or where you grew up. > >It is urgent that you make these calls ASAP. This bill will get passed > >this week if we don't take action. Hell, it may get passed anyway, but > >at least you can say that you called to voice your opinion. This bill > >has far-reaching effects in higher education for African-Americans. > >Please pass this on to anyone you know. If they're not from, NJ, have > >them contact the Senator from the state in which they're registered. --part1_901127134_boundary-- --part0_901127134_boundary-- From russell at literacy.upenn.edu Wed Jul 22 14:29:03 1998 From: russell at literacy.upenn.edu (Mary Russell) Date: 22 Jul 98 14:29:03 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: Literacy and Health Policy Message-ID: <199807230941.FAA21745@europe.std.com> I was most interested in Andres Muro's remarks about literacy and health. I have been meaning to reply to the other messages I have read on this topic through NLA for some time. At NCAL, we are acutely aware of the needs in this area, and have been searching for several years for funding for badly needed programs and research. We have, for example, recently submitted a proposal ( for the second time) in which we are collaborating with the Philadelphia Department of Public Health and the Mayors Commission on Literacy (as well as a number of programs and other partners). The project, called HEALTHNET, is dedicated to improving both the quality of health information available to parents of children with special needs, and access to it through technology. In addition, we have also had several discussions with the March of Dimes and other foundations on the topic of research on health and literacy. It may be that we are not getting the message out to possible funders as well as we might. Mary Russell NCAL Telephone:215-898-4539 University of Pennsylvania Fax: 215-898-9804 Graduate School of Education russell at literacy.upenn.edu 3910 Chestnut Street http://www.literacyonline.org Philadelphia, PA 19104-3111 Andres Muro wrote: > >Regarding the health literacy question, I believe that most funding to do >health literacy currently comes from foundations. Foundation funding is >actually quite limited. We had a small grant form Laubach to develop >some health literacy curriculum in El Paso. The total award was $7,000. >We got a lot of mileage out of this funding, especially since we already >have a large infrastructure and we were able to incorporate health >literacy into our existing classes. However, $7,000 is really nothing. We >are currently looking for additional funding to continue this. > >One of the things that we found was that students were very receptive >to health literacy issues. Health literacy is a great way to incorporate >content into an English class, since most students are interested in the >topic. Furthermore, instructors can find health literacy related materials >everywhere. I think that this is a content area that would probably be >interesting to every single student attending a literacy program. In >addition this topic relates to every aspect of our lives. It relates to family, >workplace, and community (the three EFF areas). > >Going back to the funding issue, I think that the Dept. of Ed. together with >the Dept of Health & HS might need to combine some funds to target >health literacy. The could either create a formula, or make it available >through competition. They should make this available on a yearly basis. I >can see the Republicans saying that any such funding should be given to >the states, and the states should decide whether or not the money >should be spend in health literacy or any other issue identified by each of >the states constituents (and we know who they are). They will decide >(of course) that before people learn anything, they must "WORK FIRST". >YEAH! > >Andres From jbehroozi at nifl.gov Wed Jul 22 17:37:11 1998 From: jbehroozi at nifl.gov (Jaleh Behroozi) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:37:11 -0400 Subject: Connection Between Low Literacy and Poor Health--New Report Message-ID: <199807230949.FAA22207@europe.std.com> National Institute for Literacy http://www.nifl.gov/Announcements.html PRESS RELEASE: CONTACT: Alice Johnson 202/632-1516 New Report Explores Connection Between Low Literacy and Poor Health Washington, DC - Incorporating health education directly into literacy programs could be an important step towards helping low literate adults improve their health, according to a new report from the National Institute for Literacy. Research has found a close connection between low literacy and poor health. A key factor is that health education materials are generally written at the 10th grade reading level or beyond, so adults with low literacy levels generally do not benefit from the information. The report, "Empowerment Health Education in Adult Literacy: A Guide for Public Health and Adult Literacy Practitioners, Policy Makers and Funders," identifies ways of incorporating health education into literacy programs. It includes suggestions for how to best bring information on early detection of breast, cervical, and testicular cancer into the adult literacy classroom. Ideas for incorporating family violence issues into the curriculum are also included. "This report can be an important tool in helping adult educators and literacy tutors assist students in improving their own health and the health of their children," stated Andy Hartman, Director of the National Institute for Literacy. "As this population improves its health status, society will also benefit by paying less for public health costs." The report is the result of a two-year participatory action research project conducted by Marcia Drew Hohn, Ed.D., Director of the System for Adult Basic Education Support at Northern Essex Community College in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Dr. Hohn conducted the research and produced the report as part of a Literacy Leader Fellowship award from the National Institute for Literacy. The report is available at no cost from the Institute's Hotline and Clearinghouse at 1-800-228-8813. ### From SGabb412 at aol.com Thu Jul 23 09:14:42 1998 From: SGabb412 at aol.com (SGabb412 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:14:42 EDT Subject: NLA Discussion: Literacy and Health Policy/ RI efforts Message-ID: <199807231335.JAA11177@europe.std.com> Andres, Bob B and all - here in RI several agencies, including my own (Genesis Center) have been successful doing just as MA, obtaining Health Dpt. funds as part of our community learning projects. Genesis is part of the RI State Minority Health Promotions initiative, a three year cycle - we have integrated health ed with our ESOL literacy, and have also produced a curriculum guide for integrated EESOL & health ed. In addition, we have been able to pay 'peer health educators' - learners who are trained to go into the community to encourage access to health care. As Marcia Hohn's report underscores, there is a direct relationship between health status and literacy. Through literacy, we can encourage leadership development among our learners and impact community health systems. I agree, we need to advocate as well for better linkages at the state and federal levels for joint funding to pursue more creative research and program delilvery. Sally Gabb, Providence RI From arthur at ellijay.com Wed Jul 22 15:50:28 1998 From: arthur at ellijay.com (Art LaChance) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:50:28 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion:CA Tchr resists Message-ID: <199807231358.JAA15268@europe.std.com> Marguerite Lukes wrote: > Bill Asbell wrote: > > > > I take issue with the notion that the outlawing of bilingual education is > > either anti-immigrant or effective or popular amongst those that it's > > supposed to serve. The reason why bilingual education was outlawed is > > because 1. it's been shown through various studies that I have cursorily > > read to be a failure in most instances. and 2. It was voted down > > overwhelmingly by the vast majority of Californians including Hispanic > > parents who have gone on record many times to say that they want their > > children to learn English as quickly as possible so that they can succeed in > > the workaday world. > > > For obvious reasons, the issue of bilingual education is a highly > charged issue. I would like to comment on Bill Asbell's posting, which > is excerpted above. Firstly, there are numerous studies (most recently > by Virginia Collier, and previous to that by Ramirez), which indicate > that programs which provide children with primary language support and > content area instruction in their primary language serve to strengthen > both their native language literacy skills AND their performance in > academic English in the long term. Anecedotal accounts have shown that > the implementation of some bilingual models have missed the mark, that > teacher training, support, funding, etc., are all lacking. > Well-implemented programs, especially dual-immersion programs which > bring together both native speakers and non-native speakers of English > with the goal of promoting bilingualism in both populations, have, when > implemented well, been highly successful. Children who have attended > such programs continue to reap benefits from their language and academic > skills well into high school and beyond. > > Bill's second point, that immigrant parents want their children to learn > English as quickly as possible, cannot be disputed. Yet sink-or swim is > not a magic bullet. I am reminded of the multitude of ads I see in > various magazines: "Learn a foreign language while you sleep!" "Speak > Japanese like a diplomat in just 3 hours!" Perhaps we should invest > national education funds in these programs??! > Cutting off all primary language support is not the best means to help > transition children into English. Many anecdotal accounts (e.g., "My > grandparents came here knowing not a word of English and in no time they > were fluent.") represent neither those who succeeeded economically > despite their failure to master English, nor those who failed miserably > in the highly touted sink or swim programs. The accounts of immigrant > groups earlier in this century and of immigrant groups in other > countries do not take into account some of the complexities of race and > class and involuntary immigrant status which complicate the bilingual > issue in this country. > > Given that we are part of a global economy, it is hard to see how > DISCOURAGING bilingualism could be a valuable use of our national > resources. It is also hard to see why we should completely scrap > bilingual education when some well-implemented programs actually work. > -- > Marguerite Lukes, Project Manager What Works Literacy Partnership > Literacy Partners, Inc. Tel: 212.802.1113 Fax:212.725.0414 > 30 East 33rd Street, 6th floor E-mail: wwlp at ix.netcom.com > New York, NY 10016 http://www.wwlp.org The ideal world would indeed contribute to primary language and secondary language academic education in much the same way as Marguerite describes. However, I think we need to look at the limited funding allocations and what that means to small communities re: the suggestion to provide such comprehensive education. Just a couple of the several questions that emerge: How many students warrant establishing a new class and supporting a bilingual teacher? One? Ten?; How will we assess the language skills of the foreign student and will we place them all in a multilevel class? For many reasons, I believe the requirement that we only provide education in English is very wise decision. The medical, law, business, and industrial communities might very well agree. In this small, rural community we are experiencing a surge (for about 5 yrs) of foreign born workers. They come here for the employment opportunities almost immediately after arriving in the US. We now have a three way language split; Guatemalan, Mexican, and English (Guatemalan and Mexican are evidently very different dialects). Margurite appears to suggest we should establish a separate track in all subject areas for all three nationalities. Unfortunately, we can't get there from here. The local organizations already mentioned are experiencing the effects of the communication blocks. It's rather difficult to attend to in a community of limited and small resources. Regardless of the academic processes, the question of how do we educate the parents when we provide primary language instruction arises. I think we'll find the easiest way to teach the parents is to teach the child who then educates the parent in the local language, and will act as a trusted interpreter. How about: What if the only education the foreign born student received was reading in English until they reached a predetermined competency level before they were mainstreamed?? Multiage, multilevel classes dedicated only to English proficiency. Makes more sense to us than just jamming them into a History class and see if they float. Best, Art From jonette at lakecountry.net Thu Jul 23 11:07:53 1998 From: jonette at lakecountry.net (Jonette Thornhill) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:07:53 -0500 Subject: NLA Discussion:CA Tchr resists Message-ID: <199807231520.LAA02181@europe.std.com> If a teacher disobeys the law of the area, he/she is telling the students that law is unimportant and to break the law is nothing. Why should the students think they are wrong when they break the laws if the teachers teach them to do so any time they disagree with the law. We must get back to teaching compliance to existing laws and get the laws changed if they are wrong. Jonette Thornhill ---------- > From: Art LaChance > To: nla at world.std.com > Subject: NLA Discussion:CA Tchr resists > Date: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 2:50 PM > > Marguerite Lukes wrote: > > > Bill Asbell wrote: > > > > > > I take issue with the notion that the outlawing of bilingual education > is > > > either anti-immigrant or effective or popular amongst those that it's > > > supposed to serve. The reason why bilingual education was outlawed is > > > because 1. it's been shown through various studies that I have > cursorily > > > read to be a failure in most instances. and 2. It was voted down > > > overwhelmingly by the vast majority of Californians including Hispanic > > > parents who have gone on record many times to say that they want their > > > children to learn English as quickly as possible so that they can > succeed in > > > the workaday world. > > > > > For obvious reasons, the issue of bilingual education is a highly > > charged issue. I would like to comment on Bill Asbell's posting, which > > is excerpted above. Firstly, there are numerous studies (most recently > > by Virginia Collier, and previous