From alzbec at interaccess.com  Wed Dec  1 10:09:17 1999
From: alzbec at interaccess.com (Aliza Becker)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 09:09:17 -0600
Subject: NLA Info: English Literacy and Civics Education Workshops
Message-ID: <199912011547.KAA11422@europe.std.com>


Registration

Registration for the on-site English Literacy and Civics Education
workshops is not mandatory, but to help us determine the quantity of
handouts needed, we are encouraging registration. To register please
contact rose_tilghman at ed.gov or ursula_lord at ed.gov

Locations, Dates, and Time

Dec. 6, 9 a.m.-12 noon; Chicago IL  Illinois State Board of Education,
James R. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph, Room #2-025, Chicago, IL
60601

Dec. 7, 10 a.m. - 1 p.m.; San Antonio TX, Watson Fine Art Theater, St.
Philips College, 1801 Martin Luther King Drive, San Antonio, TX 78203

Dec. 10; 8:30-11 a.m. and at 1:30-3:00 p.m. San Diego, CA San Diego
County Office of Education, 6401 Linda Vista Road. San Diego CA

Dec. 10; 10a.m. -1 p.m. in Washington D.C. FB 6 400 Maryland Ave, SW
Barnard Auditorium

Satellite Teleconference - December 15, 1999  1-2 p.m. EST

You may register for a satellite downlink through the following URL;

http://stm.xpandcorp.com/

A simultaneous web cast can be access at the following URL on December
15, 1999 from 1 p.m. - 2 p.m. EST

The link for the videoconference stream follows:

http://www.iti-corp.com/doed/live.htm

Application Package

A copy of the application and the attachments may be found at

http://www.ed.gov/GrantApps/#84.191

If you have trouble downloading the application, please contact
rose_tilghman at ed.gov  or ursula_lord at ed.gov

If you have questions, please let us know.

Rebecca

Rebecca J. Moak, Ph.D.
Educational Specialist
Office of Vocational and Adult Education



--
Aliza Becker
Phone: (773) 267-0746
Fax (773) 478-5091
E-mail alzbec at interaccess.com





From AEllison at ed.state.nh.us  Wed Dec  1 15:23:13 1999
From: AEllison at ed.state.nh.us (Ellison, Art)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:23:13 -0500 
Subject: NLA Info: Pick Your Candidate
Message-ID: <199912012046.PAA04740@europe.std.com>

To the list:

Free single copies of Pick Your Candidate written by Debbie Tasker, Dir.,
Dover, NH Adult Learning Center, are available from the Bureau of Adult
Education, NH Department of Education, 101 Pleasant St, Concord, NH. 03301or
from <aellison at ed.state.nh.us>. Please include a US mail address if you
contact us by email.
 
This 25 page manual is the very best way to help students sort through
issues in preparation for deciding which candidates they will support in an
upcoming election.
                                                               
Art Ellison
NH Department of Education        

  



From DJRosen at world.std.com  Wed Dec  1 21:14:10 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (DJRosen at world.std.com)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 20:14:10 -0600
Subject: NLA Info: Thursday Notes, 12/2/99
Message-ID: <199912021533.KAA29762@europe.std.com>

[Cross-posted from Library-lit]

>From the Desk of Ronald S. Pugsley, Director, DAEL
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
Editor: Sarah Newcomb
Production: Rose Tilghman

December 2, 1999
___________________________________

Technical Assistance For EL/Civics Grants

OVAE's Division of Adult Education and Literacy has four technical
assistance workshops for organizations applying for English
Literacy/Civics grants (See 11/25 and 11/19 issues). Workshops include an
overview of program requirements and question-and-answer time with program
officers. To register for a workshop, contact Rose Tilghman by fax at
202/205-8973 or e-mail rose_tilghman at ed.gov 

*	Chicago: December 6, 9 AM -1 PM at the Illinois State Board
of Education, James R. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph, Room #2-025

*	San Antonio: December 7, 10 AM -1 PM at St. Philips College's
Watson Fine Art Theater, 1801 Martin Luther King Drive 

*	San Diego: December 10, 8:30-11 AM and again at 1:30-3:00 PM
at the San Diego County Office of Education, 6401 Linda Vista Road 

*	Washington, DC: December 10, 10 AM -1 PM at the US Education
Department's Barnard Auditorium, 400 Maryland Avenue SW 

If you can't attend an onsite workshop, you can register for a
satellite downlink at http://stm.xpandcorp.com/ or access a simultaneous
webcast http://www.iti-corp.com/doed/live.htm  December 15, 1999 from 1 -2
PM EST.

NAEPDC Taps
VA's McLendon

Virginia State Director Lennox McLendon is the National Adult
Education Professional Development's (NAEPDC's) choice for Executive
Director starting January 1. He will replace Judy Koloski who is retiring.
Lennox joined the Virginia Department of Education in 1975 and has served
as State Director since 1987. He holds an Ed. D in Adult Education from
Virginia Tech and a Masters Degree in Adult and Community College
Education from North Carolina State University. Lennox was a founding
board member of the Consortium and has served as both Chair and Co-chair
of the Policy Committee.

Study Says Crossroads Cafe Produces Learning

A new study for OVAE by Development Associates shows English
language learners using Crossroads Cafe made an average skill gain that
could move them to the next level on the CASAS ESL proficiency scale.
Learners on average advanced more than 13 CASAS scale score points in
reading and nearly 5 in math. Three-fourths of the learners worked with a
partner-most often a family member-at least once. Both learners and
teachers reported high levels of satisfaction with the program and
materials. The findings of this pilot study were used to make
recommendations for a national impact evaluation of Crossroads Cafe.
Contact paul.hopstock at cwixmail.com 

Shop Talk December 2

Tune in for the last "Shop Talk " of the century! We'll discuss the
spring Area Conferences.
____________________________________________________________

A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
OVAE Homepage http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/ 




From nlopez at PBS.ORG  Thu Dec  2 10:06:11 1999
From: nlopez at PBS.ORG (Noreen Lopez)
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 10:06:11 -0500
Subject: NLA Info: Online Forum
Message-ID: <199912021531.KAA29327@europe.std.com>


We invite you to join us for a very special PBS LitLinker Forum with
Alexander C. Cullison, Ph.D. Find out how Dr. Alexander C. Cullison
obtained his GED and became a self-employed mediator and arbitrator. 

Although Alex has a Ph.D in Conflict Resolution and Labor Relations, a
Masters degree in Labor and Policy Studies, and a Bachelor of Science
degree in general engineering studies, his most prized academic achievement
is obtaining a GED.

Please join in on the forum by submitting your questions to Alex from
December 1 through December 15.  Read the answers to your questions in our
question and answer forum on January 3.  To access the LitLinker Forum and
the Question and Answer page go to www.pbs.org/literacy and then click on
LitLinker Forum.

Noreen Lopez, Director
LiteracyLink? Service
Public Broadcasting Service
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, VA 22314
email: nlopez at pbs.org
phone: (703)739-8692,fax:(703)739-8495
Web: <http://www.pbs.org/literacy/>




From JCretella at aol.com  Thu Dec  2 10:45:38 1999
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:45:38 EST
Subject: NLA Info: Commision on Adult Basic Education (COABE)
Message-ID: <199912021615.LAA11939@europe.std.com>


You all may be interested to know that the Commission on Adult Basic 
Education,COABE, is becoming a fully independent adult basic education 
organization..Until now COABE has been a "commission" (one of three) of 
AAACE. For more information about the aims and goals of this "new" 
organization, check out the website at    

	http://cyrus.piedmont.edu/users.coabe/about.html

....If you are looking for a practitioner-oriented adult
education/literacy  organization. 
Thanks..

Jcretella at aol.com



From DJRosen at world.std.com  Thu Dec  2 11:56:32 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:56:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Info: Commision on Adult Basic Education (COABE)
Message-ID: <199912021726.MAA25432@europe.std.com>


Jay, 

Thank you for this update.  I wonder if you -- or someone on the NLA list
-- could shed some light on what has happened and will be happening with
AAACE.  Will it continue?  

How will COABE be different from AAACE? Is COABE planning to be a more
grass-roots organization than AAACE has been in recent years?  What are
the opportunities for memebrs of COABE to participate in developing the
vision or mission for COABE as an independent organization?

And, Jay, for the benefit of NLA subscribers who may not know what COABE
is, feel free to post more information about it to the NLA list,
particularly information about its past -- and future -- role in public
policy advocacy.

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

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 JCretella at aol.com wrote:

> 
> You all may be interested to know that the Commission on Adult Basic 
> Education,COABE, is becoming a fully independent adult basic education 
> organization..Until now COABE has been a "commission" (one of three) of 
> AAACE. For more information about the aims and goals of this "new" 
> organization, check out the website at    
> 
> 	http://cyrus.piedmont.edu/users.coabe/about.html
> 
> ....If you are looking for a practitioner-oriented adult
> education/literacy  organization. 
> Thanks..
> 
> Jcretella at aol.com
> 
> 




From Casmith123 at aol.com  Thu Dec  2 13:35:34 1999
From: Casmith123 at aol.com (Casmith123 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:35:34 EST
Subject: NLA Info: Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy
Message-ID: <199912040010.TAA22840@europe.std.com>


NCSALL is very happy to announce the publication the first volume of the 
Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy.  The Annual Review is produced 
and edited by NCSALL, published by Jossey-Bass.  It is a yearly book of 
commissioned articles on major issues, latest research and best practices in 
the field of adult basic education.  The Review is intended for policymakers, 
scholars, and practitioners in adult literacy.  In addition to the 
commissioned articles on key topics in the field, each Annual Review also 
includes an article reviewing recent events in the field, an annotated review 
on a particular topic, and an overview of the adult basic education system 
from another country.

Volume 1 includes the following:

--Foreward by Archie Willard
--The Year 1998 in Review by Fran Tracy-Mumford
--Lessons from "Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children" for Adult 
Learning and Literacy by Catherine Snow and John Strucker
--Youth in Adult Literacy Education Programs by Elisabeth Hayes
--Adult Literacy and Postsecondary Education Students:  Overlapping 
Populations and Learning Trajectories by Stephen Reder
--Health and Literacy:  A Review of Medical and Public Health Literature by 
Rima Rudd, Barbara Moeykens and Tayla Colton
--Perspectives on Assessment in Adult ESOL Instruction by Carol Van Duzer and 
Robert Berdan
--A Primer on Adult Learning and Literacy in the United Kingdom by Mary 
Hamilton and Juliet Merrifield
--Using Electronic Technology in Adult Literacy Education by David Rosen
--Resources on the Use of Electronic Technology in Adult Literacy Education 
by Jeff Carter and Lou Wollrab

For a full paragraph description of each article, visit NCSALL's web site at a
t http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall  and click on "Review of Adult Learning 
and Literacy" on our home page.  Then look under the "contents" section on 
the "Annual Review" page for the article title in which you're interested and 
click on the title to see a fuller description of the article.

The Annual Review, Volume One, is available directly from Jossey-Bass 
Publishers for $34.95 plus shipping.  You can get more information about 
ordering the Annual Review by visiting www.josseybass.com or through the 
NCSALL web site (which has a link to Jossey-Bass) 

Or you can call Jossey-Bass directly to order at 1-800-956-7739 or FAX to 
1-800-605-2665

Volume Two is in production and will be completed by fall 2000, including 
articles on writing, ABE assessment, the Canadian adult literacy system, ABE 
staff development systems, and organizational change, among others.

We hope that the review will serve as a valuable resource for the field of 
adult literacy.

Cristine Smith
NCSALL Coordinator
World Education
csmith at worlded.org



From JCretella at aol.com  Thu Dec  2 14:00:55 1999
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:00:55 EST
Subject: NLA Info: Commision on Adult Basic Education (COABE)
Message-ID: <199912040021.TAA24232@europe.std.com>


David and all NLA....

David has asked me to 'shed light" on what has happened and what will
happen when COABE snf AAACE. There is still a lot of dialog going on between 
the two Boards..I'm not privy right now to all the details. But in a
nutshell, trying to manage all of the interests of adult education levels had 
become unmanageable and too costly, especially in the hands of a management 
firm which knew very little about the field of adult education..Since COABE 
(the Commision on Adult Basic Education) already has its own leadership 
structure, its own publication and National conference (this year in Chicago, 
March 5-8) it seemed in the best interests of everyone that COABE become
an independent organization. We will continue to be a "partner" with AAACE as 
we are with other literacy organizations but will maintain an independent 
Board and all that implies. Keep in mind that COABE members are also AAACE 
members..so many of us will continue our membership in both organizations..
But since the focus of COABE is adult Basic Education,those practicioners who 
do only that...basic education...will opt for membership in COABE....
Presently, AAACE also includes the Commission of Professors and a large Unit 
For adult education in the MILITARY  and some smaller units which focus on 
adult education in specialized areas. I assume AAACE will continue in those 
areas but I do not speak for AAACE. As far as Advocacy and Public policy
is concerned, COABE has always had a legislative person as part of its 
standing committee structure. I have been privileged to hold that position 
for the last few years...Our advocacy has always focused on the broad range 
of issues in adult basic education, from teacher training to immigration
issues and just about anything that would affect the adult learners we
serve. I have always maintained that every advocacy group needs to work
with and support other advocacy groups...and wehave successfully done
that..So many of the issues raised on this list are on our agenda
...assessment, accountability,funding, teacher training and teacher 
compensation issues/ learner eligibilty, etc.I guess that's enough about
COABE for now, But I would be glad to answer anyone's questions about 
publications, membership, etc...as well as policy issues..Most recently we
joined the Coalition of Adult Education Organizations as a sustaining
member..Thanks for your time..

Jay Cretella



From literacy at wilmington.net  Thu Dec  2 15:33:55 1999
From: literacy at wilmington.net (Katie Morrow)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:33:55 -0500
Subject: NLA:  Question For Ron Pugsley
Message-ID: <199912040031.TAA25701@europe.std.com>


Thanks for being willing to field all these questions!

I would like to expand on JoAnn's question on special populations to include
the following:

How are the needs of learning-disabled adults being taken into consideration
with regard to the National Reporting System? I have heard a range of
estimates (15-80%) for how many adult education students are likely to be
LD. What does your office consider a reasonable estimate? We are concerned
about testing clients who are likely to be LD based on screening, but who
have not been formally diagnosed. What recommendations do you have for
literacy providers in creating a fair testing situation for these students?

Also, given that accountability costs money, what is an appropriate ratio
between funds spent on accountability and funds spent on direct program
implementation?


Sincerely,
Katie Morrow
Cape Fear Literacy Council






From DMOSS at arlington.k12.va.us  Fri Dec  3 16:05:37 1999
From: DMOSS at arlington.k12.va.us (Donna Moss)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 16:05:37 -0500
Subject: NLA Info: Dates Ron Pugsley will be on the NLA List
Message-ID: <199912040055.TAA28777@europe.std.com>


I would be interested in having Ron discuss some of the secondary outcome
measures in the NRS.  For example, could he tell us more about the project
learner?  Can he tell us how this measure came about?  In Virginia, we have a
measure related to "project learners" but,  it is not limited to work-based
projects.  

Donna Moss
REEP
2801 Clarendon Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22201
(703)228-7228
dmoss at arlington.k12.va.us
 



From gdemetrion at juno.com  Fri Dec  3 23:40:26 1999
From: gdemetrion at juno.com (GEORGE E. DEMETRION)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 20:40:26 -0800
Subject: NLA Info: Commision on Adult Basic Education (COABE)
Message-ID: <199912040310.WAA16445@europe.std.com>


Jay and others:

I checked in with the editor of COABE's Adult Basic Journal editor. 
Their web page is not yet up and running.  Not sure when it will be
available.

george

___________________________________________________________________
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.



From DEBBYDAM at aol.com  Sat Dec  4 17:15:45 1999
From: DEBBYDAM at aol.com (DEBBYDAM at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 17:15:45 EST
Subject: NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley
Message-ID: <199912042306.SAA08607@europe.std.com>


The New York Times carried a story this week on how states are having to 
scale back their "ambitious" attempts to impose standards via performance on 
standardized tests for k-12 students.  Many states are re-defining what is 
acceptable performance to avoid failing large numbers of students or to have 
to deny high school diplomas to great numbers.  This is a debacle adult 
education should not aspire to repeat.  It is a loud and clear signal that 
setting arbitrary standards, such as percentages of students that must reach 
the next level according to the NRS criteria, are likely to lead to 
embarrasing retreats.  

Tom Sticht has raised research-based questions regarding the levels being 
used, and many others have called attention to the impact of imposing these 
on the diverse populations served by adult education.  Most distressing is 
the demand that numbers of students achieving next level standards must 
increase each program year, in order to demonstrate continuous improvement.  
To my mind, continuous improvement would be better demonstrated by learning 
more about the needs of students and finding resources to meet these better 
each year.  Expecting improvement without changes in program goals, resources, 
instruction and how outcomes are defined and measured, changes based on actual 
experiences of practitioners and students, seems kind of "up the down 
staircase" to me.  

Can we learn from the K-12 experience and introduce rationality, in the form 
of field-based input,  into how outcomes are defined and measured and rewarded?

Debbydam at aol.com



From DJRosen at world.std.com  Sat Dec  4 18:24:25 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:24:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley
Message-ID: <199912050225.VAA26130@europe.std.com>


Hello Ron,

Here's another question for you.

The NRS calls for some significant new reporting requirements, among them
follow-up employment-related outcomes.  This will be a challenge, and will
have new costs for adult education programs -- very likely significant 
costs in order to get accurate data.

How will state adult education agencies and the U.S. Department of
Education know what the actual data collection and reporting costs are to
programs? Will the Division of Adult Education and Literacy be able to provide,
or allow states to use federal dollars to provide, new funds for these
additional federally-required data gathering and reporting costs? I am
concerned that they will come out of programs' instructional budgets, and
thus compromise programs' ability to help students achieve the very
learning gains the WIA calls for.

Thanks for your willingness to join in discussion about this on the NLA
list.

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




From DJRosen at world.std.com  Sun Dec  5 12:44:35 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 12:44:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA: Welcome to Guest, Ron Pugsley
Message-ID: <199912052305.SAA17371@europe.std.com>

NLA Colleagues,

I would like to welcome Ron Pugsley, Director of the the Division of Adult
Education and Literacy in the U.S. Department of Education.  He is our
guest on the NLA list for three days this week and next: Monday, December
6th, Tuesday, December 7th and Monday, December 13th.  Ron will be
responding to the questions which have recently been addressed to him
here, and there is still an opportunity this week for NLA list members to
pose more questions, perhaps through Friday, December 10th. The topic for
discussion is the Workforce Investment Act, especially the Adult Education
and Family Literacy Act and the National Reporting System.

I would also like to welcome the many new subscribers to the NLA list,
some of whom are here to listen to the questions and answers about this
important topic.

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator






From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Mon Dec  6 10:43:30 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:43:30 -0500 
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912061634.LAA13422@europe.std.com>

Hi Debby, thanks for your note.

In adult education, nobody is "setting arbitrary standards...," rather
States are estimating the percentage of students likely to advance in basic
reading and writing or in speaking and listening over a period of time.
Adult learners, enrolled in ABE/ESL/ASE, are seeking to enhance or improve
their proficiency in these areas.  NRS is one way for the field to register
how learners are progressing.

