NLA: welfare reform

[jay jackson]

I think we need to be careful about herding adult learners into a corner.
I too have taught in mandated education programs in federal prisons,
substance abuse facilities as well as  nonmandated programs in community
based agencies.  One problem in adult ed is you don't know sometimes when
your message gets through.  It might be years later when a student comes
to understand your point of view.  An earlier discussion suggested
dispositional barriers to retention,and I think it is worth revisiting
here. Certainly unresolved issues about schooling are a barrier, but not
just at the adult education level, we see them in H.S. l.  

Many welfare recipients do not have the same anger issues as those
individuals who are presently incarcerated.  They are however distracted
by health issues, concerns about violence and safety and other issues
which compete heavily with their ability to focus on learning.
Hopelessness is another attitide that contributes both to anger and toe
dragging many of my students ask me what's the point - there are no jobs.
I can say but you have to believe because I have had some affirming
experiences - it becomes much more difficult when your whole community  is
fairly devastated.  As a literacy practitioner my most important teaching
grows out of confronting these attitudes through dialogue and text. 
Transforming attitudes is one of the most challenging aspects of literacy
practice.

jkjackson7 at juno.com (jay jackson)

  
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 08:54:08 -0500 "Dannebohm, Jamee"
<DannebohmJ at barton.cc.ks.us> writes:
>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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>

_____________________________________________________________________
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]