to that by Ramirez), which indicate > > that programs which provide children with primary language support and > > content area instruction in their primary language serve to strengthen > > both their native language literacy skills AND their performance in > > academic English in the long term. Anecedotal accounts have shown that > > the implementation of some bilingual models have missed the mark, that > > teacher training, support, funding, etc., are all lacking. > > Well-implemented programs, especially dual-immersion programs which > > bring together both native speakers and non-native speakers of English > > with the goal of promoting bilingualism in both populations, have, when > > implemented well, been highly successful. Children who have attended > > such programs continue to reap benefits from their language and academic > > skills well into high school and beyond. > > > > Bill's second point, that immigrant parents want their children to learn > > English as quickly as possible, cannot be disputed. Yet sink-or swim is > > not a magic bullet. I am reminded of the multitude of ads I see in > > various magazines: "Learn a foreign language while you sleep!" "Speak > > Japanese like a diplomat in just 3 hours!" Perhaps we should invest > > national education funds in these programs??! > > Cutting off all primary language support is not the best means to help > > transition children into English. Many anecdotal accounts (e.g., "My > > grandparents came here knowing not a word of English and in no time they > > were fluent.") represent neither those who succeeeded economically > > despite their failure to master English, nor those who failed miserably > > in the highly touted sink or swim programs. The accounts of immigrant > > groups earlier in this century and of immigrant groups in other > > countries do not take into account some of the complexities of race and > > class and involuntary immigrant status which complicate the bilingual > > issue in this country. > > > > Given that we are part of a global economy, it is hard to see how > > DISCOURAGING bilingualism could be a valuable use of our national > > resources. It is also hard to see why we should completely scrap > > bilingual education when some well-implemented programs actually work. > > -- > > Marguerite Lukes, Project Manager What Works Literacy Partnership > > Literacy Partners, Inc. Tel: 212.802.1113 > Fax:212.725.0414 > > 30 East 33rd Street, 6th floor E-mail: wwlp at ix.netcom.com > > New York, NY 10016 http://www.wwlp.org > > The ideal world would indeed contribute to primary language and > secondary language academic education in much the same way as Marguerite > describes. However, I think we need to look at the limited funding > allocations and what that means to small communities re: the suggestion > to provide such comprehensive education. Just a couple of the several > questions that emerge: How many students warrant establishing a new > class and supporting a bilingual teacher? One? Ten?; How will we assess > the language skills of the foreign student and will we place them all in > a multilevel class? > > For many reasons, I believe the requirement that we only provide > education in English is very wise decision. The medical, law, business, > and industrial communities might very well agree. > In this small, rural community we are experiencing a surge (for about 5 > yrs) of foreign born workers. They come here for the employment > opportunities almost immediately after arriving in the US. We now have > a three way language split; Guatemalan, Mexican, and English (Guatemalan > and Mexican are evidently very different dialects). Margurite appears > to suggest we should establish a separate track in all subject areas for > all three nationalities. Unfortunately, we can't get there from here. > The local organizations already mentioned are experiencing the effects > of the communication blocks. It's rather difficult to attend to in a > community of limited and small resources. > > Regardless of the academic processes, the question of how do we educate > the parents when we provide primary language instruction arises. I > think we'll find the easiest way to teach the parents is to teach the > child who then educates the parent in the local language, and will act > as a trusted interpreter. > > How about: What if the only education the foreign born student received > was reading in English until they reached a predetermined competency > level before they were mainstreamed?? Multiage, multilevel classes > dedicated only to English proficiency. > Makes more sense to us than just jamming them into a History class and > see if they float. > > Best, > > Art From gyoung at nifl.gov Thu Jul 23 00:41:57 1998 From: gyoung at nifl.gov (Glenn Young) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:41:57 -0400 Subject: NLA Info: Welfare Reform and LD Listserv Message-ID: <199807232159.RAA04175@europe.std.com> From Glenn Young NIFL For those interested in the subject of welfare reform and learning disabilities, there has been a list serv created on that subject through LINCs. To sign up, please send a message to: listproc at literacy.nifl.gov write in the body of the message subscribe nifl-wtwld and your name. do not write anything in the subject line and do not use any dots or dashes other than between nifl and wtwld. Thanks From AndresM at nmail.epcc.edu Wed Jul 22 12:59:13 1998 From: AndresM at nmail.epcc.edu (Andres Muro) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:59:13 -0600 Subject: NLA Discussion:CA Tchr resists Message-ID: <199807232256.SAA11267@europe.std.com> Bill et al: The issue of bilingual education is a complex one. I will not dwell into it much at this time. Recently, there was an interesting debate about this in the NIFL-ESL list-serve. It emerges every so often. I am sure that there is an archive somewhere. Regarding the fact that bilingual ed may have not fared well in some programs in California does not mean that bilingual education is necessarily bad. It may mean many things such as: 1. An effective model of a bilingual ed model was not implemented. 2. An effective model may have been used, but teachers did not receive training in how to implement it effectively. 3. Other external factors contributed to the lack of success. Bilingual programs are not the only ones that fail. Many monolingual programs fail too. In fact, the K-12 system in the US has been under fire for its inability to effectively serve a significant number of the population. If you were to look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey, you will find that 90,000,000 adults in this country score in the two lowest of five literacy levels. Many of them did in fact attend monolingual public schools. Just as many bilingual and monolingual programs fail to properly serve their constituents, there are also many bilingual and monolingual models that are very good. Therefore, attacking all bilingual education is senseless, since this is a broad category. What you must do is look at different models, the way that they were implemented, and the barriers. Only after a careful analysis, you may conclude that a particular model of instruction is or isn't effective with a specific population. An apparent problem is that most people think that they are experts in education and they make decisions about education without much background. As a result, educational models are put to a vote. This is similar to allowing medical models or engineering models being put to a vote. Regarding the fact that the majority of people in Calif. voted against bilingual ed, I will give you my standard response. During the 30s the majority of Germans supported Hitler. Based on your logic, Hitler should have been an excellent choice. Decisions about education should be left to people with training in the field! Andres From basbell at npo.state.vt.us Thu Jul 23 16:01:53 1998 From: basbell at npo.state.vt.us (Bill Asbell) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 16:01:53 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: Bilingual Education does not foster bilingualism Message-ID: <199807232302.TAA12003@europe.std.com> Marguerite, Andres, Art and Colleagues, The point I was trying to make was that bilingual education has not been shown to the public to be preferable to the standard model which existed before. It goes against logic and my personal experience of 2nd language acquisition to support any kind of watered down version of language immersion. ESOL is what can transition kids into the English classroom, but Hispanic citizens who voted down bilingual education instinctively know that their kids are being held back by the current experimental system. If the supporters of bilingual education had a convincing argument the citizens of California would have voted to keep it. People want what's best for their children. This is undisputable. But, more importantly, we live in a democracy which gives people the opportunity to vote for what they do and don't want. The people in California including those who are taught in Spanish have made there decision in overwhelming numbers. You may not agree with it, but many do. Andres' excuses for mediocre results from bilingual education: > Regarding the fact that bilingual ed may have not fared well in some > programs in California does not mean that bilingual education is > necessarily bad. It may mean many things such as: > > 1. An effective model of a bilingual ed model was not implemented. > 2. An effective model may have been used, but teachers did not receive > training in how to implement it effectively. > 3. Other external factors contributed to the lack of success. > are moot, because the American taxpayers who pay educators aren't concerned about the "why" something fares badly, they are concerned with outcome. Excuses won't cut it with most of the voting public anymore, and very often they have legitimate gripes. If you think that after failure, even relative failure, you can continue to convince people that with just a few more million of their tax dollars, you'll turn the thing around, then I wish you luck. It seems that at least in California, the case has been closed. I think it high time to lick the wounds and move on to things we can address. I certainly agree with Andres that the K-12 system is failing as well, but by his logic, failure is something to be emulated because it is widespread. Am I supposed to believe that (as his logic implies) perhaps children fail because they are going to monolingual schools. Where is the connection?. If children cannot function in the dominant language after years of being taught in the foreign language, what are we to conclude? If the children fail in the dominant language too, should we therefore teach them in the foreign language? > Decisions about education should be left > to people with training in the field! > Well, if the people with training in the field, namely the school systems, were producing a highly literate student body, I don't suspect that citizens would take it upon themselves to get involved. It's precisely because the public knows the importance of a good education that they are forcing the issue. Until the kind of reform that changes the statistics from bad to good occurs, you can expect more referendums like the one in California. This is a reality that misplaced idealism will not assuage. I, like all of you know that there is a lot more to outcomes than what goes on in schools. The home life is almost certainly more important. That is why we need to increase the focus on family literacy, however the public sees it as the public schools job to educate their children, and it's not happening to their satisfaction. The Hitler comment is ridiculous, you might consider changing your standard response. By that logic we should do away with voting altogether. You're saying that the majority must be wrong because you found an instance in which it was. After all, we can't let the people who don't know all the answers have a say in the education of THEIR children, it might not be in their own best interest. It is that kind of "government knows best" arrogance in Education circles that really endears us to parents and voters. Anyway, most people don't think they are experts in education. Most people know what it means to become educated, and that "experts" are as much the problem as the solution. The experts are a relatively new phenomenon, education is not. Maybe Plato was an expert? He was in fact a teacher. In the minds of the public, methodology has taken the place of subject matter and knowledge. That is what the whole backlash is about. Parents care less about a multicultural agenda than they do about whether Johnny can speak and write English or not. The rise in home-schooling bears this out. If we in the literacy field are to make real headway in a nation still at risk, we must drop ideological agendas and attack the task at hand, ie., providing knowledge content and stop sugar-coating things to be overly "easy" and/or "fun". We should be getting across to learners, both kids and adults, that in addition to possibly being fun, learning requires patience, consistency, and work, but that the benefits reaped can be boundless. Art Lachance makes very cogent and realistic points related to the limited funding available to try every experiment imaginable, but I don't think the funding issue is the crucial one. All of the countries that are far ahead of us educationally, make do with a lot less. Teachers should be well paid, but not guaranteed a job for life. Lack of competition is what is really stifling reform. Bill Asbell > Just as many bilingual and monolingual programs fail to properly serve > their constituents, there are also many bilingual and monolingual models > that are very good. Therefore, attacking all bilingual education is > senseless, since this is a broad category. What you must do is look at > different models, the way that they were implemented, and the barriers. > Only after a careful analysis, you may conclude that a particular model of > instruction is or isn't effective with a specific population. > > An apparent problem is that most people think that they are experts in > education and they make decisions about education without much > background. As a result, educational models are put to a vote. This is > similar to allowing medical models or engineering models being put to a > vote. > > Regarding the fact that the majority of people in Calif. voted against > bilingual ed, I will give you my standard response. During the 30s the > majority of Germans supported Hitler. Based on your logic, Hitler should > have been an excellent choice. > > Andres > --------------F8D387EC00240C998A54A1FF Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marguerite, Andres, Art and Colleagues,
 