Ron Pugsley


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	DEBBYDAM at aol.com [SMTP:DEBBYDAM at aol.com]
> Sent:	Saturday, December 04, 1999 5:16 PM
> To:	nla at world.std.com
> Subject:	NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley
> 
> 
> The New York Times carried a story this week on how states are having to 
> scale back their "ambitious" attempts to impose standards via performance
> on 
> standardized tests for k-12 students.  Many states are re-defining what is
> 
> acceptable performance to avoid failing large numbers of students or to
> have 
> to deny high school diplomas to great numbers.  This is a debacle adult 
> education should not aspire to repeat.  It is a loud and clear signal that
> 
> setting arbitrary standards, such as percentages of students that must
> reach 
> the next level according to the NRS criteria, are likely to lead to 
> embarrasing retreats.  
> 
> Tom Sticht has raised research-based questions regarding the levels being 
> used, and many others have called attention to the impact of imposing
> these 
> on the diverse populations served by adult education.  Most distressing is
> 
> the demand that numbers of students achieving next level standards must 
> increase each program year, in order to demonstrate continuous
> improvement.  
> To my mind, continuous improvement would be better demonstrated by
> learning 
> more about the needs of students and finding resources to meet these
> better 
> each year.  Expecting improvement without changes in program goals,
> resources, 
> instruction and how outcomes are defined and measured, changes based on
> actual 
> experiences of practitioners and students, seems kind of "up the down 
> staircase" to me.  
> 
> Can we learn from the K-12 experience and introduce rationality, in the
> form 
> of field-based input,  into how outcomes are defined and measured and
> rewarded?
> 
> Debbydam at aol.com



From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Mon Dec  6 10:54:59 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:54:59 -0500 
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912061631.LAA12811@europe.std.com>

Hi Bill, probably the strongest indicator of the Department's commitment to
providing services to the lowest level of learner is the inclusion in the
Department's annual Government Performance and Review Act (GPRA) report to
Congress of a performance indicator that says--"By 2000, adults at the
lowest levels of literacy (those in Beginning ABE and Beginning ESOL) will
comprise 50% of the total national enrollment."  This indicator is one of
only seven performance indicators selected by the Department to measure the
performance of the adult education and literacy system.  The Department is
committed to providing access to the most in need and will continue to
monitor the level of service to this population.

Ron Pugsley

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ralei at aol.com [SMTP:Ralei at aol.com]
> Sent:	Monday, November 29, 1999 10:57 AM
> To:	nla at world.std.com
> Subject:	NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley
> 
> 
> Ron: What is the US Department Education doing to ensure that programs
> that 
> serve the lowest level learner are not effectively excluded from funding
> as a 
> result of the outcomes and reporting systems being established under 
> WIA/AEFLA?
> 
> Bill Raleigh
> former Director of Government Affairs
> Laubach Literacy



From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Mon Dec  6 11:19:35 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:19:35 -0500 
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions 
Message-ID: <199912061636.LAA13895@europe.std.com>


Gretchen, there is no Federal requirement associated with the national
performance accountability and reporting system that only standardized tests
may be used to measure educational gain.  The instructions in the reporting
guidelines currently being developed to implement the national reporting
system require that a uniform, standardized assessment be used to determine
initial placement and subsequent educational gain.  Standardized tests are
allowable but not required.  There is no requirement or intention to require
local programs or states to report individual test scores to the Federal
Government.  The states have the responsibility to determine the
standardized assessment(s) to be used to measure educational gain.

Ron Pugsley


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Gretchen Bitterlin [SMTP:gbitterl at sdccd.cc.ca.us]
> Sent:	Monday, November 29, 1999 12:19 PM
> To:	nla at europe.std.com
> Subject:	NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley 
> 
> 
> David, I have the following question for Ron Pugsley:
> 
> Rumors are that the Federal Government is only looking at standardized
> test
> scores from tests such as CASAS to measure literacy learning gains.  Is
> this
> true or is it possible that other measures could be used, such as
> portfolio
> documentation that demonstrates level gain according to specific statewide
> criteria  ?  Please comment on this issue.
> 
> Gretchen Bitterlin
> ESL Coordinator
> Continuing Education Centers
> San Diego Community College District
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David J Rosen [mailto:DJRosen at world.std.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 1999 9:45 AM
> To: nla at world.std.com
> Subject: NLA Info: Dates Ron Pugsley will be on the NLA List 
> 
> 
> 
> NLA Colleagues,
> 
> The Director of the U.S. Department of Education's Division of Adult
> Education and Literacy, Ron Pugsley, will be here with us on December 6th,
> 7th, and 13th to answer questions and discuss the Workforce Investment
> Act, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, and the National
> Reporting System.
> 
> I would like to suggest that you pose your questions now. Should you wish
> to do some reading on these acts, here are some Web pages with (or useful
> links to) pertinent documents:
> 
> 
> http://novel.nifl.gov
> 
> http://www.air.org/nrs
> 
> http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Swearer_Center/Literacy_Resources/
> standards.html
> 
> http://www2.wgbh.org/mbcweis/ltc/alri/advocacy.html  
> (the national section)
> 
> 
> David J. Rosen
> NLA List Moderator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



From office at naulc.org  Mon Dec  6 12:33:42 1999
From: office at naulc.org (Edith Gower)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:33:42 -0600
Subject: NLA: Follow-up question to Ron Pugsley
Message-ID: <199912062026.PAA23832@europe.std.com>


Hi Ron,

A follow up to your answer to Bill's question about lowest level learners -

It appears from my perspective that historically when the Dept. has measured
the performance of the adult education and literacy system that what has
been measured has been only the federally and state-funded system.  Numbers
have not included thousands of community-based service providers in
neighborhood learning centers, churches, and libraries where many of us
surmise the lowest level learners are making their initial entrance into the
system are being served.  Does this performance indicator mean that the
Dept. will reach out to include those programs in their "total national
enrollment" count, to give us a more realistic picture of what the whole
system is like?

Edith Gower, Executive Director
National Alliance of Urban Literacy Coalitions
1001 West Loop South, Suite 100
Houston, Texas 77027
1-888-269-4902
(713)964-6826
FAX: (713)622-5513
office at naulc.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Pugsley, Ronald <Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov>
To: nla at world.std.com <nla at world.std.com>
Date: Monday, December 06, 1999 11:05 AM
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions


>Hi Bill, probably the strongest indicator of the Department's commitment to
>providing services to the lowest level of learner is the inclusion in the
>Department's annual Government Performance and Review Act (GPRA) report to
>Congress of a performance indicator that says--"By 2000, adults at the
>lowest levels of literacy (those in Beginning ABE and Beginning ESOL) will
>comprise 50% of the total national enrollment."  This indicator is one of
>only seven performance indicators selected by the Department to measure the
>performance of the adult education and literacy system.  The Department is
>committed to providing access to the most in need and will continue to
>monitor the level of service to this population.
>
>Ron Pugsley
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralei at aol.com [SMTP:Ralei at aol.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 10:57 AM
>> To: nla at world.std.com
>> Subject: NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley
>>
>>
>> Ron: What is the US Department Education doing to ensure that programs
>> that
>> serve the lowest level learner are not effectively excluded from funding
>> as a
>> result of the outcomes and reporting systems being established under
>> WIA/AEFLA?
>>
>> Bill Raleigh
>> former Director of Government Affairs
>> Laubach Literacy
>
>
>





From sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net  Mon Dec  6 13:35:25 1999
From: sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net (Sioux Falls Literacy Council)
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 12:35:25 -0600
Subject: NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley
Message-ID: <199912062033.PAA25107@europe.std.com>


Archie made some very good points here that I wish to respond to.  

Archie wrote:  "And, worse yet, many adult learners find standardized
tests to be either meaningless or threatening -- or both!"

As the director of a literacy program for Level 1 students, I advocate
that we make sure a national system include asking the *right*
questions. I agree with Archie.  The current tests don't.  Those tests
chase away the dreams of learners who are looking for a second chance to
achieve ... when "testing" is the first word they hear as they enroll,
they don't stay.

A huge question will be, in my view, who will determine what those
questions will be and will the *right* questions apply to all learner
programs ... to all learners?  Will learners be involved in the
research? Will application of reading, writing and spelling skills be
included effectively in a reporting questionnaire?   

Then he wrote:  "1. Set reasonable goals for all types and levels of
adult learners and the adult education programs which serve them."

This will be our challenge.  If we don't ask the right questions, how
will be know their goals?  

The final point I wanted to comment about was #3.  

Archie stated:  "Fund research and development projects which encourage
adult educators to develop and use a range of assessment tools (not just
existing standardized tests) that really measure what adults want and
need to learn."

I feel strongly that the next step must be developing different
assessment tools for the literacy-level learner.  The current testing
instruments are not condusive to identifying the literacy student's
skill levels, I don't believe.

Who's going to take responsibility to fund this?  It certainly can't be
the Grass Roots level, Mr. Pugsley.  Without staff and tools, most small
community-based literacy programs will be unable to do so.

Nancy Hansen, Ex. Dir.
Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council
sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net



From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Mon Dec  6 15:51:12 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 15:51:12 -0500 
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912070346.WAA28860@europe.std.com>


Hi David, your question is an important one.

The cost to adequately collect and report outcome data, especially on
post-program outcomes, is of great concern to everyone in adult education.
A promising long-term strategy to successfully control the cost (and
ensuring a level of reliability) is to track adult learners electronically
through appropriate data systems.  For example, a state level data match of
the adult education system and the GED testing system can identify quickly
and relatively inexpensively all adult enrollees who passed the GED in any
given year.  Using such a data matching method eliminates the need for each
local program to invest any time or money in tracking their students to
determine high school completion.  The Department and the individual states
have been and will continue to investigate this and other approaches to
tracking student outcome data.

States have the authority to directly spend or allow local programs to spend
federal dollars to support the accountability and program improvement
requirements of the new Act.  Certainly, over the past two years the federal
appropriation for adult education has increased and part of this increase
should be used to support the accountability requirements.  One of the
mandated considerations that states must use to fund local programs is
whether or not the local programs offer a high quality information
management system that has the capacity to report participant outcomes and
to monitor program performance, and federal funds would be the source to
support these management information systems.

Ron Pugsley
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	David J Rosen [SMTP:DJRosen at world.std.com]
> Sent:	Saturday, December 04, 1999 6:24 PM
> To:	nla at world.std.com
> Subject:	NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley
> 
> 
> Hello Ron,
> 
> Here's another question for you.
> 
> The NRS calls for some significant new reporting requirements, among them
> follow-up employment-related outcomes.  This will be a challenge, and will
> have new costs for adult education programs -- very likely significant 
> costs in order to get accurate data.
> 
> How will state adult education agencies and the U.S. Department of
> Education know what the actual data collection and reporting costs are to
> programs? Will the Division of Adult Education and Literacy be able to
> provide,
> or allow states to use federal dollars to provide, new funds for these
> additional federally-required data gathering and reporting costs? I am
> concerned that they will come out of programs' instructional budgets, and
> thus compromise programs' ability to help students achieve the very
> learning gains the WIA calls for.
> 
> Thanks for your willingness to join in discussion about this on the NLA
> list.
> 
> David J. Rosen
> <DJRosen at world.std.com>




From Dwyoho at aol.com  Mon Dec  6 16:19:31 1999
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 16:19:31 EST
Subject: NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley on testing and the learner's voice 
Message-ID: <199912070350.WAA29437@europe.std.com>


Mr. Pugsley:  One of the reasons adult educators are frustrated with the use 
of standardized tests is so often the results have little value to us--grade 
level scores, for example, are in reference to the k-12 system and scale 
scores are a mystery to many and usually only give info about how one 
compares to others, not about individual progress.  Skill based, criteria 
referenced systems tell us more, but are often cumbersome and too time 
consuming.  

Two years ago in SC a consultant from the state university conducted a 
statewide administration of a "junior version" of the NALS.  This seemed 
closer  to the mark , but we found that Level One is too broad a category for 
 SC; we need to break out the "rock bottom" readers from those who are able 
to do some of the skills in Level One.  

In our program we use the Slosson, administered individually and orally, but 
it doesn't help us with assessing comprehension skills.  So several other 
techniques are used as well, including a long personal interview and goal 
setting counseling.  We also keep portfolios.  In short, I'm sure you would 
agree that assessing to diagnose individual status and "dipsticking" into the 
learner population to get an idea of the effectiveness of a total program are 
two completely different things.

In short, assessment, as I'm sure you know, has always been a challenge and 
an issue.  I faced the very same problems in K-12 education as a teacher and a 
principal.  You may be aware of South Carolina's history with the Basic 
Skills movement and the Exit Exam (Dick Riley is not your boss for nothing!)

Looking back at the "accountability movement" after more than 20 years from 
the perspectives of both adult education and K-12, I now rather grudgingly 
admit that the stages of panic, alarm, and  resigned cooperation I struggled 
with were mostly a lot of unnecessary angst.   I have learned to concentrate 
on doing the best possible job and just not worry about where the statistics 
may fall, regardless of whatever system comes around the next corner.  It 
helps to know in your soul that your program is valued, highly effective most 
of the time, and will survive.    Those of us who aren't so sure about those 
things probably need a nudge, which is what measures like the NRS are all 
about.  Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but we're all in this together and 
everything is going to be just fine.

However, I do feel that Archie Willard's predictions of how some programs may 
respond to the NRS will sadly come true.  There is the potential for policy 
makers to be so busy scrambling that the learners get lost in the shuffle.  
Is there anything currently in place or in the works that would insure that 
learners have a continuing voice in all this at the local level?  In my 
opinion, it may literally take an act of Congress to accomplish this.  (I am 
reminded that only federal legislation achieved universal compliance with 
establishing School Improvement Councils.  Even the specific membership 
makeup had to be mandated.) 

Sincerely,

Deborah W. Yoho
Chief Executive Officer
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
921 Woodrow Street  
Columbia, SC  29205
803/765-2555   dwyoho at aol.com



From rkrawiec at mindspring.com  Tue Dec  7 21:07:02 1999
From: rkrawiec at mindspring.com (rkrawiec at mindspring.com)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:07:02 -0500
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912080216.VAA08977@europe.std.com>

What happened to the questions we submitted last week?  Are they going to be
answered?

Rich Krawiec

-----Original Message-----
From: Pugsley, Ronald <Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov>
To: nla at world.std.com <nla at world.std.com>
Date: Monday, December 06, 1999 10:46 PM
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions


>
>Hi David, your question is an important one.
>
>The cost to adequately collect and report outcome data, especially on
>post-program outcomes, is of great concern to everyone in adult education.
>A promising long-term strategy to successfully control the cost (and
>ensuring a level of reliability) is to track adult learners electronically
>through appropriate data systems.  For example, a state level data match of
>the adult education system and the GED testing system can identify quickly
>and relatively inexpensively all adult enrollees who passed the GED in any
>given year.  Using such a data matching method eliminates the need for each
>local program to invest any time or money in tracking their students to
>determine high school completion.  The Department and the individual states
>have been and will continue to investigate this and other approaches to
>tracking student outcome data.
>
>States have the authority to directly spend or allow local programs to
spend
>federal dollars to support the accountability and program improvement
>requirements of the new Act.  Certainly, over the past two years the
federal
>appropriation for adult education has increased and part of this increase
>should be used to support the accountability requirements.  One of the
>mandated considerations that states must use to fund local programs is
>whether or not the local programs offer a high quality information
>management system that has the capacity to report participant outcomes and
>to monitor program performance, and federal funds would be the source to
>support these management information systems.
>
>Ron Pugsley
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David J Rosen [SMTP:DJRosen at world.std.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 6:24 PM
>> To: nla at world.std.com
>> Subject: NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley
>>
>>
>> Hello Ron,
>>
>> Here's another question for you.
>>
>> The NRS calls for some significant new reporting requirements, among them
>> follow-up employment-related outcomes.  This will be a challenge, and
will
>> have new costs for adult education programs -- very likely significant
>> costs in order to get accurate data.
>>
>> How will state adult education agencies and the U.S. Department of
>> Education know what the actual data collection and reporting costs are to
>> programs? Will the Division of Adult Education and Literacy be able to
>> provide,
>> or allow states to use federal dollars to provide, new funds for these
>> additional federally-required data gathering and reporting costs? I am
>> concerned that they will come out of programs' instructional budgets, and
>> thus compromise programs' ability to help students achieve the very
>> learning gains the WIA calls for.
>>
>> Thanks for your willingness to join in discussion about this on the NLA
>> list.
>>
>> David J. Rosen
>> <DJRosen at world.std.com>
>
>





From Linnell.L.Rantapaa at doc.state.or.us  Wed Dec  8 15:06:56 1999
From: Linnell.L.Rantapaa at doc.state.or.us (Rantapaa, Linnell L)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:06:56 -0800 
Subject: NLA: Follow-up Question for Ron Pugsley
Message-ID: <199912082031.PAA07842@europe.std.com>

Perhaps it's the wording that is confusing me, but I would like some
clarification on the difference between a "standardized test" and a
"uniform, standardized assessment."

In Ron Pugley's reply to Gretchen he stated:
"there is no Federal requirement associated with the national
performance accountability and reporting system that only standardized tests
may be used to measure educational gain.  Standardized tests are
allowable but not required. "
And,...
"The instructions in the reporting
guidelines currently being developed to implement the national reporting
system require that a uniform, standardized assessment be used to determine
initial placement and subsequent educational gain."

"The states have the responsibility to determine the
standardized assessment(s) to be used to measure educational gain."

Gratefully, the feds do NOT want to provide the "acceptable" menu of
assessment options for measuring educational gains, but they do want states
to use "standardized assessment." 

 I would like clarification on the feds criteria for "standardized."  What
evidence would a state have to show that the assessment used for measuring
educational gain was "standardized" within a state? Could a state deem an
assessment process "standardized" because everybody uses the same
checklists, keeps a portfolio on all students, provides the same training on
assessment processes??  Certainly this is a different criteria for
"standardized" than the "standardization process" for commercial
"standardized tests"? Does that matter?
L.Rantapaa
Oregon Dept. of Corr.


-----Original Message-----
From: nla-approval at world.std.com [mailto:nla-approval at world.std.com]On
Behalf Of Pugsley, Ronald
Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 8:20 AM
To: nla at world.std.com
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions 



Gretchen, there is no Federal requirement associated with the national
performance accountability and reporting system that only standardized tests
may be used to measure educational gain.  The instructions in the reporting
guidelines currently being developed to implement the national reporting
system require that a uniform, standardized assessment be used to determine
initial placement and subsequent educational gain.  Standardized tests are
allowable but not required.  There is no requirement or intention to require
local programs or states to report individual test scores to the Federal
Government.  The states have the responsibility to determine the
standardized assessment(s) to be used to measure educational gain.

Ron Pugsley


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Gretchen Bitterlin [SMTP:gbitterl at sdccd.cc.ca.us]
> Sent:	Monday, November 29, 1999 12:19 PM
> To:	nla at europe.std.com
> Subject:	NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley 
> 
> 
> David, I have the following question for Ron Pugsley:
> 
> Rumors are that the Federal Government is only looking at standardized
> test
> scores from tests such as CASAS to measure literacy learning gains.  Is
> this
> true or is it possible that other measures could be used, such as
> portfolio
> documentation that demonstrates level gain according to specific statewide
> criteria  ?  Please comment on this issue.
> 
> Gretchen Bitterlin
> ESL Coordinator
> Continuing Education Centers
> San Diego Community College District
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David J Rosen [mailto:DJRosen at world.std.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 1999 9:45 AM
> To: nla at world.std.com
> Subject: NLA Info: Dates Ron Pugsley will be on the NLA List 
> 
> 
> 
> NLA Colleagues,
> 
> The Director of the U.S. Department of Education's Division of Adult
> Education and Literacy, Ron Pugsley, will be here with us on December 6th,
> 7th, and 13th to answer questions and discuss the Workforce Investment
> Act, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, and the National
> Reporting System.
> 
> I would like to suggest that you pose your questions now. Should you wish
> to do some reading on these acts, here are some Web pages with (or useful
> links to) pertinent documents:
> 
> 
> http://novel.nifl.gov
> 
> http://www.air.org/nrs
> 
> http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Swearer_Center/Literacy_Resources/
> standards.html
> 
> http://www2.wgbh.org/mbcweis/ltc/alri/advocacy.html  
> (the national section)
> 
> 
> David J. Rosen
> NLA List Moderator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Wed Dec  8 15:20:27 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:20:27 -0500 
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912082037.PAA09085@europe.std.com>

Ajit, thanks for your question.  Others have raised it as well.

