NLA Answer from Andy: welfare reform

[Dannebohm, Jamee]

I don't believe it is always an issue of returning people to programs
that don't work.  The programs oftentimes would work for the student, if
the attitude of the student could be changed.  I have worked with
mandated SRS and correctional students.  Many of these students are so
angry that they have been required to get an education, that they toe
drag or refuse to apply themselves.  Please do not assume that lack of
outcomes means poor program planning and implementation.  In adult ed
we're oftentimes dealing with reluctant or angry students that become
barriers to learning.

> ----------
> From: 	Janet Isserlis[SMTP:Janet_Isserlis at Brown.edu]
> Reply To: 	nla at world.std.com
> Sent: 	Tuesday, June 23, 1998 3:05 PM
> To: 	nla at world.std.com
> Subject: 	NLA Answer from Andy: welfare reform
> 
> 
> Andy and all,
> 
> I'll try to clarify what I mean by rights:
> 
> [Andy Hartman wrote:]
> >     In terms of "rights," I guess I am not sure what you mean by
> that
> >     term.  I think it is not good that certain types of
> training/education
> >     are being ruled out because of either real or imagined legal
> >     prohibitions.  On the other hand, many welfare recipients were
> sent to
> >     adult education programs under the JOBS programs and we know
> from
> >     evaluations that there was not much progress in terms of
> learning
> >     gains or employment/earnings.  So, going back to some "good old
> days"
> >     should not be an option, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> I'm not correlating learners' rights to have a say in the programs in
> which
> they participate, necessarily, with measurable outcomes.  I understand
> that
> measurable outcomes are the standards by which programs are judged and
> often (re)funded.  What I am trying to describe is what I feel to be a
> clear need amongst learners to have access to educational
> opportunities and
> I see it as the responsibility of this field to advocate for access to
> education and not conscription into training.
> 
> For some learners, training programs are helpful, and useful ways into
> subsidized employment.  But for many they are not.  Adults who were
> unable
> to complete high school for a range of reasons, I believe, DO have
> rights
> to access to education.
> 
> I am not arguing for a return to programs that don't work, but rather
> wondering if there are things to be learned from the work of Deborah
> D'Amico and others in terms of constructing and implementing programs
> that
> might.
> 
> Hope this clarifies my position.
> 
> and, in response to this:
> >     I guess this gets to your "suitable" program issue.  Under JOBS,
> who
> >     was deciding what was suitable?  Certainly not the adult who was
> >     referred to the literacy program.  Having to do specific things
> in
> >     order to receive government money, I don't have a problem with,
> so
> >     long as they are appropriate to the goal of becoming self
> sufficient.
> >     If unsuitable services for this goal are pushed on people --
> either by
> >     the welfare agency or the literacy program -- I think they are
> both
> >     unacceptable.
> - While understanding NIFL's fine line between lobbying and not
> lobbying,
> is there not a place for NIFL and others to advocate that suitability
> needs
> to be examined from the perspectives of both participants in and
> designers
> of programs?
> 
> Janet Isserlis
> 
> 
> 
> 
>