The point I was trying to make was that bilingual education has not been shown to the public to be preferable to the standard model which existed before. It goes against logic and my personal experience of 2nd language acquisition to support any kind of watered down version of language immersion. ESOL is what can transition kids into the English classroom, but Hispanic citizens who voted down bilingual education instinctively know that their kids are being held back by the current experimental system. If the supporters of bilingual education had a convincing argument the citizens of California would have voted to keep it. People want what's best for their children. This is undisputable. But, more importantly, we live in a democracy which gives people the opportunity to vote for what they do and don't want. The people in California including those who are taught in Spanish have made there decision in overwhelming numbers. You may not agree with it, but many do.

Andres' excuses for mediocre results from bilingual education: 

Regarding the fact that bilingual ed may have not fared well in some
programs in California does not mean that bilingual education is
necessarily bad. It may mean many things such as:

1. An effective model of a bilingual ed model was not implemented. 
2. An effective model may have been used, but teachers did not receive
training in how to implement it effectively.
3. Other external factors contributed to the lack of success.
 

are moot, because the American taxpayers who pay educators aren't concerned about the "why" something fares badly, they are concerned with outcome. Excuses won't cut it with most of the voting public anymore, and very often they have legitimate gripes.  If you think that after failure, even relative failure, you can continue to convince people that with just a few more million of their tax dollars, you'll turn the thing around, then I wish you luck. It seems that at least in California, the case has been closed. I think it high time to lick the wounds and move on to things we can address.

I certainly agree with Andres that the K-12 system is failing as well, but by his logic, failure is something to be emulated because it is widespread. Am I supposed to believe that (as his logic implies)  perhaps children fail because they are going to monolingual schools. Where is the connection?. If children cannot function in the dominant language after years of being taught in the foreign language, what are we to conclude? If the children fail in the dominant language too, should we therefore teach them in the foreign language? 

Decisions about education should be left
    to people with training  in the field!
Well, if the people with training in the field, namely the school systems, were producing a highly literate student body, I don't suspect that citizens would take it upon themselves to get involved. It's precisely because the public knows the importance of a good education that they are forcing the issue. Until the kind of reform that changes the statistics from bad to good occurs, you can expect more referendums like the one in California. This is a reality that misplaced idealism will not assuage. I, like all of you know that there is a lot more to outcomes than what goes on in schools. The home life is almost certainly more important. That is why we need to increase the focus on family literacy, however the public sees it as the public schools job to educate their children, and it's not happening to their satisfaction.

The Hitler comment is ridiculous, you might consider changing your standard response. By that logic  we should do away with voting altogether. You're saying that the majority must be wrong because you found an instance in which it was. After all, we can't let the people who don't know all the answers have a say in the education of THEIR children, it might not be in their own best interest.  It is that kind of "government knows best" arrogance in Education circles that really endears us to parents and voters.  Anyway, most people don't think they are experts in education. Most people know what it means to become educated, and that "experts" are as much the problem as the solution. The experts are a relatively new phenomenon, education is not. Maybe Plato was an expert? He was in fact a teacher.

In the minds of the public, methodology has taken the place of subject matter and knowledge. That is what the whole backlash is about.  Parents care less about a multicultural agenda than they do about whether Johnny can speak and write English or not. The rise in home-schooling bears this out.  If we in the literacy field are to make real headway in a nation still at risk, we must drop ideological agendas and attack the task at hand, ie., providing knowledge content and stop sugar-coating things to be overly "easy" and/or "fun".  We should be getting across to learners, both kids and adults, that in addition to possibly being fun, learning requires patience, consistency, and work, but that the benefits reaped can be boundless.

Art Lachance makes very cogent and realistic points related to the limited funding available to try every experiment imaginable, but I don't think the funding issue is the crucial one. All of the countries that are far ahead of us educationally, make do with a lot less. Teachers should be well paid, but not guaranteed a job for life. Lack of competition is what is really stifling reform.

Bill Asbell 

Just as many bilingual and monolingual programs fail to properly serve
their constituents, there are also many bilingual and monolingual models
that are very good. Therefore, attacking all  bilingual education is
senseless, since this is a broad category. What you must do is look at
different models, the way that they were implemented, and the barriers.
Only after a careful analysis, you may conclude that a particular model of
instruction is or isn't effective with a specific population. 

An apparent problem is that most people think that they are experts in
education and they make decisions about education without much
background. As a result, educational models are put to a vote. This is
similar to allowing medical models or engineering models being put to a
vote. 