Over the past two years, even before the passage of the Adult Education and
Family Literacy Act, the Department supported a project to develop a
national reporting system built upon the need to better identify and report
program outcomes.  Prior to the passage of the AEFLA, the Department had
identified "sampling" as an appropriate tool for data gathering at both the
state and local level.  In fact, one of the the components of the national
reporting system project was to conduct a pilot test of the NRS and a state
level samplying construct was one of the models used.  Before the pilot
tests was completed AEFLA became law and a number of assumptions regarding a
state level survey were revisted by the Department and the Project Advisory
Board.  Because of the accountability requirements contained in AEFLA, it
became necessary for states to evaluate the effectiveness of each local
program based on the core performance indicators.  The results of this
accountability review would be linked to a number of critical program
activities, including program improvement plans, training and technical
assistance issues, and eventually funding support for individual programs.
As a result, it was clear that a good deal of precision was needed in the
reporting system used to collect, analyze and report on individual and local
program performance...precluding the use of state-wide or national
samplying.

Ron Pugsley


-----Original Message-----
From: Ajit Gopalakrishnan [mailto:agopalak at crec.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 5:51 PM
To: nla at world.std.com
Subject: NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley



Ron,

Thanks for taking the time to be available to the NLA audience. My question
is with respect to sampling.

What was the reasoning behind the NRS not allowing for any type of sampling
of students? If I understand correctly, the NRS requires educational gains
data from all students in all programs in the state. Was the possibility of
doing say a stratified sampling that could have included all programs in a
state, considered? If yes, what was the reasoning behind excluding it from
the NRS?

Thank you.

Ajit
Ajit Gopalakrishnan
Capitol Region Education Council (CREC)
111 Charter Oak Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
(860) 524-4036
agopalak at crec.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	David J Rosen [SMTP:DJRosen at world.std.com]
> Sent:	Saturday, November 27, 1999 12:45 PM
> To:	nla at world.std.com
> Subject:	NLA Info: Dates Ron Pugsley will be on the NLA List 
> 
> 
> NLA Colleagues,
> 
> The Director of the U.S. Department of Education's Division of Adult
> Education and Literacy, Ron Pugsley, will be here with us on December 6th,
> 7th, and 13th to answer questions and discuss the Workforce Investment
> Act, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, and the National
> Reporting System.
> 
> I would like to suggest that you pose your questions now. Should you wish
> to do some reading on these acts, here are some Web pages with (or useful
> links to) pertinent documents:
> 
> 
> http://novel.nifl.gov
> 
> http://www.air.org/nrs
> 
> http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Swearer_Center/Literacy_Resources/
> standards.html
> 
> http://www2.wgbh.org/mbcweis/ltc/alri/advocacy.html  
> (the national section)
> 
> 
> David J. Rosen
> NLA List Moderator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



From hsmith at coe.tamu.edu  Wed Dec  8 16:32:15 1999
From: hsmith at coe.tamu.edu (Harriet Vardiman Smith)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 15:32:15 -0600
Subject: NLA: Follow-up Question for Ron Pugsley
Message-ID: <199912090330.WAA23195@europe.std.com>


At 03:20 PM 12/8/99 -0500, Ron Pugsley wrote:

"...a good deal of precision [is] needed in the reporting system used to
collect, analyze and report on individual and local program
performance...precluding the use of state-wide or national sampling."

A follow-up question:
What about random or random/stratified sampling *within* programs that
serve very large numbers of students? For example, some programs in major
Texas urban areas serve thousands part-time adult ESL students each year.
True, K-12 school districts have to assess many thousands of students, but
they have far more money per student to support activities such as
administration, assessment, data processing, and reporting.


Harriet Vardiman Smith
Materials/Research Coordinator
Texas Adult Literacy Clearinghouse
800-441-READ
409-862-6519
website:  http://www.cdlr.tamu.edu/tcall/





From tsticht at aznet.net  Wed Dec  8 20:32:15 1999
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 17:32:15 -0800
Subject: NLA Info: Testing and Accountability 
Message-ID: <199912090346.WAA25564@europe.std.com>

David: As a background for thinking about testing and accountability
issues in the Workforce Investment Act and the National Reporting
System, NLA list members may find useful a report I have prepared that
is available online at www.nald.ca under Full Text Documents. Following
is a brief overview of the report.

Tom Sticht

Testing and Accountability  in Adult Literacy Education: Focus on
Workplace Literacy Resources for Program Design, Assessment, Testing, &
Evaluation

Thomas G. Sticht
November 1999

Recent national and international surveys of adult literacy skills have
raised questions about workforce readiness for international
competitiveness. This report  provides information on the design and
evaluation of workplace literacy programs to improve workforce
readiness, and an overview of concepts about the nature, uses and abuses
of standardized tests in program evaluation and accountability. This is
not a "how to do it" guidebook. Rather, it discusses concepts and issues
and provides bibliographic resources for those readers who want to learn
more about how to design, develop, and evaluate literacy programs in the
workplace and other contexts. 

Workplace literacy or basic skills programs are programs offered at a
given workplace and generally are aimed at preparing employees for
performing job-linked literacy and numeracy tasks, such as filling out
requisition forms in a clerical position or preparing to learn
statistical process control. However, much of the discussion is
applicable to other types of programs for workforce education and
lifelong learning, including family literacy, academic literacy and
other aspects of basic skills education (reading, writing, mathematics,
English as a Second Language-ESL). Chapters include: 

Chapter 1 Knowledge Resources for Designing and	 Delivering Workplace
Literacy Programs

Chapter 2  Q & A on the Evaluation of Workplace Literacy Programs

Chapter 3  Case Study Using the "DO ED" Approach 	for Evaluating
Workplace Literacy Programs

Chapter 4  Testing and Accountability in Adult Literacy Programs in the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

Chapter 5  Determining How Many Adults Are Lacking  in Workforce
Literacy: The National and International Adult Literacy Surveys

Appendix    Reviews of Eight Tests Used in ABE & ESL

Thomas G. Sticht
Applied Behavioral & Cognitive Sciences, Inc.
2062 Valley View Blvd.
El Cajon, CA 92019-2059
(619) 444-9595
tsticht at aznet.net



From tsticht at aznet.net  Fri Dec 10 12:37:02 1999
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:37:02 -0800
Subject: NLA Discussion: Testing and Assessment Questions
Message-ID: <199912101833.NAA06381@europe.std.com>


David: You have asked Ron Pugsley and me for some responses to  a set of
questions based on an appendix to  my  "Testing and Accountability in
Adult Literacy Education" paper posted at

http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/sticht/testing/page88.htm

I have listed my responses to your questions below. 

Q1.  Tom, is this the most up-to-date independent, comprehensive review
of standardized assessments for adult literacy/basic education/ESOL ?

Answer: There may be others but it is the only one I know about David.
Note that it leaves out the Tests of Applied Skills (TALS), which is the
commercial version of the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), Work
Keys, the Adult Measure of Essential Skills (AMES), and the PhonePass
computer based English language assessment. Interestingly, the National
Reporting System includes the AMES but not the TALS in its list of
examples of tests that might be used for accountability purposes. This
is sort of strange because it is the TALS (actually the government's
version, NALS), which is used to identify the scale of need for adult
literacy education, but is not included as one of the measures for
determining if the need is being met in ESL/ABE/ASE  programs. The field
could use a more up to date and inclusive review. In my new workshop I
am developing for 2000 I will review these other tests, but I have not
written anything up about them yet. 

Q2.  Tom and Ron, Gregg wrote that there are hundreds of standardized
tests, but only a few developed for ABE and ESL. Do you think that as a
field we have a full range of high quality standardized instruments, or
does more work need to be done in this area?  Do we have a good set of
tools to answer the questions Congress has posed with the WIA/AEFLA , or
not yet?

Answer: In my judgment the testing of adult literacy is in a state of
confusion. For instance, on page 19 of the NRS Draft Guidelines for July
1999, after listing examples of tests that might be used for placement
of students into the six levels of the NRS, the report states: Quote:
"These benchmarks are provided only as examples of how students
functioning at each level would perform on the tests. Their inclusion in
no way is meant to imply that the tests are equivalent or that they
should be used as the basis for assessment. In addition, the tests do
not necessarily measure the same skills."End quote. 

But if the tests are not equivalent (in some sense) or they do not
measure the same skills, then what do they measure and how can they all
be used interchangeably for placement and assessment for advancement?
How does that allow for comparisons across programs that use different
tests? 

Q 3.  Tom and Ron, as I read these reviews, I am not greatly impressed
with the quality of some of these tests.  Some  have published data on
their validity; some don't.  Some include reliability data; some don't. 
Few appear to me to meet the standards of reliability and validity we
have come to expect of tests used in K-12.  Would you agree, or not? 
Just because a test is widely used does not, in my view, make it valid
and reliable, only popular.

Answer: In a paper entitled Assessing Adult Literacy by Telephone,
published in the Journal of Literacy Research in 1996, colleagues and I
discussed issues of validity in regard to the NALS and made the point
that it is not clear what the NALS measures (a point I posted earlier on
the NLA list serv). This is a point that Dick Venezky has also made. To
the extent that we do not know what a test measures, it is not known if
it is a valid measure. In the absence of a theory of literacy, it is not
possible to develop valid measures of literacy.  

As  indicated above, the NRS report implies that while the CASAS, TABE,
ABLE and AMES all purport to measure something,  just what is being
measured is unknown. One aspect of validity is that a test is supposed
to measure only what it is supposed to measure and nothing else. That is
one of the reasons "standardized procedures" are called for, so that if
all other conditions are held constant, the only thing left to be
contributing to variation in test performance is the "stuff" that is
supposed to be being measured. Presently, the field of adult literacy
education is without a generally agreed to theory of literacy and an
array of tests that measure the constructs of such a theory.

Q4.  Finally, if either of you think we do need to develop new valid and
reliable assessments, including tests and performance-based instruments,
how will this happen?  Where will the funds come from to support these
efforts which, as I understand it, usually take years of precise work by
trained psychometricians?

Answer: The federal government is presently spending millions of dollars
developing the new National Adult Assessment of Literacy Survey (NAALS)
and the International Life Skills Survey. If there is a theory of adult
literacy behind these developments, then a considerable effort is needed
to tell the field about it. I have given numerous workshops over the
last two years with hundreds of teachers and administrators and almost
none (less than 10 percent)  of the participants has ever even seen a
NALS item or read anything about the test (you can view such items in my
paper with Bill Armstrong on Adult Literacy in the United States posted
on www.nald.ca under Full Test Documents). In my judgment, both
government and  commercial test developers  need to pursue this effort
of developing and disseminating a validated theory of adult literacy if
standardized testing is to be improved.  

A second approach to measuring adult's progress in adult literacy
education might be developed, I think, that makes it possible to place
aspects of whatever learning takes place in a class or tutoring session
onto a scale of measurement. This is something I am thinking about now,
and is based on the idea expressed by S. S. Stevens some 50 years ago in
the Handbook of Experimental Psychology that measurement is the
assignment of numerals to objects or events according to rules. With
computer databases of gigantic sizes now possible, it may be possible to
create a sort of "peoples assessment center" where the outcomes of
adults learning (e.g., new vocabulary) are assigned numerals according
to a set of rules that define one or more scales of measurement. I have
not given this a lot of thought, but I think the main idea is that a
different way of measuring adult's knowledge and learning may be
developed that has as much theoretical and psychometric rigor as present
standardized tests but which make possible a test-free, bottom-up
scaling of learning. I have to think about this a little more.  

Thanks for your good questions, David.

Tom Sticht



From Nassau1 at aol.com  Fri Dec 10 15:38:26 1999
From: Nassau1 at aol.com (Nassau1 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:38:26 EST
Subject: NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley
Message-ID: <199912102056.PAA01932@europe.std.com>


Since the goal of the WIA is to improve people's economic self-sufficiency 
through investment in adult education, and since the recent A T Kearnery 
study clearly demonstrates that students in LVA programs experience economic 
improvements in their lives (on average $33 for every dollar spent by LVA) 
how does the department plan to improve direct and equitable access to LVA 
and other volunteer and community-based organizations to federal funding 
authorized by WIA?

Anne DuPrey
Member, Curriculum/Field Services Committee
Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc.
e-mail:  Nassau1 at aol.com



From hannaman at rio.maricopa.edu  Fri Dec 10 18:22:33 1999
From: hannaman at rio.maricopa.edu (Mary Hannaman)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:22:33 -0700
Subject: NLA Question: Consolidating Programs
Message-ID: <199912110026.TAA04563@europe.std.com>

[Please respond directly to <Mary.Hannaman at riomail.maricopa.edu>]


We are a large ABE Program (over 23,000 students) in Arizona, covering
an area of over 9,200 square miles.  Most of our instructors are
part-time and teach in community locations two or three evenings or
days per week.  Our goal over the next five years is to create more
full-time or benefited positions in the program.  This will involve
consolidating some locations into learning center environments to offer
classes four or five days/nights a week and combining decentralized
teaching
locations in order to offer full-time hours to an instructor.

We would appreciate hearing from other ABE programs who have gone
through a similar restructuring process so we can implement any
steps/methods that worked for you, but also avoid any mistakes you may
have made.  Please share any relevant information on this from your
experience, including issues that we should expect to encounter.

We'd also like to hear from programs that employ large numbers of
part-time instructors and hear how you handle staff development,
communications, networking, etc.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Please respond directly to: 
Mary.Hannaman at riomail.maricopa.edu




From johnb at uriacc.uri.edu  Sat Dec 11 08:46:39 1999
From: johnb at uriacc.uri.edu (John Boulmetis)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 08:46:39 -0500
Subject: NLA Info: Commission on Adult Basic Education (COABE)
Message-ID: <199912121512.KAA27773@europe.std.com>

David,

I saw your inquiry and Jay's response to you and felt that I should also
respond.  Let me start by saying that AAACE is alive and well and will
continue operating.  There are currently several committees who are working
diligently to restructure and reshape both the organization and future of
the association to make it more adult education responsive and adult
educator controlled.  It is indeed unfortunate that COABE has asked to
separate from AAACE, but that is a decision that COABE leadership made and
are committed to trying to make work.  Currently they are still a formal
part of AAACE and will remain that way until the final votes are tallied on
the motion to allow COABE to separate from AAACE.  At that time they will
be legally empowered to  build a separate stand-alone organization.  I'm
sure that organization will succeed and prosper and represent the needs of
adult literacy practitioners.  AAACE on the other hand will continue to
represent the needs of all adult educators, including adult literacy
practitioners.

Currently AAACE is moving to strengthen and grow the affiliate base that
has always been the grass roots strength of the organization.  Jean Fleming
is the Board member who oversees that growth and development and has been
doing a wonderful job.  At some point in the future I hope to have in
existence a form of the former Delegate Assembly, that was not only a
direct link to the affiliate base of the national association, but the
manner by which many of us were brought into national association service.

Another of the above mentioned committees is working to restructure the
governance structure of AAACE to make the Board more representative of the
membership.  That was one of the major sticking points that set COABE in
motion to leave the association.  Yet another committee is developing a new
membership dues structure that will simplify the dues into (I hope) a
single dues for all individual members of AAACE.

Our publications will continue to flow as before.  AAACE  was just
contracted with Sage Publications and they will be responsible for the
printing and distribution of the AEQ journal.  Currently there is a
committee putting together an RFP to eventually have AL follow the same
pattern which will assure that the members have the control of the content
of the journals, but a professional publisher will smooth out the
publication and distribution of the journals.

OnLine was just put online and is now a listserver directed to all members
of AAACE to disseminate information and act as a communication tool among
the members.

David, these are a few of the things that AAACE members have been doing
since we separated from the management firm and have been trying to reshape
the association.  I welcome you and all members of NLA to continue to
participate in AAACE, especially the planning efforts, and to work with us
to strengthen the adult education field.  Please feel free to share this
response with your membership.  I hope you and yours have a happy and
healthy holiday season.



Dr. John Boulmetis
Adult Education
University of RI
708 Chafee Bldg.
Kingston, RI 02881
401-874-4159 (v)
401-874-5471 (f)
johnb at uriacc.uri.edu





From gdemetrion at juno.com  Sun Dec 12 21:22:19 1999
From: gdemetrion at juno.com (GEORGE E. DEMETRION)
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 18:22:19 -0800
Subject: NLA: Follow-up Question for Ron Pugsley
Message-ID: <199912130406.XAA24137@europe.std.com>


Ron:

Quick question:

Does the WIA legislation *preclude* sampling or is that an interpretation
of the legislation by the Division of VOC and Adult ED?  Or is it a
policy decision by your office to put that spin on the legislation even
if the legislation does not exactly preclude sampling? 

 I ask these questions because I do not know the answers, but I think
they're quite important in helping us to determine who is responsible for
specific policy formulations.  Of course, there would be follow-up
questions.

Also, I hope you're going to get to some of the more substantial
criticisms of the legislation that have been levelled on the list.

George Demetrion
GDemetrion at juno.com


On Wed, 08 Dec 1999 15:32:15 -0600 Harriet Vardiman Smith
<hsmith at coe.tamu.edu> writes:
>
>At 03:20 PM 12/8/99 -0500, Ron Pugsley wrote:
>
>"...a good deal of precision [is] needed in the reporting system used 
>to
>collect, analyze and report on individual and local program
>performance...precluding the use of state-wide or national sampling."
>
>A follow-up question:
>What about random or random/stratified sampling *within* programs that
>serve very large numbers of students? For example, some programs in 
>major
>Texas urban areas serve thousands part-time adult ESL students each 
>year.
>True, K-12 school districts have to assess many thousands of students, 
>but
>they have far more money per student to support activities such as
>administration, assessment, data processing, and reporting.
>
>
>Harriet Vardiman Smith
>Materials/Research Coordinator
>Texas Adult Literacy Clearinghouse
>800-441-READ
>409-862-6519
>website:  http://www.cdlr.tamu.edu/tcall/
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.



From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Mon Dec 13 01:04:45 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 01:04:45 -0500
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912131345.IAA20946@europe.std.com>


Anne, I agree that the Kearnery study is important and deserves to be read
and studied by the field.  As you may know other ROI studies have been done
by States in preparing information for state legislators.  D&E is a
provision in the law and is further adressed in each State Plan.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nassau1 at aol.com [mailto:Nassau1 at aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 3:38 PM
To: nla at world.std.com
Subject: NLA: Question for Ron Pugsley



Since the goal of the WIA is to improve people's economic self-sufficiency 
through investment in adult education, and since the recent A T Kearnery 
study clearly demonstrates that students in LVA programs experience economic

improvements in their lives (on average $33 for every dollar spent by LVA) 
how does the department plan to improve direct and equitable access to LVA 
and other volunteer and community-based organizations to federal funding 
authorized by WIA?

Anne DuPrey
Member, Curriculum/Field Services Committee
Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc.
e-mail:  Nassau1 at aol.com



From resctr2 at mindspring.com  Mon Dec 13 07:55:38 1999
From: resctr2 at mindspring.com (resctr2 at mindspring.com)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 07:55:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA: Follow-up Question for Ron Pugsley
Message-ID: <199912131350.IAA21598@europe.std.com>


Mr. Pugsley,

Can the six levels of performance be modified by states and can performance be 
measured on only one of the three areas, such as listening and speaking for 
ESOL?

How can core indicators measure success in family literacy programs?

Thank you.

Gloria Gillette




From alzbec at interaccess.com  Mon Dec 13 11:00:14 1999
From: alzbec at interaccess.com (Aliza Becker)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 10:00:14 -0600
Subject: NLA: EL/Civics Proposals
Message-ID: <199912132356.SAA13694@europe.std.com>

Dear NLA Members,

I had inquired about the EL/Civics proposal early on and as a result was
sent information directly about grant meetings and other related
events.  I forwarded the messages to these lists, because I thought they
would be of interest to many members.  If you read the notes carefully,
they give contact e-mail addresses and phone numbers in the Department
of Education.  I have no official connection to the Department of
Education and as such will not answer the many phone messages I have
received regarding this proposal.  Good luck to all!

Aliza Becker

--
Aliza Becker
Phone: (773) 267-0746
Fax (773) 478-5091
E-mail alzbec at interaccess.com





From AEllison at ed.state.nh.us  Mon Dec 13 14:04:48 1999
From: AEllison at ed.state.nh.us (Ellison, Art)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:04:48 -0500
Subject: NLA Info: Civic Participation and Community Action Handbook
Message-ID: <199912140007.TAA16063@europe.std.com>


To the list:

The New England Literacy Resource Center has just published a 218 page Civic
Participation and Community Action Sourcebook. Edited by Andy Nash, the
Sourcebook presents detailed, specific examples of action taken by students
from a variety of adult education classrooms and learning situations.

The Sourcebook "aims to reflect ..many dimensions of civic and community
involvement. Its purpose is to present a range of tools that can help others
examine their own beliefs and community, citizenship, democracy, etc.;
identify and analyze issues that concern them; and build skills and
strategies to take informed action." 

The authors, all of whom are adult educators and students, believe that "we
need to go beyond voting to more direct forms of participation, such as
community education, advocacy and organizing. We also need, in a culture
that celebrates the individual and the myth of the equal playing field, to
recognize our interdependence, and acknowledge and address our
inequalities."

Some of the Chapter Titles are: Vermont Students Win Resources and Action,
Women Create Knowledge: Participatory Action Research and Breast Cancer,
Investigating AIDS and Taking Action, Prejudice in a Small Town, Pushed Too
Far: Poor Women Defend Their Food Stamps, The "Clinic": A Community
Organizes in Philadelphia, Helping Neighbors in Crisis, Saying What is True:
Women Speak Out Against Domestic Violence, Don't Take "No" for an Answer: A
Poor Community Organizes, Transportation on the Move and Light in Montana:
How One Town Said No to Hate.

Each of the five Sections of the book includes an Equipped For the Future
Checklist which identifies the EFF Common Activities and Skills contained in
that section. 

Copies of the Sourcebook can be purchased for $10 each. Checks should be
made payable to NELRC/World Education and sent to Amanda Darling, World
Education, 44 Farnsworth St., Boston, Ma. 02210. Fax 617-482-0617



From tsticht at aznet.net  Wed Dec 15 13:25:17 1999
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:25:17 -0800
Subject: NLA Info: Adult Education Funds Decline
Message-ID: <199912160431.XAA13047@europe.std.com>


David: The following Research Note may be of interest to NLA list
members.

Tom Sticht

Research Note 12/15/99						

Federal Adult Education Funds Per Enrollee For 2000 Down 70 Percent From
1970
Thomas G. Sticht
Applied Behavioral & Cognitive Sciences, Inc. 
2062 Valley View Blvd. El Cajon, CA 92019-2059
(619) 444-9595

In 1970 the federal adult education program received federal funds of
some $40,000,000 and enrolled 535,613 adults. By 1980 federal funds for
state grants had increased to over $99 million and enrollments rose to
over 2 million. In 1990, federal funds stood above $192 million with
enrollments of over 3.5 million adults. Now Congress has passed and the
President has signed legislation providing for some $450,000,000 for
state grants to adult education. So in thirty years there has been a 
ten fold increase in the federal funding of state grants for adult
education. 
 
Funds Per Enrollee. While  a ten fold increase in funding may seem
large, when expressed in constant 1997 dollars and calculated as dollars
per enrollments, the picture changes dramatically. In 1970, the per
enrollee funding was $309 in constant 1997 dollars. In 1980 this dropped
to $95 and in 1990 it fell further to $66. 

Assumning an enrollment of some 4,500,000 adults in 2000 (extrapolated
estimate from data for 1996, 1997, &  1998) , the per enrollee dollars
rise back  to around $92 in 1997 dollars, a figure very near that of  20
years ago in 1980, and 70 percent below the  per enrollee funding of
thirty years ago in 1970.   If enrollments increase to 5 million, then 
federal per enrollee funds are closer to $83 in constant 1997 dollars. 

Over the years the federal share of adult education funds has declined
while the share of matching funds by states and local education has
increased. In 1966, federal funding for adult education was around $20
million for some 377,660 enrollees while state and local funding was
around $10 million. By FY 1998, federal funds for adult education were
about $345 million for some 4.2 million while around $958 million were
available for adult education from state matching funds. 

In constant 1997 dollars, funding per enrollee from combined federal and
state sources for adult education was around $394 in 1966. Assuming
combined federal and state funds of $1,500,000,000 in 2000 and
enrollments of 4.5 million, then funding per enrollee in 2000 in
constant 1997 dollars will be  $308, a 20 percent decrease in funding
per enrollee in the last  third of the 20th century!


Sources: National Institute for Literacy Policy Update for November 19,
1999; Sticht,  T.  (1998, September). Beyond 2000: Future Directions for
Adult Education. El Cajon, CA: Applied Behavioral & Cognitive Sciences,
Inc.



From DJRosen at world.std.com  Thu Dec 16 07:23:23 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:23:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Info: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912161255.HAA01661@europe.std.com>


NLA Colleagues,

Ron Pugsley would like more time to answer the questions NLA members have
posed and has said that, over time, he will send his replies to the list.

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator




From DJRosen at world.std.com  Thu Dec 16 07:48:49 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:48:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Discussion: The ESEA and the Digital Divide
Message-ID: <199912161906.OAA17420@europe.std.com>


NLA Colleagues,

Earlier this week, at a national conference, several colleagues pointed
out that in the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) the sections which referred to technology, among
others, did not include adult learners, only students in K-12 schools. I
understand that legally adult education programs can apply for these
funds as there is no language restricting age, only a requirement that
students served must be at the elementary and secondary level.  However,
since there is no mention of adults, proposal readers, with a K-12 
orientation would assume that adult learners are not eligible.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is up for renewal again.
Colleagues have suggested -- and I agree -- that we should try again to
achieve equity in technology access for adult education students.  I
wonder if this is an issue the NatIonal Coalition for Literacy has
discussed, and if a campaign is planned.  I hope so.  I want to see the
ESEA address the needs of adults and families, not just children.  This is
particularly poignant when we consider how few adult learners have access
to computers and the opportunity to learn to be comfortable and competent
in using them.

Is this an issue you feel is important for us -- as a community -- to
address?  If so, is a campaign being planned?  If not, why not?

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




From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Thu Dec 16 11:20:06 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:20:06 -0500
Subject: NLA Info: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912161915.OAA18936@europe.std.com>


Thank you David.  I have been on the road for the past two and one-half
weeks and so a backlog has accumulated.

Ron Pugsley


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	David J Rosen [SMTP:DJRosen at world.std.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, December 16, 1999 7:23 AM
> To:	nla at world.std.com
> Subject:	NLA Info: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
> 
> 
> NLA Colleagues,
> 
> Ron Pugsley would like more time to answer the questions NLA members have
> posed and has said that, over time, he will send his replies to the list.
> 
> David J. Rosen
> NLA List Moderator
> 



From lasnider at ksbe.state.ks.us  Thu Dec 16 14:21:39 1999
From: lasnider at ksbe.state.ks.us (Lue Ann Snider)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:21:39 -0600
Subject: NLA Question: Study Info
Message-ID: <199912162325.SAA05539@europe.std.com>

[Please reply directly to <lasnider at ksbe.state.ks.us> not to the list.
Thanks,  David J. Rosen, NLA List Moderator]

I read that the University of Chicago recently completed a study that showed 
that if children were behind in reading at the end of the third grade, there 
is an 87 percent chance they would never make up the deficiency. I am 
interested in knowing the name of the study and where I might obtain a copy. 
I am also interested in any other research-based info that talks about the 
ramifications of failure at the third grade level. Thanks.

Lue Ann Snider
Research Analyst
Planning and Research
Kansas State Department of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka, KS 66612




From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Fri Dec 17 10:31:15 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:31:15 -0500
Subject: NLA Discussion: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912171926.OAA07963@europe.std.com>


Hello Archie,  I appreciated your note recently and apologize for the late
response.  You raise a number of issues and I will attempt to respond to
each.  Unfortunately, I "wiped out" your incoming e-mail and so am working
from a hard copy.  This does not help others, but I think everyone will be
able to follow our discussion.

First, let me address a few comments about the measurement and reporting
of educational gain.  The use of educational functioning levels is not new
to the NRS.  This reporting framework has been the basis of reporting
individual student gain for many years.  To accommodate a local program's
ability to more frequently report student gain, a number of new educational
functioning levels have been added to the reporting system.  The additional
levels have narrowed the skill range between the levels thus allowing
programs to record and report educational gains more frequently for each
adult learner.

Secondly, we concur with your concern regarding the delivery system's need
to target those adults at the lowest literacy levels.  To support a high
level of service to this population, the Department has included as one of
its primary performance indicators under the Government Performance and
Review Act that 50% of all adults served in the federally supported program
will be beginning level ABE and beginning level English literacy learners.
In addition, states were required to include special assessments of this
population in their state plans and provide specific strategies for
providing services to a variety of special populations, including the
learning disabled and adults at low literacy levels.

We are also concerned about the overall cost to the delivery system to
implement the accountability system required under AEFLA; however, increases
in the level of Federal support for adult education and literacy programs
coupled with the fact that local programs (under the new provisions of
AEFLA) are receiving a larger share of the funds allocated to the states
provide enough additional resources at the local level to invest in
accountability without reducing the total number of dollars used for
instruction.  This does not mean that we believe there is enough money in
adult education, but it does mean that additional resources have been
invested to support much of the accountability effort.

We agree with your recommendation to set reasonable goals for all types and
levels of adult learners.  The NRS is designed to support a local
program's ability to report on all learners regardless of their needs or
their individual goals.  The NRS supports the ability of state and local
programs to individually negotiate and establish performance goals based
on the types of learners and types of programs being offered.  Although
the National Reporting System requires specific outcomes data based on the
purposes and outcomes contained the Act, it also accommodates additional
measures that states and local programs determine to be important.

Over the past several years we have seen a more rapid growth in the
investment in adult education at the federal level than at anytime in the
history of the program.  We are hopeful that this trend will continue.
Successfully implementing the new requirements of the Adult Education and
Family Literacy Act will go a long way in supporting our request for
additional funds.

We strongly agree with the need to develop additional assessment tools in
adult education.  It has been a long and difficult struggle to engage
research and investment interest in adult assessment issues.  We will
continue to do what we can to review and promote this need.  Having said
this, we also believe there is a strong need for professional
development/training in assessment instructions and application...for
instruments currently in place.  Have a happy holiday season.  I look
forward to seeing you in the new year...ron





From DJRosen at world.std.com  Sat Dec 18 17:16:50 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (DJRosen at world.std.com)
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 17:16:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Info: LINCS Conference Reflection
Message-ID: <199912182351.SAA19672@europe.std.com>

[Below are excerpts from a posting by Helen Osborne, Moderator of the
NIFL-Health list, regarding a conference held last week in New Orleans
about LINCS, the National Institute for Literacy-sponsored Literacy
Information aNd Communications System.  I thought some members of the NLA
list might be interested in seeing a summary of Dr. Richard Adler's 
presentation and also knowing more about LINCS. David J. Rosen, NLA
List Moderator]

"Dr. Richard Adler, president of People and Technology in Palo Alto, gave
the keynote address on 'The Future of Technology and the Impact of the new
Technology on Education.' He talked about some significant changes in how
people communicate, and said that: 1) There is a new 'information
infrastructure,' that includes going from analog to digital (photography,
for instance), from narrow-band to broad-band (speed is increasing
dramatically), from dialup to always-on (the internet will be a 'resident'
of our computers), and from location-specific to ubiquitous (pagers, for
example). 2) There is a growing 'digital divide' in our society, with the
elderly and those with the least education being the least wired. 3) The
definition of literacy could be expanded to include visual literacy,
computer literacy, digital literacy, technical literacy, and information
literacy. He defined 'information literacy' as the ability to read, think
critically, manipulate symbols, and publish one's views.

LINCS (www.nifl.gov), the Literacy Information and Communication
System, is a service of the National Institute for Literacy. Its mission is
to use technology to strengthen the adult basic education and literacy
community, and does this by providing tools to find literacy information
easily, locate literacy resources, and discuss literacy issues online.
Currently, LINCS gets over 1,000,000 'hits'/month,  and has 140 web sites,
134 lists, and over 10,000 subscribers. LINCS is a wonderful resource, and I
encourage everyone on this list to check it out. Special features to note
include the search functions, data bases, discussion list archives, special
collections, and hot sites."


Helen Osborne, MEd., OTR/L
Co-moderator, NIFL-Health &
Health Literacy Consulting, Natick, MA
Phone: 508-653-1199 * Fax: 508-650-9492
Helen at healthliteracy.com * www.healthliteracy.com




From rmbrandt at juno.com  Sun Dec 19 10:31:32 1999
From: rmbrandt at juno.com (Rose M. Brandt)
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 07:31:32 -0800
Subject: NLA Discussion: LINCS Conference Reflection
Message-ID: <199912191406.JAA00194@europe.std.com>


It appears that Dr. Richard Adler's keynote address on "The Future of
Technology and the Impact of the new Technology on Education" at the New
Orleans technology conference raised many key issues of concern in adult
education today.  

Re:

> The definition of literacy could be expanded to include visual literacy,
> computer literacy, digital literacy, technical literacy, and 
> information literacy. He defined 'information literacy' as the ability
> to read, think critically, manipulate symbols, and publish one's views.

The National Institute for Literacy's Equipped for the Future initiative
addresses this new definition of literacy.  It includes the standards

Observe Critically
- attend to visual sources of information, including television and other
  media;
- determine the purpose for observation and use strategies appropriate to
  the purpose;
- monitor comprehension and adjust strategies;
- analyze the accuracy, bias, and usefulness of the information;
- integrate it with prior knowledge to address viewing purpose.

Use Information and Communications Technology
- use computers and other electronic tools to acquire, process, and
  manage information;
- use electronic tools to learn and practice skills;
- use the Internet to explore topics and gather information.

In the EFF standards, reading is not decontextualized.  It is presented
in terms of the purpose for reading and integrates the individuals' prior
knowledge.  The strategies used for reading are determined by what the
individual reader needs in order to understand the text and address the
purpose for reading.  Critical thinking comes into play as the individual
monitors comprehension and analyzes and reflects on information.

Read with Understanding
- determine the reading purpose;
- select reading strategies appropriate to the purpose;
- monitor comprehension and adjust reading strategies;
- analyze the information and reflect on its underlying meaning;
- integrate it with prior knowledge to address reading purpose.

Critical thinking permeates the standards.  Manipulating symbols also is
reflected throughout.  It is perhaps most visible under the standard Use
Math in Problem Solving and Communication which includes
- understand, interpret, and work with pictures, numbers, and symbolic
  information; and
- communicate results using a variety of mathematical representations,
  including graphs, charts, tables, and algebraic models.

Finally, publishing one's views is one way to Convey Ideas in Writing.

Individuals interested in more information on Equipped for the Future can
subscribe to the listserv:

	nifl-4eff at literacy.nifl.gov

EFF has just produced a new publication, the EFF VOICE.  It outlines what
is happening in EFF around the country.  The EFF VOICE will be published
at least twice a year to keep everyone updated on what we are doing.  The
EFF VOICE text will be available on EFF web site as well.

To order copies of the EFF VOICE, please call  1-800-228-8813 and ask for
publication number: EX0094P.

For other information on EFF, contact:
Lisa Levinson
Director
EFF Professional Development Center
University of Maine
5766 Shibles Hall
Orono, ME 04469-5766
207-549-0926
LisaL595 at aol.com

Just to keep things clear, this was posted by:
Rose Brandt
Mayor's Commission on Literacy
Municipal Services Building
1401 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1040
Philadelphia, PA 19102
215-686-4400, rmbrandt at juno.com



From DJRosen at world.std.com  Mon Dec 20 10:02:10 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (DJRosen at world.std.com)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:02:10 -0500
Subject: NLA Summary: Ron Pugsley, Questions and Answers
Message-ID: <199912201616.LAA22660@europe.std.com>

NLA Colleagues,

Nancy Sledd, the moderator of the NIFL-Family electronic list, has
summarized the recent postings of questions to and answers from Ron
Pugsley.  I very much appreciate Nancy's summary and want to be sure that
NLA members who might not be NIFL-family subscribers have a chance to see
this.  

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator

-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Sledd [mailto:nsledd at famlit.org]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 8:28 AM
To: nifl-family at literay.nifl.gov
Subject: Cross posting from NLA list: Ron Pugsley Q&A
Thanks to Harriet in Texas for compiling these!

Questions and Answers:
WIA, AEFLA (Adult Education & Family Literacy Act)
and the National Reporting System

The following questions were posted to the National
Literacy Advocacy (NLA) list.... Between December 6
and 13, 1999, the answers were provided by Ron
Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education
and Literacy in the U.S. Department of Education.
[Mr. Pugsley indicates that he will answer in upcoming
weeks more of the numerous questions that were
submitted. Those further questions & answers will be
posted to the NLA archives at http://www.nifl.gov as well.]
-----------------------------------------------------

Question:
Rumors are that the Federal Government is only looking
at standardized test scores from tests such as CASAS to
measure literacy learning gains. Is this true or is it possible
that other measures could be used, such as portfolio
documentation that demonstrates level gain according to
specific statewide criteria? Please comment on this issue.

Gretchen Bitterlin, ESL Coordinator
Continuing Education Centers
San Diego Community College District

Answer:
Gretchen, there is no Federal requirement associated with
the national performance accountability and reporting system
that only standardized tests may be used to measure
educational gain. The instructions in the reporting guidelines
currently being developed to implement the national reporting
system require that a uniform, standardized assessment be
used to determine initial placement and subsequent
educational gain. Standardized tests are allowable but not
required. There is no requirement or intention to require
local programs or states to report individual test scores to
the Federal Government. The states have the responsibility
to determine the standardized assessment(s) to be used to
measure educational gain.

----------------------------------------------------------
Question:
States are having to scale back their "ambitious" attempts to
impose standards via performance on standardized tests for
K-12 students...[to avoid] failing large numbers of students
or to have to deny high school diplomas to great numbers.
This is a debacle adult education should not aspire to repeat.
Can we learn from the K-12 experience and introduce
rationality, in the form of field-based input, into how
outcomes are defined and measured and rewarded?

Deborah W. Yoho, Chief Executive Officer
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
Columbia, South Carolina

Answer:
In adult education, nobody is "setting arbitrary standards...,"
rather States are estimating the percentage of students likely
to advance in basic reading and writing or in speaking and
listening over a period of time. Adult learners, enrolled in
ABE/ESL/ASE, are seeking to enhance or improve their
proficiency in these areas. NRS is one way for the field to
register how learners are progressing.