Regarding the fact that the majority of people in Calif. voted against
bilingual ed, I will give you my standard response. During the 30s the
majority of Germans supported Hitler. Based on your logic, Hitler should
have been an excellent choice. 
 
Andres
 

 
  --------------F8D387EC00240C998A54A1FF-- From basbell at npo.state.vt.us Thu Jul 23 16:06:31 1998 From: basbell at npo.state.vt.us (Bill Asbell) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 16:06:31 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: Bilingualism Message-ID: <199807232308.TAA12706@europe.std.com> In response to Marguerite's remarks: "Given that we are part of a global economy, it is hard to see how DISCOURAGING bilingualism could be a valuable use of our national resources." The absence of bilingual education does not discourage bilingualism. Those who learn through English in school are not prevented from speaking Spanish or Chinese or whatever at home and with friends. To increase bilingualism across the country, we need to have better and more rigorous foreign language requirements,like those that exist in Greece, Portugal, The Netherlands, Scandanavia and elsewhere in Europe. In Barcelona, where I taught EFL, children of Spanish families go to school and learn everything in Catalan. They become bilingual because they have a language for each world that they inhabit. Spanish at home, Catalan in school and many possess English for academic or business applications. Here in Vermont we provide English as a second language for older children, but younger children simply don't need to be taught in their native language. Their brains are like sponges and can handle as many languages as you can throw at them. I have witnessed this myself. Hispanic children who learn through Spanish in L.A. schools go home and speak Spanish. Where is the bilingualism there? My daughter is bilingual because she speaks Spanish at home and English elsewhere. Let's not muddy the waters. If this is going to be a lengthy debate, I will bow out having made my various points. I suspect that very few on this listserv will share my views. I'll simply stick with the voters in California. Bill Asbell From DJRosen at world.std.com Thu Jul 23 19:13:29 1998 From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 19:13:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NLA Reminder: NLA List On Vacation July 31-August 11 Message-ID: <199807240828.EAA04241@europe.std.com> NLA Subscribers, No messages will be posted to the NLA list from July 31 - August 11. Messages received during that time will be posted after August 11th. David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator From hwrigley at aiweb.com Thu Jul 23 19:55:59 1998 From: hwrigley at aiweb.com (Heide Wrigley) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 16:55:59 -0700 Subject: NLA Discussion: CA Tchr resists Message-ID: <199807240834.EAA04406@europe.std.com> Jonette, and others I hope that we will not forget that there is a long history of "civil disobedience" in this country (= refusing to obey laws that we cannot in good conscience support). For the most part this is not done for trivial reasons. People have served jail terms, risked their careers, and have endured abuse for their protests. I think our students would benefit from learning about this tradition (which does not preclude fighting to have existing laws changed) as much as hearing about the importance of obeying the law. By the way, as someone who grew up in post war Germany, (just one generation after the Third Reich, where "we must obey the law" was used as an excuse for unspeakable horrors, great and small), I feel a special obligation to support civil disobedience (and no, I am not comparing a state mandated English test to the Holocaust, I am merely trying to illustrate the concept.) - When I was in school, one of the quotes we were asked to memorize was attributed to Martin Niemeoller: (In Germany) they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. They then came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak out. Let's keep talking Heide Spruck Wrigley -----Original Message----- From: Jonette Thornhill [SMTP:jonette at lakecountry.net] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 1998 8:08 AM To: nla at world.std.com Subject: NLA Discussion:CA Tchr resists If a teacher disobeys the law of the area, he/she is telling the students that law is unimportant and to break the law is nothing. Why should the students think they are wrong when they break the laws if the teachers teach them to do so any time they disagree with the law. We must get back to teaching compliance to existing laws and get the laws changed if they are wrong. Jonette Thornhill ---------- > From: Art LaChance > To: nla at world.std.com > Subject: NLA Discussion:CA Tchr resists > Date: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 2:50 PM > > Marguerite Lukes wrote: > > > Bill Asbell wrote: > > > > > > I take issue with the notion that the outlawing of bilingual education > is > > > either anti-immigrant or effective or popular amongst those that it's > > > supposed to serve. The reason why bilingual education was outlawed is > > > because 1. it's been shown through various studies that I have > cursorily > > > read to be a failure in most instances. and 2. It was voted down > > > overwhelmingly by the vast majority of Californians including Hispanic > > > parents who have gone on record many times to say that they want their > > > children to learn English as quickly as possible so that they can > succeed in > > > the workaday world. > > > > > For obvious reasons, the issue of bilingual education is a highly > > charged issue. I would like to comment on Bill Asbell's posting, which > > is excerpted above. Firstly, there are numerous studies (most recently > > by Virginia Collier, and previous to that by Ramirez), which indicate > > that programs which provide children with primary language support and > > content area instruction in their primary language serve to strengthen > > both their native language literacy skills AND their performance in > > academic English in the long term. Anecedotal accounts have shown that > > the implementation of some bilingual models have missed the mark, that > > teacher training, support, funding, etc., are all lacking. > > Well-implemented programs, especially dual-immersion programs which > > bring together both native speakers and non-native speakers of English > > with the goal of promoting bilingualism in both populations, have, when > > implemented well, been highly successful. Children who have attended > > such programs continue to reap benefits from their language and academic > > skills well into high school and beyond. > > > > Bill's second point, that immigrant parents want their children to learn > > English as quickly as possible, cannot be disputed. Yet sink-or swim is > > not a magic bullet. I am reminded of the multitude of ads I see in > > various magazines: "Learn a foreign language while you sleep!" "Speak > > Japanese like a diplomat in just 3 hours!" Perhaps we should invest > > national education funds in these programs??! > > Cutting off all primary language support is not the best means to help > > transition children into English. Many anecdotal accounts (e.g., "My > > grandparents came here knowing not a word of English and in no time they > > were fluent.") represent neither those who succeeeded economically > > despite their failure to master English, nor those who failed miserably > > in the highly touted sink or swim programs. The accounts of immigrant > > groups earlier in this century and of immigrant groups in other > > countries do not take into account some of the complexities of race and > > class and involuntary immigrant status which complicate the bilingual > > issue in this country. > > > > Given that we are part of a global economy, it is hard to see how > > DISCOURAGING bilingualism could be a valuable use of our national > > resources. It is also hard to see why we should completely scrap > > bilingual education when some well-implemented programs actually work. > > -- > > Marguerite Lukes, Project Manager What Works Literacy Partnership > > Literacy Partners, Inc. Tel: 212.802.1113 > Fax:212.725.0414 > > 30 East 33rd Street, 6th floor E-mail: wwlp at ix.netcom.com > > New York, NY 10016 http://www.wwlp.org > > The ideal world would indeed contribute to primary language and > secondary language academic education in much the same way as Marguerite > describes. However, I think we need to look at the limited funding > allocations and what that means to small communities re: the suggestion > to provide such comprehensive education. Just a couple of the several > questions that emerge: How many students warrant establishing a new > class and supporting a bilingual teacher? One? Ten?; How will we assess > the language skills of the foreign student and will we place them all in > a multilevel class? > > For many reasons, I believe the requirement that we only provide > education in English is very wise decision. The medical, law, business, > and industrial communities might very well agree. > In this small, rural community we are experiencing a surge (for about 5 > yrs) of foreign born workers. They come here for the employment > opportunities almost immediately after arriving in the US. We now have > a three way language split; Guatemalan, Mexican, and English (Guatemalan > and Mexican are evidently very different dialects). Margurite appears > to suggest we should establish a separate track in all subject areas for > all three nationalities. Unfortunately, we can't get there from here. > The local organizations already mentioned are experiencing the effects > of the communication blocks. It's rather difficult to attend to in a > community of limited and small resources. > > Regardless of the academic processes, the question of how do we educate > the parents when we provide primary language instruction arises. I > think we'll find the easiest way to teach the parents is to teach the > child who then educates the parent in the local language, and will act > as a trusted interpreter. > > How about: What if the only education the foreign born student received > was reading in English until they reached a predetermined competency > level before they were mainstreamed?? Multiage, multilevel classes > dedicated only to English proficiency. > Makes more sense to us than just jamming them into a History class and > see if they float. > > Best, > > Art From arthur at ellijay.com Sat Jul 25 17:18:33 1998 From: arthur at ellijay.com (Art LaChance) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 17:18:33 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: Ca Tchr Resists Message-ID: <199807252215.SAA15866@europe.std.com> Heide, Jonette, Bill, et al, I do believe the funding constraints to be AN important one in the bilingual education issue. Additional teachers and additional tracks are an expensive proposition for the majority of rural communities. The same costs in a larger community would represent a smaller piece of the pie. And I agree with the thought that children in the early grades are able to adapt very quickly to a new language. I think there is an age bracket though beyond which the child is less likely to absorb new language acquisition simply through casual acquaintance. I do have a difficult time with the suggestion that we provide second or third language opportunities when our own presentations in English aren't working so well. Don't ya'll?? (I'm in GA so I can say that) Revolution is what made us all Americans. Not speaking up for fear of reprisal is not part of the definition of Americanism. (is that a double negative or what?) I don't think either one of those guys are leaders because somehow we lost the child in all this, which should have been the focal point of the teacher's efforts and the principal's response. They needed to find a way to make the kid OK while fulfilling the requirements of competency testing. We don't know if they did that or not really, but it doesn't sound like it. It was the principal's responsibility to make sure both the teacher and the student understood the process and carried it out in the best interest of the child, rather than "Off with his head!" techniques that are counterproductive. Who really suffers here? Art From RBickerton at doe.mass.edu Thu Jul 23 20:27:33 1998 From: RBickerton at doe.mass.edu (Bickerton, Robert P) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 20:27:33 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: Bilingual Education Message-ID: <199807262200.SAA06356@europe.std.com> Bill, My recollection about this quote may not be perfect, but if I recall Charles (?) Lamb wrote to a friend, "He uses statistics like a drunken man uses a lamp post -- for support rather than illumination." Based on my reading of the research/literature, you are capturing only a segment of the dialogue and either ignoring or are ignorant of the rest; there is, as you should be aware, substantial research regarding both the advantages AND the limitations of L1 literacy instruction. In either case, you have made your point and unless you have something substantial to add regarding how to blend the best of both worlds, I for one will conclude that your polarized view on this subject is no more useful to our students than the views of those who sit at the opposite pole (i.e., those who minimize the importance of L2). As for the politics of the situation, shame on us as educators for allowing this debate to polarize and for not adequately educating the public so that it can make more informed decisions. bob bickerton MA director of adult education > -----Original Message----- > From: basbell at npo.state.vt.us [SMTP:basbell at npo.state.vt.us] > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 1998 4:02 PM > To: nla at world.std.com > Subject: NLA Discussion: Bilingual Education does not foster > bilingualism > > Marguerite, Andres, Art and Colleagues, > > The point I was trying to make was that bilingual education has not > been > shown to the public to be preferable to the standard model which > existed > before. It goes against logic and my personal experience of 2nd > language > acquisition to support any kind of watered down version of language > immersion. ESOL is what can transition kids into the English > classroom, > but Hispanic citizens who voted down bilingual education instinctively > know that their kids are being held back by the current experimental > system. If the supporters of bilingual education had a convincing > argument the citizens of California would have voted to keep it. > People > want what's best for their children. This is undisputable. But, more > importantly, we live in a democracy which gives people the opportunity > to vote for what they do and don't want. The people in California > including those who are taught in Spanish have made there decision in > overwhelming numbers. You may not agree with it, but many do. > > Andres' excuses for mediocre results from bilingual education: > > > Regarding the fact that bilingual ed may have not fared well in some > > programs in California does not mean that bilingual education is > > necessarily bad. It may mean many things such as: > > > > 1. An effective model of a bilingual ed model was not implemented. > > 2. An effective model may have been used, but teachers did not > receive > > training in how to implement it effectively. > > 3. Other external factors contributed to the lack of success. > > > > > are moot, because the American taxpayers who pay educators aren't > concerned about the "why" something fares badly, they are concerned > with > outcome. Excuses won't cut it with most of the voting public anymore, > and very often they have legitimate gripes. If you think that after > failure, even relative failure, you can continue to convince people > that > with just a few more million of their tax dollars, you'll turn the > thing > around, then I wish you luck. It seems that at least in California, > the > case has been closed. I think it high time to lick the wounds and move > on to things we can address. > > I certainly agree with Andres that the K-12 system is failing as well, > but by his logic, failure is something to be emulated because it is > widespread. Am I supposed to believe that (as his logic implies) > perhaps children fail because they are going to monolingual schools. > Where is the connection?. If children cannot function in the dominant > language after years of being taught in the foreign language, what are > we to conclude? If the children fail in the dominant language too, > should we therefore teach them in the foreign language? > > > Decisions about education should be left > > to people with training in the field! > > > Well, if the people with training in the field, namely the school > systems, were producing a highly literate student body, I don't > suspect > that citizens would take it upon themselves to get involved. It's > precisely because the public knows the importance of a good education > that they are forcing the issue. Until the kind of reform that changes > the statistics from bad to good occurs, you can expect more > referendums > like the one in California. This is a reality that misplaced idealism > will not assuage. I, like all of you know that there is a lot more to > outcomes than what goes on in schools. The home life is almost > certainly > more important. That is why we need to increase the focus on family > literacy, however the public sees it as the public schools job to > educate their children, and it's not happening to their satisfaction. > > The Hitler comment is ridiculous, you might consider changing your > standard response. By that logic we should do away with voting > altogether. You're saying that the majority must be wrong because you > found an instance in which it was. After all, we can't let the people > who don't know all the answers have a say in the education of THEIR > children, it might not be in their own best interest. It is that kind > of "government knows best" arrogance in Education circles that really > endears us to parents and voters. Anyway, most people don't think > they > are experts in education. Most people know what it means to become > educated, and that "experts" are as much the problem as the solution. > The experts are a relatively new phenomenon, education is not. Maybe > Plato was an expert? He was in fact a teacher. > > In the minds of the public, methodology has taken the place of subject > matter and knowledge. That is what the whole backlash is about. > Parents > care less about a multicultural agenda than they do about whether > Johnny > can speak and write English or not. The rise in home-schooling bears > this out. If we in the literacy field are to make real headway in a > nation still at risk, we must drop ideological agendas and attack the > task at hand, ie., providing knowledge content and stop sugar-coating > things to be overly "easy" and/or "fun". We should be getting across > to > learners, both kids and adults, that in addition to possibly being > fun, > learning requires patience, consistency, and work, but that the > benefits > reaped can be boundless. > > Art Lachance makes very cogent and realistic points related to the > limited funding available to try every experiment imaginable, but I > don't think the funding issue is the crucial one. All of the countries > that are far ahead of us educationally, make do with a lot less. > Teachers should be well paid, but not guaranteed a job for life. Lack > of > competition is what is really stifling reform. > > Bill Asbell > > > Just as many bilingual and monolingual programs fail to properly > serve > > their constituents, there are also many bilingual and monolingual > models > > that are very good. Therefore, attacking all bilingual education is > > senseless, since this is a broad category. What you must do is look > at > > different models, the way that they were implemented, and the > barriers. > > Only after a careful analysis, you may conclude that a particular > model of > > instruction is or isn't effective with a specific population. > > > > An apparent problem is that most people think that they are experts > in > > education and they make decisions about education without much > > background. As a result, educational models are put to a vote. This > is > > similar to allowing medical models or engineering models being put > to a > > vote. > > > > Regarding the fact that the majority of people in Calif. voted > against > > bilingual ed, I will give you my standard response. During the 30s > the > > majority of Germans supported Hitler. Based on your logic, Hitler > should > > have been an excellent choice. > > > > Andres > > > > > > > > --------------F8D387EC00240C998A54A1FF > Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > Marguerite, Andres, Art and Colleagues, >
  >
The point I was trying to make was that bilingual education has > not > been shown to the public to be preferable to the standard model which > existed > before. It goes against logic and my personal experience of 2nd > language > acquisition to support any kind of watered down version of language > immersion. > ESOL is what can transition kids into the English classroom, but > Hispanic > citizens who voted down bilingual education instinctively know that > their > kids are being held back by the current experimental system. If the > supporters > of bilingual education had a convincing argument the citizens of > California > would have voted to keep it. People want what's best for their > children. > This is undisputable. But, more importantly, we live in a democracy > which > gives people the opportunity to vote for what they do and don't want. > The > people in California including those who are taught in Spanish have > made > there decision in overwhelming numbers. You may not agree with it, but > many do. > >