----------------------------------------------------------
Question:
Ron: What is the US Department Education doing to ensure
that programs that serve the lowest level learner are not
effectively excluded from funding as a result of the outcomes
and reporting systems being established under WIA/AEFLA?

Bill Raleigh, former Director of Government Affairs
Laubach Literacy

Answer:
Hi Bill, probably the strongest indicator of the Department's
commitment to providing services to the lowest level of
learner is the inclusion in the Department's annual Government
Performance and Review Act (GPRA) report to Congress of
a performance indicator that says--"By 2000, adults at the
lowest levels of literacy (those in Beginning ABE and
Beginning ESOL) will comprise 50% of the total national
enrollment." This indicator is one of only seven performance
indicators selected by the Department to measure the
performance of the adult education and literacy system. The
Department is committed to providing access to the most in
need and will continue to monitor the level of service to this
population.

------------------------------------------------------------
Question:
How will state adult education agencies and the U.S.
Department of Education know what the actual data
collection and reporting costs are to programs? Will the
Division of Adult Education and Literacy be able to provide,
or allow states to use federal dollars to provide, new funds
for these additional federally-required data gathering and
reporting costs? I am concerned that they will come out of
programs' instructional budgets, and thus compromise
programs' ability to help students achieve the very learning
gains the WIA calls for.

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

Answer:
Hi David, your question is an important one.
The cost to adequately collect and report outcome data,
especially on post-program outcomes, is of great concern
to everyone in adult education. A promising long-term
strategy to successfully control the cost (and ensuring a
level of reliability) is to track adult learners electronically
through appropriate data systems. For example, a state
level data match of the adult education system and the
GED testing system can identify quickly and relatively
inexpensively all adult enrollees who passed the GED in
any given year. Using such a data matching method
eliminates the need for each local program to invest any
time or money in tracking their students to determine high
school completion. The Department and the individual
states have been and will continue to investigate this and
other approaches to tracking student outcome data.

States have the authority to directly spend or allow local
programs to spend federal dollars to support the
accountability and program improvement requirements of
the new Act. Certainly, over the past two years the federal
appropriation for adult education has increased and part
of this increase should be used to support the
accountability requirements. One of the mandated
considerations that states must use to fund local programs
is whether or not the local programs offer a high quality
information management system that has the capacity to
report participant outcomes and to monitor program
performance, and federal funds would be the source to
support these management information systems.

--------------------------------------------------------
Question:
What was the reasoning behind the NRS not allowing for
any type of sampling of students? If I understand correctly,
the NRS requires educational gains data from all students
in all programs in the state. Was the possibility of doing
say a stratified sampling that could have included all
programs in a state, considered? If yes, what was the
reasoning behind excluding it from the NRS?

Ajit Gopalakrishnan
Capitol Region Education Council (CREC)
111 Charter Oak Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106

Answer:
Over the past two years, even before the passage of the
Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the Department
supported a project to develop a national reporting system
built upon the need to better identify and report program
outcomes. Prior to the passage of the AEFLA, the
Department had identified "sampling" as an appropriate
tool for data gathering at both the state and local level.
In fact, one of the components of the national reporting
system project was to conduct a pilot test of the NRS
and a state level sampling construct was one of the
models used. Before the pilot test was completed AEFLA
became law and a number of assumptions regarding a
state level survey were revisited by the Department and
the Project Advisory Board. Because of the accountability
requirements contained in AEFLA, it became necessary
for states to evaluate the effectiveness of each local
program based on the core performance indicators. The
results of this accountability review would be linked to a
number of critical program activities, including program
improvement plans, training and technical
assistance issues, and eventually funding support for
individual programs. As a result, it was clear that a good
deal of precision was needed in the reporting system used to
collect, analyze and report on individual and local program
performance...precluding the use of state-wide or national
sampling.

---------------------------------------------------------
Question:
Since the goal of the WIA is to improve people's economic
self-sufficiency through investment in adult education, and
since the recent A T Kearnery study clearly demonstrates
that students in LVA programs experience economic
improvements in their lives (on average $33 for every dollar
spent by LVA), how does the department plan to improve
direct and equitable access to LVA and other volunteer and
community-based organizations to federal funding authorized
by WIA?

Anne DuPrey
Member, Curriculum/Field Services Committee
Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc.

Answer:
Anne, I agree that the Kearnery study is important and
deserves to be read and studied by the field.  As you may
know other ROI studies have been done by States in
preparing information for state legislators.  D&E is a
provision in the law and is further adressed in each State
Plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------


Harriet Vardiman Smith
Materials/Research Coordinator
Texas Adult Literacy Clearinghouse
800-441-READ
409-862-6519
website:  http://www.cdlr.tamu.edu/tcall/
Nancy Sledd
Training Specialist
National Center for Family Literacy
325 West Main Street, Suite #200
Waterfront Plaza
Louisville, KY  40202-4251
(502) 584-1133 ext.142
(502) 584-0172 fax 



From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Mon Dec 20 11:50:33 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:50:33 -0500
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Reply to Question from Gloria Gillette
Message-ID: <199912201736.MAA07585@europe.std.com>


Question:  Can the six levels of performance be modified by states and can
performance be measured on only one of the three areas, such as listening
and speaking for ESL?

Gloria, there are a couple of separate questions here.  But they are
related. First, for federal reporting purposes, States must use the six
levels of performance on our report forms which reflect statutory
requirements in WIA.  As you know the functional level descriptors describe
what a learner entering that level can do in the areas of reading and
writing, numerically, speaking and listening and/or functional or workplace
skills.  The local program need not assess the learner in all areas, but the
assessment should be in the areas in which instruction will be focused.

Additional indicators that States want to include may be used at the States'
option.  In fact, a number of States have requested--and we have included in
the NRS--optional indicators States can use to report outcomes for family
literacy and workplace literacy programs.  But the legislation clearly
allows States to develop their own performance indicators beyond the
statutory ones they must report to us.

One issue in your question may touch on is the extent to which project
learners, who meet their objectives, may be counted.  Although these
learners would no longer be included in federal reports, they could still be
aggregated by States and used for State and local reporting.  Washington
State is one State that has been fairly successful in devising a method for
doing this and including that method in its State plan.  The contact persons
would be imendoza at sbctc.ctc.edu or bkanes at sbctc.ctc.edu.

Ron Pugsley




From tsticht at aznet.net  Mon Dec 20 12:09:00 1999
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:09
Subject: NLA Opinion:Illusions 
Message-ID: <199912202326.SAA08777@europe.std.com>

David: Following is an Opinion Note that may be of interest to NLA list
members.

Tom Sticht

Opinion Note 12/20/99								

Illusions in the Reform of Adult Literacy Education

Thomas G. Sticht
Consultant in Adult Literacy Education
2062 Valley View Blvd.
El Cajon, CA 92019-2059
Tel/fax (619) 444-9595    email: tsticht at aznet.net

Magicians accomplish fantastic feats of deception with misdirection,
smoke and mirrors. In the disappearing elephant illusion , the magician
places the elephant in a cage made of six inch wide bars separated by
about five inches between them. To make the elephant disappear, a flash
of light goes off to one side of the cage, smoke billows up, and while
the audience has its attention misdirected from the elephant in the cage
to the light and smoke, five inch mirrors slip between the bars of the
cage. The mirrors reflect the walls of the stage, giving the illusion
that the elephant has vanished. A fabulous feat of deception using
misdirection, smoke and mirrors!

Too often we find that the attempts erstwhile reformers use to make
adult literacy education problems disappear turn out to be, no doubt
unintended,  acts of deception accomplished by misdirecting attention
from genuine problems by a flash that produces lots of smoke (but no
actual fire) and substitutes the mirrors of illusion for genuine
solutions to problems. 

Today we find that the most serious, indeed elephantine problems of
adult literacy education, that include

perennial, obscene under funding of adult literacy education,

marginalization of educational opportunities for adult literacy students
through an excessive reliance on charitable activities and part-time,
generally overworked, and frequently underprepared  teachers, and the

failure of corporations, governments, and news media to promote
participation in adult education commensurate with their numerous
reports and incessant doomsday rhetoric blaming the public school system
for its failures and denigrating the literacy skills of the adult
workforce (Is anyone aware of the national adult literacy awareness
campaign?),

have vanished in the misdirection created by the flash, smoke and
mirrors of the call for standards (of what adults should know and be
able to do) and accountability enforced by the use of standardized tests
or other procedures that produce the illusion of mathematical precision
in the very imprecise endeavor of education. 

But we shouldn't be deceived, the elephantine problems are still there,
behind the smoke and mirrors of standards and accountability. It is time
to turn the table on those who practice deception and hold corporations,
governments, and news media accountable through the imposition of
standards for improving the educational opportunities of under served
adults.  We should fight for standards in which we 

spend as much to educate an adult as we do to incarcerate one,

provide teachers, equipment, materials and facilities for adult literacy
students as good as those we provide for university students, managers,
and professionals, 

give as much attention and publicity to the education of adult literacy
students as is given to the education of children in preschools, the
K-12 and higher education systems, and corporate training for managers
and professionals. 

When the flash of light and the smoke of illusory reforms appear, we
adult literacy educators need to avoid  having our attention misdirected
and stay focused on the elephantine problems behind the smoke and
mirrors. These problems are still with us, waiting for the magic of
belief, commitment, and social responsibility that will make them truly
vanish in the new millennium.  

Abracadabra!



From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Mon Dec 20 15:54:31 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:54:31 -0500
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Answers to Questions
Message-ID: <199912202330.SAA09457@europe.std.com>

David Rosen/George Demetrion: Does WIA "preclude" sampling?


It's true that WIA precludes samplying, but here's how.  There is no
specific statutory language in WIA's Title II that says "no sampling
allowed."  There is, however, very specific language about what the
performance measures must be, how each State's adjusted levels of
performance will be expressed and how achievement on those levels must be
compared to those of other States.  In order to comply with the latter
statutory language, sampling is unlikely to produce comparable data among
States on the performance indicators based on specific learning outcomes of
individual students in the various educational functioning levels.
Regarding the core outcome measures for employment and employment-related
activities, data match procedures would be far less costly and cumbersome
than sampling.  There is the further issue that samplying may not provide an
accurate basis for paying performance awards to States that exceed their
performance targets for Title I, Title II and vocational education.

Ron Pugsley




From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Mon Dec 20 17:03:31 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:03:31 -0500
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912202341.SAA10947@europe.std.com>

RE: Gretchen Bitterlin's question on standardized test scores


You raise a good question about the use of standardized tests.  What Sec.
212 of WIA requires is that the state's performance levels on the statutory
core indicators be "expressed in an objective, quantifiable and measurable
form."  And  those core indicators must reflect "demonstrated improvements"
in certain skills.  Now the quickest way to get to that is by using
standardized tests, although I don't think that anyone is very happy with
the state of the art in standardized tests for adult education.  That is not
to say that other measures that could reach these objectives, such as
portfolio assessment against statewide criteria which included the WIA core
indicators could not be used.  But it would be more difficult for the state
to standardize this process.  Colorado has a very good portfolio assessment
system that you might look into, although the extent to which it can
accommodate the WIA core indicators is not clear.  The contact person would
be Pam Smith or Mary Willoughby at 303/866-6638

Ron Pugsley




From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Mon Dec 20 16:39:41 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:39:41 -0500
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Answers to Questions 
Message-ID: <199912202341.SAA10980@europe.std.com>

> One question I would like to have Ron address is How Federal ABE funds are
> distributed...

The Federal Adult education funds are allocated to the states and outlying
areas through a formula based on certain population factors.  First, each
states is given a base amount of $250,000.  All outlying areas receive a
base of $100,000.  The remainder of the allocation is based on the relative
number of qualifying adult in each state or outlying area to the total
number of such qualifying adults in all states and outlying areas.  A
"qualifying adult" is defined as a person who is at least 16 years of age,
but less than 61: who is beyond the age of compulsory school attendance of
the state or outlying area; does not have a secondary school diploma or its
recognized equivalent; and is not enrolled in secondary school  (Note:  The
16 to 61 age range used in this formula has nothing to do with who may be
served in programs.  Persons over 61 may be provided services.)  The number
of "qualifying adults" is based on Census data and is updated at the time of
the Census (every ten years).  Although the next Census will take place in
2000, we do not expect the new population counts to be available until at
least 2002.

The legislative language describing the allotment of funds to states,
including additional  provisions concerning the Outlying areas can be found
in Section 211 (c-g) of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act.

Each year the Office of Vocational and Adult Education prepares an
allocation schedule containing level of adult education state grant funds
that each State and Outlying Area will receive.  This information is placed
on the Division of Adult Education and Literacy Web-site and may be accessed
at WWW.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/allots.html.

It is very difficult to answer your question about how much discretion
states have to distribute federal funds.  It is really based on an
individual point of view.  Let me describe some of the conditions under
which States distributed federal funds and you can decide how much
discretion there is.

First, the federal statute establishes the purposes of the program and
generally describes how the funds may be used (allowable costs).  At the
general policy level, states must spend money to support adult education and
literacy services, including workplace literacy, family literacy services,
and English Literacy services.  Of the funds allocated to a State, up to 5%
may be spend for state level administration, up to 12% may be spent for
state leadership activities, and 82.5% shall be used to award grants and
contracts to local providers.  Of the funds allocated to local programs,
some funds must be spent to provide programs for corrections education and
other institutionalized adults but not more than 10% of the funds made
available to local programs.  The state must fund multi-year grants or
contracts, on a competitive basis, to eligible providers as defined in
AEFLA.  The state must consider a set of 12 considerations (defined in
Section 231(e) of AEFLA) in awarding local grants or contracts.  States may
add other criteria as well to the competitive funding process.  These are
some of the conditions under which funds are distributed.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	JCretella at aol.com 
> Sent:	Monday, November 29, 1999 9:34 PM
> To:	nla at world.std.com
> Subject:	NLA: Questions for Ron Pugsley 
> 
> 
> David...
> 
> One question I would like to have Ron address is How Federal ABE funds are
> distributed? Many people don't realize that there is an established
> formula. Perhaps Ron could speak to it. Also there is a state-by-state
> list of funds. How can someone access it? And lastly, How much discretion
> do states have when they distribute federal funds within
> a state? 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jcretella at aol.com



From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Mon Dec 20 17:11:29 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:11:29 -0500
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912202345.SAA11532@europe.std.com>

Response to Erica Walch's question dated November 30


You'll be pleased to know that next year we'll be counting for employment
purposes only those who actually had as a goal getting a job or obtaining
job advancement.   Concerning the impact on funding of enrolling learners
who do not have employment as a goal from the federal perspective, there is
no impact.  Federal funds flow on a formula basis to eligible persons that
do not take  their learning goals--or even if they are interested in
learning--into account.  The formula only counts the number of persons who
could legally be eligible for services in each state.  The legislation does
not tie federal funding to learner goals or even to the extent to which
states achieve their predicted performance levels, except that financial
incentives are provided to states that exceed their negotiated performance
levels for WIA Title I, Title II and vocation education programs.



From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Mon Dec 20 15:32:28 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:32:28 -0500
Subject: NLA Discussion: Testing and Assessment Questions
Message-ID: <199912202327.SAA08875@europe.std.com>


I want thank Tom Sticht for his responses to these questions on standardized
tests and just as a footnote add a few points.  While the selection of
standardized tests for adult basic and English as a second language programs
is not ideal in any sense of the word, it will as you (David Rosen) point
out, take a significant investment of time and effort to improve the
situation.  What the role of the federal Department is in this sort of
policy question has been vigorously debated, but the most effective one at
the moment appears to be to provide a catalyst for discussion in this area
rather than to identify and fund the development of a government test.  As
you note, the improvement of adult education tests is a long-term project
and we will have to use what is available to support the NRS for the time
being.

Ron Pugsley

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Thomas Sticht 
> Sent:	Friday, December 10, 1999 12:37 PM
> To:	DJRosen at world.std.com
> Subject:	NLA Discussion: Testing and Assessment Questions
> 
> 
> David: You have asked Ron Pugsley and me for some responses to  a set of
> questions based on an appendix to  my  "Testing and Accountability in
> Adult Literacy Education" paper posted at
> 
> http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/sticht/testing/page88.htm
> 
> I have listed my responses to your questions below. 
> 
> Q1.  Tom, is this the most up-to-date independent, comprehensive review
> of standardized assessments for adult literacy/basic education/ESOL ?
> 
> Answer: There may be others but it is the only one I know about David.
> Note that it leaves out the Tests of Applied Skills (TALS), which is the
> commercial version of the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), Work
> Keys, the Adult Measure of Essential Skills (AMES), and the PhonePass
> computer based English language assessment. Interestingly, the National
> Reporting System includes the AMES but not the TALS in its list of
> examples of tests that might be used for accountability purposes. This
> is sort of strange because it is the TALS (actually the government's
> version, NALS), which is used to identify the scale of need for adult
> literacy education, but is not included as one of the measures for
> determining if the need is being met in ESL/ABE/ASE  programs. The field
> could use a more up to date and inclusive review. In my new workshop I
> am developing for 2000 I will review these other tests, but I have not
> written anything up about them yet. 
> 
> Q2.  Tom and Ron, Gregg wrote that there are hundreds of standardized
> tests, but only a few developed for ABE and ESL. Do you think that as a
> field we have a full range of high quality standardized instruments, or
> does more work need to be done in this area?  Do we have a good set of
> tools to answer the questions Congress has posed with the WIA/AEFLA , or
> not yet?
> 
> Answer: In my judgment the testing of adult literacy is in a state of
> confusion. For instance, on page 19 of the NRS Draft Guidelines for July
> 1999, after listing examples of tests that might be used for placement
> of students into the six levels of the NRS, the report states: Quote:
> "These benchmarks are provided only as examples of how students
> functioning at each level would perform on the tests. Their inclusion in
> no way is meant to imply that the tests are equivalent or that they
> should be used as the basis for assessment. In addition, the tests do
> not necessarily measure the same skills."End quote. 
> 
> But if the tests are not equivalent (in some sense) or they do not
> measure the same skills, then what do they measure and how can they all
> be used interchangeably for placement and assessment for advancement?
> How does that allow for comparisons across programs that use different
> tests? 
> 
> Q 3.  Tom and Ron, as I read these reviews, I am not greatly impressed
> with the quality of some of these tests.  Some  have published data on
> their validity; some don't.  Some include reliability data; some don't. 
> Few appear to me to meet the standards of reliability and validity we
> have come to expect of tests used in K-12.  Would you agree, or not? 
> Just because a test is widely used does not, in my view, make it valid
> and reliable, only popular.
> 
> Answer: In a paper entitled Assessing Adult Literacy by Telephone,
> published in the Journal of Literacy Research in 1996, colleagues and I
> discussed issues of validity in regard to the NALS and made the point
> that it is not clear what the NALS measures (a point I posted earlier on
> the NLA list serv). This is a point that Dick Venezky has also made. To
> the extent that we do not know what a test measures, it is not known if
> it is a valid measure. In the absence of a theory of literacy, it is not
> possible to develop valid measures of literacy.  
> 
> As  indicated above, the NRS report implies that while the CASAS, TABE,
> ABLE and AMES all purport to measure something,  just what is being
> measured is unknown. One aspect of validity is that a test is supposed
> to measure only what it is supposed to measure and nothing else. That is
> one of the reasons "standardized procedures" are called for, so that if
> all other conditions are held constant, the only thing left to be
> contributing to variation in test performance is the "stuff" that is
> supposed to be being measured. Presently, the field of adult literacy
> education is without a generally agreed to theory of literacy and an
> array of tests that measure the constructs of such a theory.
> 
> Q4.  Finally, if either of you think we do need to develop new valid and
> reliable assessments, including tests and performance-based instruments,
> how will this happen?  Where will the funds come from to support these
> efforts which, as I understand it, usually take years of precise work by
> trained psychometricians?
> 
> Answer: The federal government is presently spending millions of dollars
> developing the new National Adult Assessment of Literacy Survey (NAALS)
> and the International Life Skills Survey. If there is a theory of adult
> literacy behind these developments, then a considerable effort is needed
> to tell the field about it. I have given numerous workshops over the
> last two years with hundreds of teachers and administrators and almost
> none (less than 10 percent)  of the participants has ever even seen a
> NALS item or read anything about the test (you can view such items in my
> paper with Bill Armstrong on Adult Literacy in the United States posted
> on www.nald.ca under Full Test Documents). In my judgment, both
> government and  commercial test developers  need to pursue this effort
> of developing and disseminating a validated theory of adult literacy if
> standardized testing is to be improved.  
> 
> A second approach to measuring adult's progress in adult literacy
> education might be developed, I think, that makes it possible to place
> aspects of whatever learning takes place in a class or tutoring session
> onto a scale of measurement. This is something I am thinking about now,
> and is based on the idea expressed by S. S. Stevens some 50 years ago in
> the Handbook of Experimental Psychology that measurement is the
> assignment of numerals to objects or events according to rules. With
> computer databases of gigantic sizes now possible, it may be possible to
> create a sort of "peoples assessment center" where the outcomes of
> adults learning (e.g., new vocabulary) are assigned numerals according
> to a set of rules that define one or more scales of measurement. I have
> not given this a lot of thought, but I think the main idea is that a
> different way of measuring adult's knowledge and learning may be
> developed that has as much theoretical and psychometric rigor as present
> standardized tests but which make possible a test-free, bottom-up
> scaling of learning. I have to think about this a little more.  
> 
> Thanks for your good questions, David.
> 
> Tom Sticht



From DJRosen at world.std.com  Mon Dec 20 18:52:45 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:52:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA appreciation: Thanks, Harriet
Message-ID: <199912210241.VAA07289@europe.std.com>


NLA Colleagues,

On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 I  wrote:

> Nancy Sledd, the moderator of the NIFL-Family electronic list, has
> summarized the recent postings of questions to and answers from Ron
> Pugsley.  I very much appreciate Nancy's summary and want to be sure that
> NLA members who might not be NIFL-family subscribers have a chance to see
> this.  

What I failed to notice in skimming this message was this sentence from
Nancy:

> Thanks to Harriet in Texas for compiling these!

Now that I know who assembled these I, too, would like to express my
appreciation to Harriet Vardiman Smith, Materials/Research Coordinator,
at the Texas Adult Literacy Clearinghouse.

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator




From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Tue Dec 21 10:02:44 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:02:44 -0500
Subject: NLA appreciation: Thanks, Harriet
Message-ID: <199912211751.MAA02437@europe.std.com>


I join David in thanking Nancy and Harriet for pulling this together.  As we
close this chapter, I also want to thank the folks who raised questions.  I
enjoyed the process, although I was not able to respond as soon as I had
hoped.  Several individuals have suggested that our office provide a
webcast/satellite link for a discussion--with Q & A--of the National
Reporting system.  If this idea makes sense to you, let us know.  

Ron Pugsley

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	David J Rosen 
> Sent:	Monday, December 20, 1999 6:53 PM
> To:	nla at world.std.com
> Subject:	NLA appreciation: Thanks, Harriet
> 
> 
> NLA Colleagues,
> 
> On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 I  wrote:
> 
> > Nancy Sledd, the moderator of the NIFL-Family electronic list, has
> > summarized the recent postings of questions to and answers from Ron
> > Pugsley.  I very much appreciate Nancy's summary and want to be sure
> that
> > NLA members who might not be NIFL-family subscribers have a chance to
> see
> > this.  
> 
> What I failed to notice in skimming this message was this sentence from
> Nancy:
> 
> > Thanks to Harriet in Texas for compiling these!
> 
> Now that I know who assembled these I, too, would like to express my
> appreciation to Harriet Vardiman Smith, Materials/Research Coordinator,
> at the Texas Adult Literacy Clearinghouse.
> 
> David J. Rosen
> NLA List Moderator
> 



From gdemetrion at juno.com  Tue Dec 21 11:23:56 1999
From: gdemetrion at juno.com (GEORGE E. DEMETRION)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:23:56 -0800
Subject: NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
Message-ID: <199912211754.MAA02864@europe.std.com>


Ron:

Thanks for taking on these questions.  I realize it may be a bit much for
one person, but perhaps you have staff support in some of your responses.
Instead of posting something new, let me pick an earlier message from
the archives to which perhaps you will be able to respond.  This goes
back to your original message in October when you agreed to answer
questions on the NLA.  There are many concerns to say the least as
indicated in the 8 or 9 questions I posted a couple weeks back.  I think
also, Tom Sticht has also raised some important issues that have not yet
been fully responded to as well as Catherine King on the relationship
between federal policy and democracy.  There are other critical questions
also that need to be answered, too.

There's a lot more that could be said, but the obsession with
counting--"objective, measurable, quantitative," at least goes to a
significant core to where my critique is at.  "Secondary measures" are
fine, I suppose, but if they are not what "really" counts, I don't know
why hard pressed programs are going to spend quality time documenting
them, too, in addition to documenting what "really" counts.

Your joint letter with Andy Hartman was interesting. (I'm working from
memory).  As I have understood it, EFF all along was designed to link
pedagogy with policy wherein the standards (the generative skills) would
be the mechanism of assessment through its performance indicators (I
understand there's new terminology now) and types of evidence.  These,
however, do not easily break down into "objective, measurable,
quantitative," so they're off the table, at least as far as primary
indicators.  Without the clout of a legitimizing assessment system, where
does that place the policy objectives of EFF?  Not that I'm disappointed
about that, as I've expressed elsewhere as I am not supportive of any
hegemony of EFF even as I think there's a certain degree of validity in
the framework.  But as a point of curiosity, it's interesting that the
EFF developers have spent so much time establishing standards to be told
they don't "really" count in the world of policy, but you can add them to
your reporting system if you'd like.  

On the sampling issue--not that I have any final answer here, but at
least (even from your comments) there seems to be room for
interpretation, if not negotiation.  Think of what the alternative is,
attempting to obtain data information (pre and post of whatever, on every
student, an impossible standard, particularly for decentralized volunteer
tutoring programs, and a dubious task in any event,-- all  just because a
certain interpretation of the law says that that is what's "really"
needed for the enforcement of policy mandates.

To me, this is of dubious value that could have a lot of negative
consequences (folks have discussed this.  I don't need to do so here).

If there are some real problems here with the WIA and particularly with
the NRS, why not put a moratorium on the data collection process for a
year so that we can put together some of our top practitioners,
researchers, policy folks, and reps from VALUE to take a good hard look
so we might come up with some other alternatives, including sampling. 
While you have previously, obtained feedback from the field, I would
venture to assume that the process of information gathering and mutual
influence may not have been as open as it could have been.  If we are
going to take any of our research and best practices seriously at all,
then I think it imperative that the federal government listen to the
voices from the field in a much more substantial way than it has.

There have been a profusion of voices on the NLA this fall.  If such
discussion is to have any merit at all, then it must have an influence on
where the rubber hits the road--in this case on the formation of a viable
adult literacy/ABE federal policy grounded in our finest research and
practices.  And the debate on policy needs to be expressed in the public
airwaves and not made behind closed doors among the power elite in the
corridors of Washington D.C.

George Demetrion
LVA-Connecticut River East
GDemetrion at juno.com


On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:49:56 -0700 "GEORGE E. DEMETRION"
<gdemetrion at juno.com> writes:
>
>David:
>
>Good work on asking Ron Pugsley to clear up the matter as to whether
>USDOE would support a sampling process at the state level to assess 
>the efficacy of adult ed/literacy in the state.
>
>Thanks Ron, for the direct answer.  It wasn't the answer many of us 
>were looking for, but your response was unequivocal and clear.
>
>This is a good starting point for a dialogue with your office and I 
>look forward to the  more formal opportunity to discuss these issues
with 
>you in November.
>
>I'd like to make a few comments, here, though and I'll start with John
>Comings' original assumption that:
>
>"Congress may want a lot less than we think.  Our field has 
>interpreted the  call for accountability to mean that we must measure
increases in 
>skill and improvements in the lives of every adult student.  In fact, I
believe 
>that Congress is asking a simple question: "What do we get for our 
>investment in ABE/ESL/GED programs?"
>
>Moving beyond the specifics of the WIA for the moment (which I still
>can't download and therefore read), do you think John's point is 
>accuate? Specifically,

* Congress may want a lot less than we think and 

>*I believe that Congress is asking a simple question: "What do we get 
>for our investment in ABE/ESL/GED programs?"
>
>Are these the "real" issues?, which may or may not be the case, but if 
>we can have some discussion on this that would be useful.
>
>What I'm getting at (and I'm speculating) is that such policy
formulations
>reflective of the WIA do not stem so much from directly what
congressional
>members think and believe, but from the research base from which they 
>draw that shape the detailed policy formulations--specifically, from:
>
>1.  Congressional research aides (or whatever their title is) that focus
 on such    issues as education
>2.  From the research think tanks
>3.  From the policy analysis and lobbyists in our field
>
>I would speculate (because I don't really know) that these three
>constituents are the ones that really work out the details of our 
>policy which then get sifted through various political processes,
including 
>the impact of public opinion (and, paranthetically, to what extent does
the NLA list serve as a viable source of information on equal level, say,
with #'s 1,2,&3?  Perhaps part of the nearer term reform is that it might
do so.  The NLA is not just 
>a table, David, but a force in its own right as an excellent cross 
>section of the temper of our times.  I would argue that it needs to be
the 
>Fourth Estate of our field).
>
>If #'s 1,2, &3 are the real policy formulators (and if not, please
illuminate), then the emphasis on "objective," "standardize," "uniform"
criteria within any given state, an important part of the NRS, is
understandable.  Going back to John's point, are these criteria
--developed by the "experts" -- what congress "really" cares about or did
these accountability criteria become part of the law because the policy
formulators (#1,2,& 3 above) identified them as essential to meet the
need of "accountability" based on the "self-evident" assumption of the
quantitative metaphor?
>
>The issue, in part is epistemology (how we know) or the world view that
>shapes policy thinking in juxtaposition to what our best research is
telling us about adult literacy education.  There is, I contend, a
profound epistemological chasm between the policy assumptions that went
into the WIA, particularly in assessment and that which gives shape to
what Juliet Merrifield has referred to as "The New Literacy Studies" that
she links with the concept of "literacy practices." (Perhaps someone else
can discuss this.  I want to stay focused on policy).  In Contested 
>Ground: Performance Accountability in Adult Basic Education (p. 32)
Juliet Merrifield states the following:

>"..while the theories of New Literacy Studies are being applied in
teaching, they have had much less currency at the level of educational
systems and policies--institutions, funding, accountability."
>
>Ths is at the heart of the schitzoid world out of what we operate and
>unless we shape our policy and assesment framework on the primary
>assumptions of the New Literacy Studies, then we will continue to 
>operate in a bi-polar, schitzoid political/pedagogical climate.  In
part,
>therefore, the issue is political.  In part it is epistemological.  I
have spoken of the political many times on this list, so will skip it it
>this time, but will likely bring it up again when Ron joins us.
>
>In a forthcoming essay I discuss the gap between educators and
>policymakers in the following way:
>
>"In part, this is due to the fragmentation of knowledge in  contemporary
>society where policymakers often draw on discourses grounded in
>quantification, behaviorism, and positivism, while particularly,
>humanistic scholars and ethnographers draw on narrative, history, 
>broad based social analysis, and contemporary social philosophy to give 
>shape to their world view."  The New Literacy Studies is clearly based
on 
>the latter, while that of much of the D.C perspective is based on the
>former."

>Thus, there is an epistemological divide of great proprions wherein
>policy formulations are  powerfully reinforced by a  utilitarian
>costs-benefits analysis echoing the impersonalization and abstraction
>that is at the core of the quantitative metaphor and The New Literacy
>Studies [which] stems from the research paradigm of "thick description."
>(Academics, let's hear from you about this!)
>
>Ron makes an excellent point that at least on first blush, sampling at
>the statewide level does not provide the mechanism to evaluate the
>efficacy of individual programs.  However, such a sampling pool 
>*could* be organized within a state among such programs funded by
federal 
>money. I don't want to get bogged down in details on that one at this
time, 
>but >let's also keep in mind another point made by John C. that:
>The results might not make us look very good, but if it was done right
this approach would also identify ways to improve performance.  Funders,
in Juliet Merrifield's way of thinking, would then be responsible for
providing the resources 
>needed to make those changes."
>
>That, however, would get us into such pesky areas as mutual
accountability, the public good, and the value of literacy. The main
argument here is that unless there is epistemological symmetry between
the new literacy studies, literacy practice, and means of accountability,
then the epistemological divide between theory, 
>practice, and policy runs rampant.
>
>The tail is still waging the dog and this is due to politics as much 
>as to epistemology.
>
>George Demetrion
>LVA-Connecticut River East
>GDemetrion at juno.com
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>
>NLA Colleagues,
>
>I e-mailed Ron Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education 
>and
>Literacy in the Office of Vocational and Adult Education at the U.S.
>Department
>of Education. I asked him about the question posed here by George
>Demetrion and
>John Comings, if the USDOE could consider an in-depth sample of 
>programs.
>I
>said:
>
>> I wonder if you have seen the recent discussion on the NLA list
>concerning
>> the WIA and the NRS.  In the NRS discussion the question has come up
>about
>> whether or not USDOE would support the idea of an in-depth 
>evaluation
>of a
>> small (probably random stratified) sample of programs from which we
>could
>> learn more about program performance and student outcomes.
>>
>> I wonder if you -- or someone else representing DOE -- might join in
>the
>> NLA discussion on this.  Is an in-depth sampling evaluation a
>> possibility? Could this be done instead of the current plan to 
>collect
>> data from every program, or would it need to be in addition to this
>plan?
>
>Ron replied (and gave permission to post his reply to the NLA list) :
>
>> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:53:36 -0400
>> From: "Pugsley, Ronald" <Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov>
>> To: 'David J Rosen' <DJRosen at world.std.com>
>> Subject: RE: WIA and NRS Discussions
>>
>> HI DAVID,
>>
>> I have read the message posted by Jon concerning the use of an
>evaluation
>> model based upon a nationally representative sample.  Although an
>> interesting evaluation model, this approach is not sufficient to 
>meet
>the
>> accountability requirements of the Adult Education and Family 
>Literacy
>Act.
>> Specifically, Section 231 (e)(2) requires the States to consider the
>success
>> of all eligible providers seeking funding under the Act in meeting 
>or
>> exceeding the performance measures adopted by the state.  In other
>words,
>> each local provider is to be held accountable to the performance
>measures.
>> Information gained from a national or state sample cannot be 
>attributed
>to
>> individual programs and therefore does allow each provider to be
>> individually held accountable.  Certainly, as we move forward under 
>the
>new
>> law, the Department will be implementing a variety of evaluation
>activities
>> and the proposed model is one worth considering to measure the 
>broader
>> impact of the program.
>
>Finally, I am pleased to  let you know that Ron accepted an invitation 
>to
>be a
>guest on the NLA list to discuss WIA and NRS questions and issues, and
>this
>will most likely be in November.
>
>David J. Rosen
>NLA List Moderator
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Get the Internet just the way you want it.
>Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
>Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>

___________________________________________________________________
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.



From Andrew_Hartman at nifl.gov  Tue Dec 21 11:58:12 1999
From: Andrew_Hartman at nifl.gov (Hartman, Andrew)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:58:12 -0500
Subject: NLA: Qeustion for Ron Pugsley 
Message-ID: <199912211805.NAA06475@europe.std.com>


Ron:

Someone asked me recently if there was WIA,title II funding available for
Native Americans on reservations.  I know that in some of the k-12 programs
there are set asides for this purpose.  Does DAEL fund programs on
reservations?  If not, do you know if the BIA or some other agency has
funding for this purpose?

Thanks!

Andy Hartman
NIFL



From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Tue Dec 21 16:47:50 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:47:50 -0500
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's replies to questions 
Message-ID: <199912212221.RAA01631@europe.std.com>


Response to Question from Andy Hartman dated December 21, 1999

Andy, there are a couple of questions here, so let me take them in order.
There is no specific WIA Title II funding targeted to or set aside for
Indians living on reservations.  However, as with the Adult Education Act,
it is possible for local tribal education agencies, community colleges,
community-based organizations of demonstrated effectiveness to compete for
adult education funds like other agencies and organizations in the States
under Title 2.  My understanding is that the Bureau of Indian Affairs no
longer has funds for adult education

Ron Pugsley

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Hartman, Andrew 
> Sent:	Tuesday, December 21, 1999 11:58 AM
> To:	nla at world.std.com
> Subject:	NLA: Qeustion for Ron Pugsley 
> 
> 
> Ron:
> 
> Someone asked me recently if there was WIA,title II funding available for
> Native Americans on reservations.  I know that in some of the k-12
> programs
> there are set asides for this purpose.  Does DAEL fund programs on
> reservations?  If not, do you know if the BIA or some other agency has
> funding for this purpose?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Andy Hartman
> NIFL



From gbitterl at sdccd.cc.ca.us  Tue Dec 21 12:58:55 1999
From: gbitterl at sdccd.cc.ca.us (Gretchen Bitterlin)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:58:55 -0500
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912212221.RAA01493@europe.std.com>

Thank you for your reply to my concern about standardized testing. I do
understand the requirements of the WIA; the reason I proprose that we look
into portfolio assessment is that one of our statewide standards for adult
ed in California is that students be assessed by multiple measures, and
portfolio assessment allows for that. It is especially important in ESL
because the main skill we focus on is speaking which is not assessed at
all by CASAS tests.  CASAS reading tests measure only reading in lifeskill
contexts, and ESL practitioners in California are extremely upset that
only that can be used to measure gains. Because we have uniform level
descriptors in California, it would be possible to develop standardized
criteria for portfolio assessment and not as complicated as the Colorado
system.  We are hopeful that such an avenue can be explored.

Gretchen Bitterlin
San Diego Community college District




From DJRosen at world.std.com  Tue Dec 21 17:13:17 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:13:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Guest Visit
Message-ID: <199912212236.RAA05434@europe.std.com>

NLA Colleagues,

I want to thank Ron Pugsley for joining us as a guest on the NLA list,
particularly at a time in which he had many other commitments, and for his
thoughtful and informed replies to many of the questions posted here.  NLA
members who posted questions to Ron, thank you for your important
contributions to a discussion which, I believe, is only beginning.  Some
of the questions you posed have clear answers within the framework of the
Workforce Investment Act. But, in my opinion, many do not, and are in the
realms of legislative advocacy or practice.  Some will require creative
solutions at the state and program level; some may eventually lead to
reform of the law or its regulations.

Despite the limitations of this medium -- and I am sure there have been
frustrations for those who have posted questions, for readers, and for Ron
-- I think a policy discussion on a national electronic list which
includes a national policy maker is a wonderful opportunity for all
of us.  Ron,  I hope you might agree to join us again as a guest, and I
look forward to having other policy makers as guests from time to time 
on the NLA list.