Andres' excuses for mediocre results from bilingual education: >

> 
Regarding the fact that bilingual ed may have not fared well in
> some
> programs in California does not mean that bilingual education is
> necessarily bad. It may mean many things such as:
> 
> 1. An effective model of a bilingual ed model was not
> implemented. 
> 2. An effective model may have been used, but teachers did not receive
> training in how to implement it effectively.
> 3. Other external factors contributed to the lack of success.
>
>   > >

are moot, because the American taxpayers who pay educators aren't > concerned > about the "why" something fares badly, they are concerned with > outcome. > Excuses won't cut it with most of the voting public anymore, and very > often > they have legitimate gripes.  If you think that after failure, > even > relative failure, you can continue to convince people that with just a > few more million of their tax dollars, you'll turn the thing around, > then > I wish you luck. It seems that at least in California, the case has > been > closed. I think it high time to lick the wounds and move on to things > we > can address. > >

I certainly agree with Andres that the K-12 system is failing as > well, > but by his logic, failure is something to be emulated because it is > widespread. > Am I supposed to believe that (as his logic implies)  perhaps > children > fail because they are going to monolingual schools. Where is > the > connection?. If children cannot function in the dominant language > after > years of being taught in the foreign language, what are we to > conclude? > If the children fail in the dominant language too, should we therefore > teach them in the foreign language? >