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator




From Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov  Tue Dec 21 17:13:06 1999
From: Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov (Pugsley, Ronald)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:13:06 -0500
Subject: NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
Message-ID: <199912212237.RAA05496@europe.std.com>


Response to Question from George Demetrion dated December 21

George, thank you for the fine summary.  The issues you raised are
requirements of the Workforce Investment Act, including what to measure,
when it must be reported (annually), how the Department must report it to
Congress.  Because the Act requires core indicators that are not EFF's
standards, EFF's standards are in the category of additional, useful
measures a State may choose but which are not mandated by law.  No one can
declare a moratorium on data collection under WIA because it is a statutory
mandate.  We all will have to work on improving it as we go along.  WIA is
the work of Congress, not the Department of Education.  To keep things
simple, the Department even chose not to regulate on the new Act-for the
first time since adult education programs have been authorized in federal
education law.  As for expressing the "debate on policy needs in the public
airwaves," I do hope my earlier offer of webcast/satellite dialogues this
winter will help get more people involved in the process.  I look forward to
keeping in touch with all of you on these issues as we move forward.

Ron Pugsley

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	GEORGE E. DEMETRION 
> Sent:	Tuesday, December 21, 1999 11:24 AM
> To:	nla at world.std.com
> Subject:	NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
> 
> 
> Ron:
> 
> Thanks for taking on these questions.  I realize it may be a bit much for
> one person, but perhaps you have staff support in some of your responses.
> Instead of posting something new, let me pick an earlier message from
> the archives to which perhaps you will be able to respond.  This goes
> back to your original message in October when you agreed to answer
> questions on the NLA.  There are many concerns to say the least as
> indicated in the 8 or 9 questions I posted a couple weeks back.  I think
> also, Tom Sticht has also raised some important issues that have not yet
> been fully responded to as well as Catherine King on the relationship
> between federal policy and democracy.  There are other critical questions
> also that need to be answered, too.
> 
> There's a lot more that could be said, but the obsession with
> counting--"objective, measurable, quantitative," at least goes to a
> significant core to where my critique is at.  "Secondary measures" are
> fine, I suppose, but if they are not what "really" counts, I don't know
> why hard pressed programs are going to spend quality time documenting
> them, too, in addition to documenting what "really" counts.
> 
> Your joint letter with Andy Hartman was interesting. (I'm working from
> memory).  As I have understood it, EFF all along was designed to link
> pedagogy with policy wherein the standards (the generative skills) would
> be the mechanism of assessment through its performance indicators (I
> understand there's new terminology now) and types of evidence.  These,
> however, do not easily break down into "objective, measurable,
> quantitative," so they're off the table, at least as far as primary
> indicators.  Without the clout of a legitimizing assessment system, where
> does that place the policy objectives of EFF?  Not that I'm disappointed
> about that, as I've expressed elsewhere as I am not supportive of any
> hegemony of EFF even as I think there's a certain degree of validity in
> the framework.  But as a point of curiosity, it's interesting that the
> EFF developers have spent so much time establishing standards to be told
> they don't "really" count in the world of policy, but you can add them to
> your reporting system if you'd like.  
> 
> On the sampling issue--not that I have any final answer here, but at
> least (even from your comments) there seems to be room for
> interpretation, if not negotiation.  Think of what the alternative is,
> attempting to obtain data information (pre and post of whatever, on every
> student, an impossible standard, particularly for decentralized volunteer
> tutoring programs, and a dubious task in any event,-- all  just because a
> certain interpretation of the law says that that is what's "really"
> needed for the enforcement of policy mandates.
> 
> To me, this is of dubious value that could have a lot of negative
> consequences (folks have discussed this.  I don't need to do so here).
> 
> If there are some real problems here with the WIA and particularly with
> the NRS, why not put a moratorium on the data collection process for a
> year so that we can put together some of our top practitioners,
> researchers, policy folks, and reps from VALUE to take a good hard look
> so we might come up with some other alternatives, including sampling. 
> While you have previously, obtained feedback from the field, I would
> venture to assume that the process of information gathering and mutual
> influence may not have been as open as it could have been.  If we are
> going to take any of our research and best practices seriously at all,
> then I think it imperative that the federal government listen to the
> voices from the field in a much more substantial way than it has.
> 
> There have been a profusion of voices on the NLA this fall.  If such
> discussion is to have any merit at all, then it must have an influence on
> where the rubber hits the road--in this case on the formation of a viable
> adult literacy/ABE federal policy grounded in our finest research and
> practices.  And the debate on policy needs to be expressed in the public
> airwaves and not made behind closed doors among the power elite in the
> corridors of Washington D.C.
> 
> George Demetrion
> LVA-Connecticut River East
> GDemetrion at juno.com
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:49:56 -0700 "GEORGE E. DEMETRION"
> <gdemetrion at juno.com> writes:
> >
> >David:
> >
> >Good work on asking Ron Pugsley to clear up the matter as to whether
> >USDOE would support a sampling process at the state level to assess 
> >the efficacy of adult ed/literacy in the state.
> >
> >Thanks Ron, for the direct answer.  It wasn't the answer many of us 
> >were looking for, but your response was unequivocal and clear.
> >
> >This is a good starting point for a dialogue with your office and I 
> >look forward to the  more formal opportunity to discuss these issues
> with 
> >you in November.
> >
> >I'd like to make a few comments, here, though and I'll start with John
> >Comings' original assumption that:
> >
> >"Congress may want a lot less than we think.  Our field has 
> >interpreted the  call for accountability to mean that we must measure
> increases in 
> >skill and improvements in the lives of every adult student.  In fact, I
> believe 
> >that Congress is asking a simple question: "What do we get for our 
> >investment in ABE/ESL/GED programs?"
> >
> >Moving beyond the specifics of the WIA for the moment (which I still
> >can't download and therefore read), do you think John's point is 
> >accuate? Specifically,
> 
> * Congress may want a lot less than we think and 
> 
> >*I believe that Congress is asking a simple question: "What do we get 
> >for our investment in ABE/ESL/GED programs?"
> >
> >Are these the "real" issues?, which may or may not be the case, but if 
> >we can have some discussion on this that would be useful.
> >
> >What I'm getting at (and I'm speculating) is that such policy
> formulations
> >reflective of the WIA do not stem so much from directly what
> congressional
> >members think and believe, but from the research base from which they 
> >draw that shape the detailed policy formulations--specifically, from:
> >
> >1.  Congressional research aides (or whatever their title is) that focus
>  on such    issues as education
> >2.  From the research think tanks
> >3.  From the policy analysis and lobbyists in our field
> >
> >I would speculate (because I don't really know) that these three
> >constituents are the ones that really work out the details of our 
> >policy which then get sifted through various political processes,
> including 
> >the impact of public opinion (and, paranthetically, to what extent does
> the NLA list serve as a viable source of information on equal level, say,
> with #'s 1,2,&3?  Perhaps part of the nearer term reform is that it might
> do so.  The NLA is not just 
> >a table, David, but a force in its own right as an excellent cross 
> >section of the temper of our times.  I would argue that it needs to be
> the 
> >Fourth Estate of our field).
> >
> >If #'s 1,2, &3 are the real policy formulators (and if not, please
> illuminate), then the emphasis on "objective," "standardize," "uniform"
> criteria within any given state, an important part of the NRS, is
> understandable.  Going back to John's point, are these criteria
> --developed by the "experts" -- what congress "really" cares about or did
> these accountability criteria become part of the law because the policy
> formulators (#1,2,& 3 above) identified them as essential to meet the
> need of "accountability" based on the "self-evident" assumption of the
> quantitative metaphor?
> >
> >The issue, in part is epistemology (how we know) or the world view that
> >shapes policy thinking in juxtaposition to what our best research is
> telling us about adult literacy education.  There is, I contend, a
> profound epistemological chasm between the policy assumptions that went
> into the WIA, particularly in assessment and that which gives shape to
> what Juliet Merrifield has referred to as "The New Literacy Studies" that
> she links with the concept of "literacy practices." (Perhaps someone else
> can discuss this.  I want to stay focused on policy).  In Contested 
> >Ground: Performance Accountability in Adult Basic Education (p. 32)
> Juliet Merrifield states the following:
> 
> >"..while the theories of New Literacy Studies are being applied in
> teaching, they have had much less currency at the level of educational
> systems and policies--institutions, funding, accountability."
> >
> >Ths is at the heart of the schitzoid world out of what we operate and
> >unless we shape our policy and assesment framework on the primary
> >assumptions of the New Literacy Studies, then we will continue to 
> >operate in a bi-polar, schitzoid political/pedagogical climate.  In
> part,
> >therefore, the issue is political.  In part it is epistemological.  I
> have spoken of the political many times on this list, so will skip it it
> >this time, but will likely bring it up again when Ron joins us.
> >
> >In a forthcoming essay I discuss the gap between educators and
> >policymakers in the following way:
> >
> >"In part, this is due to the fragmentation of knowledge in  contemporary
> >society where policymakers often draw on discourses grounded in
> >quantification, behaviorism, and positivism, while particularly,
> >humanistic scholars and ethnographers draw on narrative, history, 
> >broad based social analysis, and contemporary social philosophy to give 
> >shape to their world view."  The New Literacy Studies is clearly based
> on 
> >the latter, while that of much of the D.C perspective is based on the
> >former."
> 
> >Thus, there is an epistemological divide of great proprions wherein
> >policy formulations are  powerfully reinforced by a  utilitarian
> >costs-benefits analysis echoing the impersonalization and abstraction
> >that is at the core of the quantitative metaphor and The New Literacy
> >Studies [which] stems from the research paradigm of "thick description."
> >(Academics, let's hear from you about this!)
> >
> >Ron makes an excellent point that at least on first blush, sampling at
> >the statewide level does not provide the mechanism to evaluate the
> >efficacy of individual programs.  However, such a sampling pool 
> >*could* be organized within a state among such programs funded by
> federal 
> >money. I don't want to get bogged down in details on that one at this
> time, 
> >but >let's also keep in mind another point made by John C. that:
> >The results might not make us look very good, but if it was done right
> this approach would also identify ways to improve performance.  Funders,
> in Juliet Merrifield's way of thinking, would then be responsible for
> providing the resources 
> >needed to make those changes."
> >
> >That, however, would get us into such pesky areas as mutual
> accountability, the public good, and the value of literacy. The main
> argument here is that unless there is epistemological symmetry between
> the new literacy studies, literacy practice, and means of accountability,
> then the epistemological divide between theory, 
> >practice, and policy runs rampant.
> >
> >The tail is still waging the dog and this is due to politics as much 
> >as to epistemology.
> >
> >George Demetrion
> >LVA-Connecticut River East
> >GDemetrion at juno.com
> >
> >___________________________________________________________________
> >
> >NLA Colleagues,
> >
> >I e-mailed Ron Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education 
> >and
> >Literacy in the Office of Vocational and Adult Education at the U.S.
> >Department
> >of Education. I asked him about the question posed here by George
> >Demetrion and
> >John Comings, if the USDOE could consider an in-depth sample of 
> >programs.
> >I
> >said:
> >
> >> I wonder if you have seen the recent discussion on the NLA list
> >concerning
> >> the WIA and the NRS.  In the NRS discussion the question has come up
> >about
> >> whether or not USDOE would support the idea of an in-depth 
> >evaluation
> >of a
> >> small (probably random stratified) sample of programs from which we
> >could
> >> learn more about program performance and student outcomes.
> >>
> >> I wonder if you -- or someone else representing DOE -- might join in
> >the
> >> NLA discussion on this.  Is an in-depth sampling evaluation a
> >> possibility? Could this be done instead of the current plan to 
> >collect
> >> data from every program, or would it need to be in addition to this
> >plan?
> >
> >Ron replied (and gave permission to post his reply to the NLA list) :
> >
> >> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:53:36 -0400
> >> From: "Pugsley, Ronald" <Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov>
> >> To: 'David J Rosen' <DJRosen at world.std.com>
> >> Subject: RE: WIA and NRS Discussions
> >>
> >> HI DAVID,
> >>
> >> I have read the message posted by Jon concerning the use of an
> >evaluation
> >> model based upon a nationally representative sample.  Although an
> >> interesting evaluation model, this approach is not sufficient to 
> >meet
> >the
> >> accountability requirements of the Adult Education and Family 
> >Literacy
> >Act.
> >> Specifically, Section 231 (e)(2) requires the States to consider the
> >success
> >> of all eligible providers seeking funding under the Act in meeting 
> >or
> >> exceeding the performance measures adopted by the state.  In other
> >words,
> >> each local provider is to be held accountable to the performance
> >measures.
> >> Information gained from a national or state sample cannot be 
> >attributed
> >to
> >> individual programs and therefore does allow each provider to be
> >> individually held accountable.  Certainly, as we move forward under 
> >the
> >new
> >> law, the Department will be implementing a variety of evaluation
> >activities
> >> and the proposed model is one worth considering to measure the 
> >broader
> >> impact of the program.
> >
> >Finally, I am pleased to  let you know that Ron accepted an invitation 
> >to
> >be a
> >guest on the NLA list to discuss WIA and NRS questions and issues, and
> >this
> >will most likely be in November.
> >
> >David J. Rosen
> >NLA List Moderator
> >
> >
> >
> >___________________________________________________________________
> >Get the Internet just the way you want it.
> >Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
> >Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
> >
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Why pay more to get Web access?
> Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
> Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.



From Dspeights at bpinews.com  Tue Dec 21 16:04:49 1999
From: Dspeights at bpinews.com (Dave Speights)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:04:49 -0500
Subject: NLA appreciation
Message-ID: <199912212243.RAA06442@europe.std.com>

	Kudos to all involved with this Q&A with Ron Pugsley. It is a
historic exchange that would not have been possible without current
technology -- and intelligent users, of course.

Dave Speights, Editor
Report on Literacy Programs
Report on Education of the Disadvantaged
Business Publishers, Inc.
8737 Colesville Road, Suite 1100
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 587-6300
fax: (301) 587-1081
e-mail: dspeights at bpinews.com
Web site: http://www.bpinews.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Pugsley, Ronald [mailto:Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 10:03 AM
To: nla at world.std.com
Subject: NLA appreciation: Thanks, Harriet



I join David in thanking Nancy and Harriet for pulling this together.  As we
close this chapter, I also want to thank the folks who raised questions.  I
enjoyed the process, although I was not able to respond as soon as I had
hoped.  Several individuals have suggested that our office provide a
webcast/satellite link for a discussion--with Q & A--of the National
Reporting system.  If this idea makes sense to you, let us know.  

Ron Pugsley

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	David J Rosen 
> Sent:	Monday, December 20, 1999 6:53 PM
> To:	nla at world.std.com
> Subject:	NLA appreciation: Thanks, Harriet
> 
> 
> NLA Colleagues,
> 
> On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 I  wrote:
> 
> > Nancy Sledd, the moderator of the NIFL-Family electronic list, has
> > summarized the recent postings of questions to and answers from Ron
> > Pugsley.  I very much appreciate Nancy's summary and want to be sure
> that
> > NLA members who might not be NIFL-family subscribers have a chance to
> see
> > this.  
> 
> What I failed to notice in skimming this message was this sentence from
> Nancy:
> 
> > Thanks to Harriet in Texas for compiling these!
> 
> Now that I know who assembled these I, too, would like to express my
> appreciation to Harriet Vardiman Smith, Materials/Research Coordinator,
> at the Texas Adult Literacy Clearinghouse.
> 
> David J. Rosen
> NLA List Moderator
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF4BF7.095B1670
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: NLA appreciation</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D2>Kudos to =
all involved with this Q&amp;A with Ron Pugsley. It is a historic =
exchange that would not have been possible without current technology =
-- and intelligent users, of course.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Dave Speights, Editor</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Report on Literacy Programs</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Report on Education of the Disadvantaged</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Business Publishers, Inc.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>8737 Colesville Road, Suite 1100</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Silver Spring, MD 20910</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>(301) 587-6300</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>fax: (301) 587-1081</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>e-mail: dspeights at bpinews.com</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Web site: <A HREF=3D"http://www.bpinews.com" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.bpinews.com</A></FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Pugsley, Ronald [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov">mailto:Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov</A>]<=
/FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 10:03 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: nla at world.std.com</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: NLA appreciation: Thanks, Harriet</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I join David in thanking Nancy and Harriet for =
pulling this together.&nbsp; As we</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>close this chapter, I also want to thank the folks =
who raised questions.&nbsp; I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>enjoyed the process, although I was not able to =
respond as soon as I had</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>hoped.&nbsp; Several individuals have suggested that =
our office provide a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>webcast/satellite link for a discussion--with Q =
&amp; A--of the National</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Reporting system.&nbsp; If this idea makes sense to =
you, let us know.&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ron Pugsley</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: David J Rosen </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 6:53 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To:&nbsp;&nbsp; nla at world.std.com</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; NLA =
appreciation: Thanks, Harriet</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; NLA Colleagues,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 I&nbsp; wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Nancy Sledd, the moderator of the =
NIFL-Family electronic list, has</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; summarized the recent postings of =
questions to and answers from Ron</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Pugsley.&nbsp; I very much appreciate =
Nancy's summary and want to be sure</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; NLA members who might not be NIFL-family =
subscribers have a chance to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; see</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; this.&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; What I failed to notice in skimming this =
message was this sentence from</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Nancy:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Thanks to Harriet in Texas for compiling =
these!</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Now that I know who assembled these I, too, =
would like to express my</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; appreciation to Harriet Vardiman Smith, =
Materials/Research Coordinator,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; at the Texas Adult Literacy Clearinghouse.</FONT=
>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; David J. Rosen</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; NLA List Moderator</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF4BF7.095B1670--



From gdemetrion at juno.com  Tue Dec 21 20:49:41 1999
From: gdemetrion at juno.com (GEORGE E. DEMETRION)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:49:41 -0800
Subject: NLA: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912220215.VAA06192@europe.std.com>


Gretchen and Ron:

Would this mean, under the NRS that every student would have to be
assessed through portfolio assessment and that some kind of uniform
portfolio "rubric" would have to be developed that could be translated
into "quantitative, objective, measurable" before portfolio assessment
could count as the state's primary measure?  If so, I wonder what those
who are involved in the portfolio movement think of this?

Ron, here's the problem too,--one entity, typically the state ABE agency
in each state is expected to set standardized and uniform policies for
assessment because, I suppose,  it's easier to quantify, regardless of
how valid such "indicators" may be.

I wonder who else out there in the land of literacy might have some
issues with this? 

 I wonder who else thinks putting a moratorium on the NRS would be a good
idea so that we may devise a more enlightened federal policy on
assessment?

George Demetrion


On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:58:55 -0500 Gretchen Bitterlin
<gbitterl at sdccd.cc.ca.us> writes:
>Thank you for your reply to my concern about standardized testing. I 
>do
>understand the requirements of the WIA; the reason I proprose that we 
>look
>into portfolio assessment is that one of our statewide standards for 
>adult
>ed in California is that students be assessed by multiple measures, 
>and
>portfolio assessment allows for that. It is especially important in 
>ESL
>because the main skill we focus on is speaking which is not assessed 
>at
>all by CASAS tests.  CASAS reading tests measure only reading in 
>lifeskill
>contexts, and ESL practitioners in California are extremely upset that
>only that can be used to measure gains. Because we have uniform level
>descriptors in California, it would be possible to develop 
>standardized
>criteria for portfolio assessment and not as complicated as the 
>Colorado
>system.  We are hopeful that such an avenue can be explored.
>
>Gretchen Bitterlin
>San Diego Community college District
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.



From gdemetrion at juno.com  Tue Dec 21 22:17:31 1999
From: gdemetrion at juno.com (GEORGE E. DEMETRION)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:17:31 -0800
Subject: NLA Discussion: Reporting 
Message-ID: <199912220221.VAA07323@europe.std.com>


Dave:

I hope that if you report on the various discussions we have had on the
WIA and NRS, that you will keep in focus the entire discourse that we've
had on this topic this fall.  Ron came on at the tail end of this and
responded to some of the questions and didn't respond to others.  The
discussion went quite deep and dominated the airwaves for the fall.  I
would hope as and if you report on this that you would exercise fair
journalism and give an accurate reporting to the various oppositional
perspectives as well as to more mainstream positions on this issue.