> 
Decisions about education should be left
>     to people with training  in the field!
>
> Well, if the people with training in the field, namely the school > systems, > were producing a highly literate student body, I don't suspect that > citizens > would take it upon themselves to get involved. It's precisely because > the > public knows the importance of a good education that they are forcing > the > issue. Until the kind of reform that changes the statistics from bad > to > good occurs, you can expect more referendums like the one in > California. > This is a reality that misplaced idealism will not assuage. I, like > all > of you know that there is a lot more to outcomes than what goes on in > schools. > The home life is almost certainly more important. That is why we need > to > increase the focus on family literacy, however the public sees it as > the > public schools job to educate their children, and it's not happening > to > their satisfaction. > >

The Hitler comment is ridiculous, you might consider changing your > standard > response. By that logic  we should do away with voting > altogether. > You're saying that the majority must be wrong because you found > an instance in which it was. After all, we can't let the people who > don't > know all the answers have a say in the education of THEIR children, it > might not be in their own best interest.  It is that kind of > "government > knows best" arrogance in Education circles that really endears us to > parents > and voters.  Anyway, most people don't think they are experts in > education. > Most people know what it means to become educated, and that "experts" > are > as much the problem as the solution. The experts are a relatively new > phenomenon, > education is not. Maybe Plato was an expert? He was in fact a teacher. > >

In the minds of the public, methodology has taken the place of > subject > matter and knowledge. That is what the whole backlash is about.  > Parents > care less about a multicultural agenda than they do about whether > Johnny > can speak and write English or not. The rise in home-schooling bears > this > out.  If we in the literacy field are to make real headway in a > nation > still at risk, we must drop ideological agendas and attack the task at > hand, ie., providing knowledge content and stop sugar-coating things > to > be overly "easy" and/or "fun".  We should be getting across to > learners, > both kids and adults, that in addition to possibly being fun, learning > requires patience, consistency, and work, but that the benefits reaped > can be boundless. > >

Art Lachance makes very cogent and realistic points related to the > limited > funding available to try every experiment imaginable, but I don't > think > the funding issue is the crucial one. All of the countries that are > far > ahead of us educationally, make do with a lot less. Teachers should be > well paid, but not guaranteed a job for life. Lack of competition is > what > is really stifling reform. > >

Bill Asbell >

> 
Just as many bilingual and monolingual programs fail to properly
> serve
> their constituents, there are also many bilingual and monolingual
> models
> that are very good. Therefore, attacking all  bilingual education
> is
> senseless, since this is a broad category. What you must do is look at
> different models, the way that they were implemented, and the
> barriers.
> Only after a careful analysis, you may conclude that a particular
> model of
> instruction is or isn't effective with a specific population. 
> 
> An apparent problem is that most people think that they are experts in
> education and they make decisions about education without much
> background. As a result, educational models are put to a vote. This is
> similar to allowing medical models or engineering models being put to
> a
> vote. 
> 
> Regarding the fact that the majority of people in Calif. voted against
> bilingual ed, I will give you my standard response. During the 30s the
> majority of Germans supported Hitler. Based on your logic, Hitler
> should
> have been an excellent choice. 
>  
> Andres
>
>   > >

  >
  > > --------------F8D387EC00240C998A54A1FF-- > From reuys at massed.net Mon Jul 27 09:22:33 1998 From: reuys at massed.net (Steve Reuys) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:22:33 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: CA Tchr Resists Message-ID: <199807271405.KAA12660@europe.std.com> I'd like to correct one statement that's been made a few times in the context of the discussion of bilingual education. Latino voters in California did NOT vote in favor of the proposition ending bilingual education. Although early polls suggested strong support among Latinos for Prop. 227, a great deal of education was done before the election and, according to the July 12 issue of the newsmagazine In These Times, only somewhere between one quarter and one third of Latino voters voted in favor of Prop. 227. The anti-bilingual ed. forces made quite an effort to point out the supposed support of Latino voters for their proposition, and of course the media played this up as well during the months leading up to the election, so it's not surprising that people would think that's the way the voting turned out. But it turned out to be wrong, and we need to be careful about the "facts" we use to bolster our arguments. Steve Reuys Adult Literacy Resource Institute, Boston From mgonzale at k12.oit.umass.edu Mon Jul 27 13:07:20 1998 From: mgonzale at k12.oit.umass.edu (Maria Elena Gonzalez Adult Literacy) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:07:20 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: CA Tchr Resists Message-ID: <199807272235.SAA03482@europe.std.com> Thanks Steve for pointing out the facts. As a Latina, I have watched with a mix of amusement and anger how some of us have been manipulated in this debate, including the recent one on this list. Yet a quick look at the leaders of the anti-bilingualism movement show that they are not Latino and tend to have very definitive political views. And that's what I keep thinking about whenever the issue of bilingualism crops up - the debate is more about politics and less about education than some of us would care to admit. Maria E. Gonzalez Adult Literacy REsource Institute/SABES > >I'd like to correct one statement that's been made a few times in the >context of the discussion of bilingual education. Latino voters in >California did NOT vote in favor of the proposition ending bilingual >education. Although early polls suggested strong support among Latinos >for Prop. 227, a great deal of education was done before the election >and, according to the July 12 issue of the newsmagazine In These Times, >only somewhere between one quarter and one third of Latino voters voted >in favor of Prop. 227. The anti-bilingual ed. forces made quite an >effort to point out the supposed support of Latino voters for their >proposition, and of course the media played this up as well during the >months leading up to the election, so it's not surprising that people >would think that's the way the voting turned out. But it turned out to >be wrong, and we need to be careful about the "facts" we use to bolster >our arguments. > >Steve Reuys >Adult Literacy Resource Institute, Boston > > > > > -- From basbell at npo.state.vt.us Mon Jul 27 13:47:03 1998 From: basbell at npo.state.vt.us (Bill Asbell) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:47:03 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: Bilingual Education Message-ID: <199807272241.SAA04249@europe.std.com> This is simply a copy of what Prop. 227 is, so that there is no confusion and so that accusations are not thrown idly about. I cannot confirm what Steve Reuys has mentioned about the article in "In These Times" magazine, but if I am wrong in my assessment of Latino voters support of Prop. 227, I stand corrected. The following is from a voter guide website dedicated to the discussion of Prop. 227 and can be found at primary98.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/227analysis.htm. Both a manifesto for and against the proposition is linked on the site. The arguments in favor and against are lively and illuminating to say the least. As you may see from the actual proposition, the exceptions within the proposition do not require a "sink or swim" approach to LEP students. This accusation is simply not true. To clarify "bilingual" in the quotes used below, it means classes taught in the student's native language. Bill Asbell Proposal This proposition significantly changes the way that LEP students are taught in California. Specifically, it: Requires California public schools to teach LEP students in special classes that are taught nearly all in English. This would eliminate "bilingual" classes in most cases. Shortens the time most LEP students would stay in special classes. The initiative states that: (1) LEP students should move from special classes to regular classes when they have acquired a good working knowledge of English and (2) these special classes should not normally last longer than one year. This would eliminate most programs that provide special classes to LEP students over several years. Exceptions. Schools would be permitted to provide classes in a language other than English if the child's parent or guardian asks the school to put him or her in such a class and one of the following happens: The child is at least ten years old and the school principal and teachers agree that learning in another language would be better for the child. The child has been in a class using English for at least 30 days and the principal, teachers, and head of the school district agree that learning in another language would be better for the student. The child already is fluent in English and the parents want the child to take classes in another language. If a school lets 20 or more LEP students in a grade choose to take their lessons in a language other than English, then the school must give such a class. If there are not 20 students or more, then the school must let the students go to other schools that have classes in those languages. Funding Provisions. The initiative requires the state to provide $50 million every year for ten years for English classes for adults who promise to tutor LEP students. In addition, the measure requires that any special funding currently spent on LEP students be maintained, if possible. Fiscal Effect School Costs and Savings This proposition would result in several fiscal impacts on schools. Savings. By limiting the time LEP students can be in special classes generally to one year, the initiative would reduce the number of special classes schools would have to offer. This could result in major savings for schools. Costs. The proposition could also result in new costs to schools, for a number of reasons. For instance, the one-year special classes could be more expensive than existing classes if schools provide more intensive services. Schools may also need to give LEP students extra help in academic subjects once they are moved to regular classes if they fall behind other students. Distribution of "Compensatory" Funds. The state provides "compensatory" funds to schools based in part on the number of LEP students. The proposition would likely reduce the number of students who are considered LEP at any given time. As a result, state funds would be allocated differently--some schools would get more compensatory funds and others would get less. Net Impact on Schools. We cannot predict the proposition's net impact on schools. It would depend in large part on how people respond to its passage, including: Parents' decisions on the types of services they want for their children. Schools' decisions on the types and levels of services provided to LEP students. State decisions on the allocation of "compensatory" funds it currently provides to schools with LEP students. The net impact could vary significantly by individual school. State Fiscal Effects Under the proposition, the state would spend $50 million each year for ten years for English classes for adults who promise to tutor LEP students. This provision, however, probably would not change total state spending for schools. (This is because the level of state spending for K-12 schools is generally based on a formula in the Constitution.) As a result, the costs to the state of this provision would likely reduce spending on other school programs by a like amount. Steve Reuys wrote: > I'd like to correct one statement that's been made a few times in the > context of the discussion of bilingual education. Latino voters in > California did NOT vote in favor of the proposition ending bilingual > education. Although early polls suggested strong support among Latinos > for Prop. 227, a great deal of education was done before the election > and, according to the July 12 issue of the newsmagazine In These Times, > only somewhere between one quarter and one third of Latino voters voted > in favor of Prop. 227. The anti-bilingual ed. forces made quite an > effort to point out the supposed support of Latino voters for their > proposition, and of course the media played this up as well during the > months leading up to the election, so it's not surprising that people > would think that's the way the voting turned out. But it turned out to > be wrong, and we need to be careful about the "facts" we use to bolster > our arguments. > > Steve Reuys > Adult Literacy Resource Institute, Boston --------------F5DF648FFB5211F77C6EE8E2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is simply a copy of what Prop. 227 is, so that there is no confusion and so that accusations are not thrown idly about. I cannot confirm what Steve Reuys has mentioned about the article in "In These Times" magazine, but if I am wrong in my assessment of Latino voters support of Prop. 227, I stand corrected. The following is from a voter guide website dedicated to the discussion of Prop. 227 and can be found at primary98.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/227analysis.htm. Both a manifesto for and against the proposition is linked on the site.  The arguments in favor and against are lively and illuminating to say the least.
As you may see from the actual proposition, the exceptions within the proposition do not require a "sink or swim" approach to LEP students. This accusation is simply not true. To clarify "bilingual" in the quotes used below, it means classes taught in the student's native language.
Bill Asbell

Proposal

     This proposition significantly changes the way that LEP students are taught in
     California. Specifically, it:

          Requires California public schools to teach LEP students in special classes that
          are taught nearly all in English. This would eliminate "bilingual" classes in most
          cases.

          Shortens the time most LEP students would stay in special classes. The
          initiative states that: (1) LEP students should move from special classes to
          regular classes when they have acquired a good working knowledge of English
          and (2) these special classes should not normally last longer than one year.
          This would eliminate most programs that provide special classes to LEP
          students over several years.

     Exceptions. Schools would be permitted to provide classes in a language other than
     English if the child's parent or guardian asks the school to put him or her in such a
     class and one of the following happens:

          The child is at least ten years old and the school principal and teachers agree
          that learning in another language would be better for the child.

          The child has been in a class using English for at least 30 days and the
          principal, teachers, and head of the school district agree that learning in
          another language would be better for the student.

          The child already is fluent in English and the parents want the child to take
          classes in another language.

     If a school lets 20 or more LEP students in a grade choose to take their lessons in a
     language other than English, then the school must give such a class. If there are not
     20 students or more, then the school must let the students go to other schools that
     have classes in those languages.

     Funding Provisions. The initiative requires the state to provide $50 million every
     year for ten years for English classes for adults who promise to tutor LEP students.
     In addition, the measure requires that any special funding currently spent on LEP
     students be maintained, if possible.

     Fiscal Effect

     School Costs and Savings

     This proposition would result in several fiscal impacts on schools.

     Savings. By limiting the time LEP students can be in special classes generally to one
     year, the initiative would reduce the number of special classes schools would have to
     offer. This could result in major savings for schools.

     Costs. The proposition could also result in new costs to schools, for a number of
     reasons. For instance, the one-year special classes could be more expensive than
     existing classes if schools provide more intensive services. Schools may also need to
     give LEP students extra help in academic subjects once they are moved to regular
     classes if they fall behind other students.

     Distribution of "Compensatory" Funds. The state provides "compensatory"
     funds to schools based in part on the number of LEP students. The proposition
     would likely reduce the number of students who are considered LEP at any given
     time. As a result, state funds would be allocated differently--some schools would get
     more compensatory funds and others would get less.

     Net Impact on Schools. We cannot predict the proposition's net impact on
     schools. It would depend in large part on how people respond to its passage,
     including:

          Parents' decisions on the types of services they want for their children.

          Schools' decisions on the types and levels of services provided to LEP
          students.

          State decisions on the allocation of "compensatory" funds it currently provides
          to schools with LEP students.

     The net impact could vary significantly by individual school.

     State Fiscal Effects

     Under the proposition, the state would spend $50 million each year for ten years for
     English classes for adults who promise to tutor LEP students. This provision,
     however, probably would not change total state spending for schools. (This is
     because the level of state spending for K-12 schools is generally based on a formula
     in the Constitution.) As a result, the costs to the state of this provision would likely
     reduce spending on other school programs by a like amount.
 

Steve Reuys wrote:

I'd like to correct one statement that's been made a few times in the
context of the discussion of bilingual education. Latino voters in
California did NOT vote in favor of the proposition ending bilingual
education. Although early polls suggested strong support among Latinos
for Prop. 227, a great deal of education was done before the election
and, according to the July 12 issue of the newsmagazine In These Times,
only somewhere between one quarter and one third of Latino voters voted
in favor of Prop. 227. The anti-bilingual ed. forces made quite an
effort to point out the supposed support of Latino voters for their
proposition, and of course the media played this up as well during the
months leading up to the election, so it's not surprising that people
would think that's the way the voting turned out. But it turned out to
be wrong, and we need to be careful about the "facts" we use to bolster
our arguments.

Steve Reuys
Adult Literacy Resource Institute, Boston

  --------------F5DF648FFB5211F77C6EE8E2-- From arthur at ellijay.com Tue Jul 28 10:10:22 1998 From: arthur at ellijay.com (Art LaChance) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:10:22 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: Bilingual Ed Message-ID: <199807282254.SAA03329@europe.std.com> re: Prop 227 Looks like a viable alternative to me, Bill. I also think we need to pay close attention to the last sentence in the "Net impact could vary significantly....As a result the costs ... would likely reduce spending on other school programs by a like amount." This is neither a "Political" nor an "Education" argument. Appears to be reality based to me. I think we all need to do a serious review of the whole picture before acquisition of a determined stance on the subject. I've stated before here that my view of the situation is from an adult literacy classroom in a small rural community. We have fairly significant difficulties with a three way language split. Providing additional classes in Guatemalan and Mexican IS NOT going to remedy the situation and will significantly reduce the effectivity of the already strapped K-12. We CANNOT afford any part of that alternative. I can't see how it would be different anywhere else, unless somebody comes up with a magic way of acquiring more tax dollars, or convinces the teachers they need to do a quality job for less $$$. And my answer to the "other countries are doing it" is simple, I'll bet they don't have an American standard of living. How about teacher's unions?? Art From edcivic at libertynet.org Tue Jul 28 21:53:39 1998 From: edcivic at libertynet.org (Ed Schwartz) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:53:39 -0400 Subject: NLA Info:JOIN Web Site Message-ID: <199807290404.AAA13042@europe.std.com> The coalition that we've been building in Philadelphia to address problems and issues arising under welfare reform--"JOIN" (Jobs and Opportunity to Improve Neighborhoods)--now has a web site. The URL is It includes the JOIN Agenda, links to useful sites related to welfare reform, and an advocacy page that links directly to the welfare votes (courtesy of Votesmart) cast by the Senators and Congresspeople representing the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Beyond links to welfare reform sites, JOIN provides an example of the kind of civic and political response to welfare downsizing that needs to take place around the country. Note especially the articles and links under the web page devoted to what we're calling the "Literacy Gap." If you are working on welfare reform and want to keep in touch with JOIN, send a note to me at edcivic at libertynet.org Thanks. Ed Schwartz From millard at netins.net Tue Jul 28 22:50:58 1998 From: millard at netins.net (Archie Willard) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:50:58 -0500 Subject: NLA Discussion: Literacy and VALUE Message-ID: <199807290422.AAA14980@europe.std.com> To All My views of literacy today and the organization called Voices for Adult Literacy United for Education (VALUE) and how it can help literacy in general: VALUE and what it can do in the literacy field: Today, because of technology we are bombarded with all kinds of new and useful information. It comes at us so fast it's hard to figure out how we can use it, if it fits what we want to accomplish, or if it is good information or bad information. I think we should step back and look at where we are and what would be beneficial to use. VALUE should be looked at to represent the past and the future. I think adult learners who need help can look to VALUE as a literacy organization composed of people who have failed and then have started all over again. Adult literacy programs and VALUE should be places where learners can look to the future. Adult literacy has been around for along time. Things have happened to make things better for adults who struggled with reading and writing. The literacy field has done research and there are different methods of teaching, but we are not turning the corner of success in dealing with literacy. There should be a new understanding of what literacy is in this country. I hope that VALUE can bring some changes in this understanding. When most of us were young and in school the system failed those of us who are now adult learners. Most all of us could have learned to read when the window of opportunity was there from ages 6 through 10, but the system that taught people how to read did not take into account that there would be people who learned differently. This is still happening today. We were left behind and we have struggled throughout our lives because of our reading problems. Reading will always be difficult for adult learners no matter how hard we work. Today it takes a lot of courage to go for reading help. A lot of questions on the listservs are being asked about why adult learners don't stay in literacy programs, different ways to teach, about testing and learning disabilities. It seems there is an agenda set for adult learners before their own personal needs are discovered. I feel the most important thing that should happen to adult learners is to make changes in their lives. The reading and writing will improve as their lives change. Adult learners should be encouraged to look back at their life experiences, and then they need to make sense out of their experiences. When they do this, they become philosophers of their lives as only they can be. Then they become critical thinkers. This should help them to see their own strengths and weaknesses and then they can use them to their advantage. This will help them to create coping skills for their lives. In some ways I think we are teaching to what we think adult learners need for their lives, and somehow this takes us back to the same path of failing. Adult learners need to be listened to and encouraged. Then you sit back and let them teach you how to teach them. Then you become their guide. If enough adult learners who enter literacy programs are encouraged to express themselves, the literacy field would move forward. Adult learners should share their experiences and teach others about literacy and learning disabilities. The answers to literacy in this nation lie locked within the adult learners. Some of these answers can come from panels when adult learners are used in that way. Adult learners need to be asked questions to get the solutions. That is why the new adult organization VALUE is so important. It can bring adult learners together. There are literacy organizations that represent literacy, but there is no organization that represents only adult students. What VALUE can do is become a voice within the literacy field and speak for the needs of adults with literacy difficulties. When groups of people have no representation in our society they get left out and their lives become controlled by others. At this point there have only been a few adult learners who have gone on to higher education or made it big in life and they are held up as examples by different literacy organizations. In a way, this is good. They get the attention that there is a literacy problem in this country. Most of them who have succeeded go out in life and never look back at others who cannot read. Some who have a good education have found each other and do collaborate with each other but not very often with non-readers. Most adult learners know they will never reach that level in life so they never try to make improvements in their lives. What VALUE can bring to the literacy field is a group of adult learners who will stand in the gap for the adults who need help, but don't seem to get over the hump and into a literacy program. I would call these adults learners the blue collar adult learners. They should become visible and be a part of literacy policy-making in this country. We know that most of us will always be ordinary individuals in society, but what we can do as learner leaders is to show society that we can make it in life and our group can contribute to this nation. VALUE is working to put itself together as an organization. We are not where we want to be as yet. When we look back we are a lot farther along as an organization than we were in January of 1997. At that time, a few of us came together and talked about becoming an adult learner national organization. We have partnered with other organizations to work on projects and are looking to partner with others. We are working to raise funds. We have become part of The National Coalition For Literacy. We are working on a report for the field and a newsletter report for those who attended the Highlander Retreat meeting in Tennessee last March. We hope to have this out sometime this fall. Archie Willard Former Literacy Student Literacy Coordinator, Iowa Central Community College Archie Willard Eagle Grove, IA 50533 (US) millard at netins.net FAX - 515-448-3480 URL - http://207.28.234.137/archiew.html From DJRosen at world.std.com Thu Jul 30 11:18:50 1998 From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:18:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NLA Info: List on Vacation Message-ID: <199807301520.LAA03897@europe.std.com> NLA Colleagues, The NLA List will be quiet for a couple of weeks, sort of on vacation. Any messages received between now and August 11th will not be posted until August 11th or 12th. All the best, David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator From SGabb412 at aol.com Fri Jul 31 02:34:01 1998 From: SGabb412 at aol.com (SGabb412 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 02:34:01 EDT Subject: NLA Discussion: Bilingual Ed Message-ID: <199808110611.CAA26139@europe.std.com> NLA list - my experience with African American adult learners in the 70's as well as with adult ESOL learners today makes the California decision by voters no surprise - I remember when there was a move to develop reading texts in 'black English' (pre-Ebonics), many parents saw this as an effort to 'ghettoize' education for African American children - thinking that unless standard English became available, their children would stay in the back waters of non-standard speech. Many LEP adults I speak with have similar fears - aware of their own struggles with learning English, they are terrified that allowing their children to learn in L1 will somehow prevent transition into US mainstream opportunity - It seems to me that this is an additional challenge to adult education - we need to enter dialogue with the adult LEP community if we believe the research and the merits of L1 literacy instruction: we need to build trust in order to open communication - in my experience, suspicion of 'educated' educators - whether bilingual or not - runs high. Sally Gabb/ Providence RI From ajohnson at nifl.gov Thu Jul 30 12:36:23 1998 From: ajohnson at nifl.gov (Alice Johnson) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:36:23 -0400 Subject: NLA Info: good news Message-ID: <199808110619.CAA26714@europe.std.com> Looks like we may get a reauthorization bill this year after all! The Senate passed the workforce bill last night, and the House is voting on it today. Alice Johnson National Institute for Literacy From sstein at nifl.gov Tue Jul 21 23:37:16 1998 From: sstein at nifl.gov (Sondra Stein) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:37:16 -0400 Subject: NLA Discussion: Life-Long Learning Message-ID: <199808151318.JAA17935@europe.std.com> I loved Archie's piece about the big picture of what adults want from education. Access. Voice. Independent Action. Bridge to the Future. This is just what we are ever striving to keep as the touchstone for our continuing development of Equipped for the Future. Everything we have learned from our field development sites this winter/spring suggests that the EFF approach unleashes the energy and resources that adults bring to learning, and makes a real difference for teachers and learners, as in the Wilson approach Archie describes. EFF lessons start from what adults need to know and be able to do in REAL LIFE, integrate skills instruction into work on meaningful projects, and assess learning results by looking at the application of skills in the context of carrying out real life tasks. We have a ways to go before this translates into a framework for accountability but we are working towards this and hope you will join us -- or find out more if you don't know about EFF. Sondra Stein NIFL Senior Research Associate and Director, Equipped for the Future sstein at nifl.gov ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: NLA Discussion: Life-Long Learning Author: nla at world.std.com at inet Date: 8/13/98 8:55 PM The American dream seems to be people who have gone from rags to riches and who have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and become wealthy. Society holds these examples up as successes. They are good motivational stories, but do not represent our society today as a whole. There seems to be an unwritten law that society measures us by how we match up to these standards in terms of wealth, influence, and prestige. Because of this, education is concerned not with preparing people for life, but rather with teaching them how to "earn a buck". Our teaching then becomes centered around how to make an economic contribution. This kind of thinking has brought time limits into education. However, we do not all learn the same way or at the same speed. Today, because of these time constraints placed on learning, life-long learning is getting lost. This kind of teaching will only take away the motivation that is so desperately needed in order to learn as an adult. I have always thought that adult education should be bottom up if it's ever going to work. A few days ago, I attended the Iowa Community College Adult Education Summer Seminar in Iowa City. Some of the adult educators who were there are former students of the late John Wilson who was a professor at Iowa State University. They talked about his way of teaching. They said that when you were in his class he was always the student, not the teacher. He and everyone learned from each other about adult education. The last two years I was able to attend the two-day Wilson Studies that were put on for adult educators. That's the way his Studies were conducted: the information that was learned came from within the class. Some of this type of teaching does exist in adult education. Adult education is one of the few places that the student is free to learn what they want to learn and how they want to learn. This make a big difference in keeping an adult student in a program. Amy Horton, wife of the late Miles Horton, was one of the presenters at the Summer Seminar. She told us about some of the early days at the first Highlander Folk School that her husband founded. They had a citizenship program to teach people about the US government so that they would be able to pass the voting test that was required at that time. Through the process of learning about our government, there were people who were learning how to read. These were adults who, when young, the window of opportunity to learn to read passed them by. Learning to read was extremely hard for them because of their past experiences. With their new opportunity, they were motivated to be able to vote and they felt good about what they were learning. Because of this motivation they learned to read. Last week I attended a meeting in Washington DC. A researcher gave her interpretation of the document that was prepared from The National Forum of Adult Literacy, held September, 1997, in Washington DC. This document was put together from the views of the student delegates at the forum. She said that after reading the document she felt it basically said that the delegates wanted to learn how to read. I was one of the delegates at the Forum. Yes, we all want to read better, but my interpretation of what was said is that the delegates want a lot more than that to happen. They want to learn how to live life, to fit into society, and to make a contribution. The researchers, the educators and the adult learners need to come together. We are talking to each other, but I think we all need to work together to learn how to listen to each other. Adults who want to better themselves have the opportunity for a second chance in life from the adult education field. All of us who have taken advantage of and benefited from this second chance need to help make sure that the literacy field is moving forward. We must see that adult learners are given the opportunities to learn openly and freely. Archie Willard Former Literacy Student Literacy Coordinator, Iowa Central Community College Archie Willard Eagle Grove, IA 50533 (US) millard at netins.net FAX - 515-448-3480 URL - http://207.28.234.137/archiew.html