I think it would be a service to our civic culture if our federal
legislators had a more in-depth understanding of the divergent opinions
on the current legislation as expressed on the NLA.

Perhaps you can tell us about the Report on Literacy Programs--what its
purposes are, who sponsors it, who are its constituents--in effect, what
its agenda (I use the term in a neutral fashion) is.

Thank you.

George Demetrion
GDemetrion at juno.com


On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:04:49 -0500 Dave Speights <Dspeights at bpinews.com>
writes:
>	Kudos to all involved with this Q&A with Ron Pugsley. It is a
>historic exchange that would not have been possible without current
>technology -- and intelligent users, of course.
>
>Dave Speights, Editor
>Report on Literacy Programs
>Report on Education of the Disadvantaged
>Business Publishers, Inc.
>8737 Colesville Road, Suite 1100
>Silver Spring, MD 20910
>(301) 587-6300
>fax: (301) 587-1081
>e-mail: dspeights at bpinews.com
>Web site: http://www.bpinews.com
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pugsley, Ronald [mailto:Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 10:03 AM
>To: nla at world.std.com
>Subject: NLA appreciation: Thanks, Harriet
>
>
>
>I join David in thanking Nancy and Harriet for pulling this together.  
>As we
>close this chapter, I also want to thank the folks who raised 
>questions.  I
>enjoyed the process, although I was not able to respond as soon as I 
>had
>hoped.  Several individuals have suggested that our office provide a
>webcast/satellite link for a discussion--with Q & A--of the National
>Reporting system.  If this idea makes sense to you, let us know.  
>
>Ron Pugsley
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	David J Rosen 
>> Sent:	Monday, December 20, 1999 6:53 PM
>> To:	nla at world.std.com
>> Subject:	NLA appreciation: Thanks, Harriet
>> 
>> 
>> NLA Colleagues,
>> 
>> On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 I  wrote:
>> 
>> > Nancy Sledd, the moderator of the NIFL-Family electronic list, has
>> > summarized the recent postings of questions to and answers from 
>Ron
>> > Pugsley.  I very much appreciate Nancy's summary and want to be 
>sure
>> that
>> > NLA members who might not be NIFL-family subscribers have a chance 
>to
>> see
>> > this.  
>> 
>> What I failed to notice in skimming this message was this sentence 
>from
>> Nancy:
>> 
>> > Thanks to Harriet in Texas for compiling these!
>> 
>> Now that I know who assembled these I, too, would like to express my
>> appreciation to Harriet Vardiman Smith, Materials/Research 
>Coordinator,
>> at the Texas Adult Literacy Clearinghouse.
>> 
>> David J. Rosen
>> NLA List Moderator
>> 
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01BF4BF7.095B1670
>Content-Type: text/html;
>	charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
><HTML>
><HEAD>
><META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
><META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
>5.5.2448.0">
><TITLE>RE: NLA appreciation</TITLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY>
>
><P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D2>Kudos to 
>=
>all involved with this Q&amp;A with Ron Pugsley. It is a historic =
>exchange that would not have been possible without current technology 
>=
>-- and intelligent users, of course.</FONT></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Dave Speights, Editor</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Report on Literacy Programs</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Report on Education of the Disadvantaged</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Business Publishers, Inc.</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>8737 Colesville Road, Suite 1100</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Silver Spring, MD 20910</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>(301) 587-6300</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>fax: (301) 587-1081</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>e-mail: dspeights at bpinews.com</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Web site: <A HREF=3D"http://www.bpinews.com" =
>TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.bpinews.com</A></FONT>
></P>
><BR>
><BR>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Pugsley, Ronald [<A =
>HREF=3D"mailto:Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov">mailto:Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov</A>]<=
>/FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 10:03 AM</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: nla at world.std.com</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: NLA appreciation: Thanks, Harriet</FONT>
></P>
><BR>
><BR>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I join David in thanking Nancy and Harriet for =
>pulling this together.&nbsp; As we</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>close this chapter, I also want to thank the folks 
>=
>who raised questions.&nbsp; I</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>enjoyed the process, although I was not able to =
>respond as soon as I had</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>hoped.&nbsp; Several individuals have suggested 
>that =
>our office provide a</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>webcast/satellite link for a discussion--with Q =
>&amp; A--of the National</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Reporting system.&nbsp; If this idea makes sense to 
>=
>you, let us know.&nbsp; </FONT>
></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ron Pugsley</FONT>
></P>
>
><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: David J Rosen </FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 6:53 PM</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To:&nbsp;&nbsp; nla at world.std.com</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; NLA =
>appreciation: Thanks, Harriet</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; NLA Colleagues,</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 I&nbsp; wrote:</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Nancy Sledd, the moderator of the =
>NIFL-Family electronic list, has</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; summarized the recent postings of =
>questions to and answers from Ron</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Pugsley.&nbsp; I very much appreciate =
>Nancy's summary and want to be sure</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; that</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; NLA members who might not be NIFL-family 
>=
>subscribers have a chance to</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; see</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; this.&nbsp; </FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; What I failed to notice in skimming this =
>message was this sentence from</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Nancy:</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Thanks to Harriet in Texas for compiling 
>=
>these!</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Now that I know who assembled these I, too, =
>would like to express my</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; appreciation to Harriet Vardiman Smith, =
>Materials/Research Coordinator,</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; at the Texas Adult Literacy 
>Clearinghouse.</FONT=
>>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; David J. Rosen</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; NLA List Moderator</FONT>
><BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
></P>
>
></BODY>
></HTML>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01BF4BF7.095B1670--
>

___________________________________________________________________
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.



From gdemetrion at juno.com  Wed Dec 22 00:06:06 1999
From: gdemetrion at juno.com (GEORGE E. DEMETRION)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:06:06 -0800
Subject: NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
Message-ID: <199912220237.VAA10242@europe.std.com>

Ron:

Thanks for your response.  Lots of issues out there.  Agreed, the law is
what the law is.

Question:  what role (if any) did your office and/or the Clinton
administration have in establishing the WIA?  More broadly, why is ABE
and literacy tied to the Workforce Investment Act that symbolically
reduces literacy as an economic development tool, and whatever did happen
to the National Literacy Act and why?

The law is the law, but there is also a Congress that meets in January. 
The stipulations were created by human beings and they can be undone by
human beings.  Given the nature of the discussion we've had on how
problematic "quantifiable, measurable and objective" are in accurately
assessing adult literacy learning, is your office ready, willing and able
to go to Congress and ask for a moratorium so we can put a better
reporting system in place?  State Directors, agency heads, and policy
analysts, would you be willing to join Ron to ask Congress to legislate a
moratorium so we could put together a more coherent system grounded in
"mutual accountability?"  If so, there are not a few of us on this list
who would readily join you.

This issue of sampling has been raised in highly intelligent quarters and
deserves much more of a serious consideration than you have so far given
to it.  Such a focus would allow us to spend much more time on teaching
so that we could *begin* to create an adult literacy/ABE system worthy of
our collective passion, knowledge and experience.  We need govt to be an
active partner in this, not leading the pack, not issuing mandates, but
playing a creative role as partners in a much more dynamic democratic
process that that which currently characterizes our discourse and
"delivery" systems.

In all seriousness, I'm not convinced (or haven't seen any evidence of
it) that "Congress" (or is it the legislative aides, policy analysts and
think tanks?) has had sufficient information needed to put together
legislation that is coherent with our best practice and research.  The
100 + posts on this topic this fall, to say nothing of the reports,
monographs and research projects (both field based and academic)
provides that information.  Could you give us some feedback on the
theoretical premises that gave shape to the NRS, and whose baby was that,
by the way?  Who are the achitects of the NRS?  Perhaps we might hear
from them.

Where does the buck stop on the NRS?  Your office says it's Congress.  (I
wonder what "Congress" would say?  State directors might say, it's your
office.  Programs say, it's our state ABE agencies.  There's a certain
amorphousness about this policy that is not easy to pin down, and then,
who's responsible for the WIA in the first place?  Is it the religious
right?  Is it connected to Clinton's emphasis on the global economy, did
it come out of congressional energies, reform movements within
ABE/literacy?  Policy advocates?  Think tanks?

It's important for the sake of literacy to publically describe the
hisorical and political process on how the WIA and the NRS came to be,
even a thumb nail sketch.  It's important because responsibility for it
needs to be placed and possible sources for repeal, reforms, and avenues
to achieve any moratoriums particularly on the NRS need to be identified.

Finally, on the EFF. From the getgo, EFF developers have linked the most
daunting adult literacy/lifelong learning reform initiative to date to
policy as well as to pedagogy in the quest to fulfuill National
Educational Goal 6.  The standards are an essential piece of it not just
as a tool for teachers and students to tell how they're doing, but as
part of a broader mechanism to create a national consensus on "results
that matter."  This is the vision of EFF.  So because the "core
indicators are not EFF standards" (because, I presume, they are not
"quantifiable, objective, and measurable") they get relegated as
"secondary" measures.

Question:  Why wasn't (or was it?) EFF an integral part of the discussion
in the formation of the new legislation?  What happened here?  What role,
if any, was your office playing in efforts to support the EFF frame in
light of the emerging legislation?  What role were the EFF developers
playing with Congress and with your office during this time?  Then, for
the EFFers, if the standards are no longer a part of the "real picture"
of federal policy, then what does that mean for the framework?  What does
it mean for your quest for consenus building? (I've been critical of that
aspect of EFF, but that's besides the point).

Ron, these questions and those like them are quite important because
without this knowledge policy takes on a form of mystique as if it is
this omnipotent power or state of nature hovering over literacy land. 
The historical forces that interplayed in the development of literacy
policy in the 1990s is an important story that deserves a broad audience,
certainly knowledge that should be readily available to us on this list
with as little mystification and spin as possible.  While I do appreciate
the webcast/satellite dialogues that your office will provide, the need,
in my view, is for an independent source of literacy journalism which the
NLA potentially provides.  It is *this* forum and others like it that in
my view, the field needs, if it is going to exercise more of an
independent judgment and influence on the politics and pedagogy of
literacy.  

I can think of no better venue for that than the National Literacy
Advocacy.  

While I have been a critic of much federal policy on ABE/literacy, I
extend my personal thanks for your willingness to engage us.

George Demetrion
LVA-Connecticut River East
GDemetrion at juno.com


On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:13:06 -0500 "Pugsley, Ronald"
<Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov> writes:
>
>Response to Question from George Demetrion dated December 21
>
>George, thank you for the fine summary.  The issues you raised are
>requirements of the Workforce Investment Act, including what to 
>measure,
>when it must be reported (annually), how the Department must report it 
>to
>Congress.  Because the Act requires core indicators that are not EFF's
>standards, EFF's standards are in the category of additional, useful
>measures a State may choose but which are not mandated by law.  No one 
>can
>declare a moratorium on data collection under WIA because it is a 
>statutory
>mandate.  We all will have to work on improving it as we go along.  
>WIA is
>the work of Congress, not the Department of Education.  To keep things
>simple, the Department even chose not to regulate on the new Act-for 
>the
>first time since adult education programs have been authorized in 
>federal
>education law.  As for expressing the "debate on policy needs in the 
>public
>airwaves," I do hope my earlier offer of webcast/satellite dialogues 
>this
>winter will help get more people involved in the process.  I look 
>forward to
>keeping in touch with all of you on these issues as we move forward.
>
>Ron Pugsley
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	GEORGE E. DEMETRION 
>> Sent:	Tuesday, December 21, 1999 11:24 AM
>> To:	nla at world.std.com
>> Subject:	NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
>> 
>> 
>> Ron:
>> 
>> Thanks for taking on these questions.  I realize it may be a bit 
>much for
>> one person, but perhaps you have staff support in some of your 
>responses.
>> Instead of posting something new, let me pick an earlier message 
>from
>> the archives to which perhaps you will be able to respond.  This 
>goes
>> back to your original message in October when you agreed to answer
>> questions on the NLA.  There are many concerns to say the least as
>> indicated in the 8 or 9 questions I posted a couple weeks back.  I 
>think
>> also, Tom Sticht has also raised some important issues that have not 
>yet
>> been fully responded to as well as Catherine King on the 
>relationship
>> between federal policy and democracy.  There are other critical 
>questions
>> also that need to be answered, too.
>> 
>> There's a lot more that could be said, but the obsession with
>> counting--"objective, measurable, quantitative," at least goes to a
>> significant core to where my critique is at.  "Secondary measures" 
>are
>> fine, I suppose, but if they are not what "really" counts, I don't 
>know
>> why hard pressed programs are going to spend quality time 
>documenting
>> them, too, in addition to documenting what "really" counts.
>> 
>> Your joint letter with Andy Hartman was interesting. (I'm working 
>from
>> memory).  As I have understood it, EFF all along was designed to 
>link
>> pedagogy with policy wherein the standards (the generative skills) 
>would
>> be the mechanism of assessment through its performance indicators (I
>> understand there's new terminology now) and types of evidence.  
>These,
>> however, do not easily break down into "objective, measurable,
>> quantitative," so they're off the table, at least as far as primary
>> indicators.  Without the clout of a legitimizing assessment system, 
>where
>> does that place the policy objectives of EFF?  Not that I'm 
>disappointed
>> about that, as I've expressed elsewhere as I am not supportive of 
>any
>> hegemony of EFF even as I think there's a certain degree of validity 
>in
>> the framework.  But as a point of curiosity, it's interesting that 
>the
>> EFF developers have spent so much time establishing standards to be 
>told
>> they don't "really" count in the world of policy, but you can add 
>them to
>> your reporting system if you'd like.  
>> 
>> On the sampling issue--not that I have any final answer here, but at
>> least (even from your comments) there seems to be room for
>> interpretation, if not negotiation.  Think of what the alternative 
>is,
>> attempting to obtain data information (pre and post of whatever, on 
>every
>> student, an impossible standard, particularly for decentralized 
>volunteer
>> tutoring programs, and a dubious task in any event,-- all  just 
>because a
>> certain interpretation of the law says that that is what's "really"
>> needed for the enforcement of policy mandates.
>> 
>> To me, this is of dubious value that could have a lot of negative
>> consequences (folks have discussed this.  I don't need to do so 
>here).
>> 
>> If there are some real problems here with the WIA and particularly 
>with
>> the NRS, why not put a moratorium on the data collection process for 
>a
>> year so that we can put together some of our top practitioners,
>> researchers, policy folks, and reps from VALUE to take a good hard 
>look
>> so we might come up with some other alternatives, including 
>sampling. 
>> While you have previously, obtained feedback from the field, I would
>> venture to assume that the process of information gathering and 
>mutual
>> influence may not have been as open as it could have been.  If we 
>are
>> going to take any of our research and best practices seriously at 
>all,
>> then I think it imperative that the federal government listen to the
>> voices from the field in a much more substantial way than it has.
>> 
>> There have been a profusion of voices on the NLA this fall.  If such
>> discussion is to have any merit at all, then it must have an 
>influence on
>> where the rubber hits the road--in this case on the formation of a 
>viable
>> adult literacy/ABE federal policy grounded in our finest research 
>and
>> practices.  And the debate on policy needs to be expressed in the 
>public
>> airwaves and not made behind closed doors among the power elite in 
>the
>> corridors of Washington D.C.
>> 
>> George Demetrion
>> LVA-Connecticut River East
>> GDemetrion at juno.com
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:49:56 -0700 "GEORGE E. DEMETRION"
>> <gdemetrion at juno.com> writes:
>> >
>> >David:
>> >
>> >Good work on asking Ron Pugsley to clear up the matter as to 
>whether
>> >USDOE would support a sampling process at the state level to assess 
>
>> >the efficacy of adult ed/literacy in the state.
>> >
>> >Thanks Ron, for the direct answer.  It wasn't the answer many of us 
>
>> >were looking for, but your response was unequivocal and clear.
>> >
>> >This is a good starting point for a dialogue with your office and I 
>
>> >look forward to the  more formal opportunity to discuss these 
>issues
>> with 
>> >you in November.
>> >
>> >I'd like to make a few comments, here, though and I'll start with 
>John
>> >Comings' original assumption that:
>> >
>> >"Congress may want a lot less than we think.  Our field has 
>> >interpreted the  call for accountability to mean that we must 
>measure
>> increases in 
>> >skill and improvements in the lives of every adult student.  In 
>fact, I
>> believe 
>> >that Congress is asking a simple question: "What do we get for our 
>> >investment in ABE/ESL/GED programs?"
>> >
>> >Moving beyond the specifics of the WIA for the moment (which I 
>still
>> >can't download and therefore read), do you think John's point is 
>> >accuate? Specifically,
>> 
>> * Congress may want a lot less than we think and 
>> 
>> >*I believe that Congress is asking a simple question: "What do we 
>get 
>> >for our investment in ABE/ESL/GED programs?"
>> >
>> >Are these the "real" issues?, which may or may not be the case, but 
>if 
>> >we can have some discussion on this that would be useful.
>> >
>> >What I'm getting at (and I'm speculating) is that such policy
>> formulations
>> >reflective of the WIA do not stem so much from directly what
>> congressional
>> >members think and believe, but from the research base from which 
>they 
>> >draw that shape the detailed policy formulations--specifically, 
>from:
>> >
>> >1.  Congressional research aides (or whatever their title is) that 
>focus
>>  on such    issues as education
>> >2.  From the research think tanks
>> >3.  From the policy analysis and lobbyists in our field
>> >
>> >I would speculate (because I don't really know) that these three
>> >constituents are the ones that really work out the details of our 
>> >policy which then get sifted through various political processes,
>> including 
>> >the impact of public opinion (and, paranthetically, to what extent 
>does
>> the NLA list serve as a viable source of information on equal level, 
>say,
>> with #'s 1,2,&3?  Perhaps part of the nearer term reform is that it 
>might
>> do so.  The NLA is not just 
>> >a table, David, but a force in its own right as an excellent cross 
>> >section of the temper of our times.  I would argue that it needs to 
>be
>> the 
>> >Fourth Estate of our field).
>> >
>> >If #'s 1,2, &3 are the real policy formulators (and if not, please
>> illuminate), then the emphasis on "objective," "standardize," 
>"uniform"
>> criteria within any given state, an important part of the NRS, is
>> understandable.  Going back to John's point, are these criteria
>> --developed by the "experts" -- what congress "really" cares about 
>or did
>> these accountability criteria become part of the law because the 
>policy
>> formulators (#1,2,& 3 above) identified them as essential to meet 
>the
>> need of "accountability" based on the "self-evident" assumption of 
>the
>> quantitative metaphor?
>> >
>> >The issue, in part is epistemology (how we know) or the world view 
>that
>> >shapes policy thinking in juxtaposition to what our best research 
>is
>> telling us about adult literacy education.  There is, I contend, a
>> profound epistemological chasm between the policy assumptions that 
>went
>> into the WIA, particularly in assessment and that which gives shape 
>to
>> what Juliet Merrifield has referred to as "The New Literacy Studies" 
>that
>> she links with the concept of "literacy practices." (Perhaps someone 
>else
>> can discuss this.  I want to stay focused on policy).  In Contested 
>> >Ground: Performance Accountability in Adult Basic Education (p. 32)
>> Juliet Merrifield states the following:
>> 
>> >"..while the theories of New Literacy Studies are being applied in
>> teaching, they have had much less currency at the level of 
>educational
>> systems and policies--institutions, funding, accountability."
>> >
>> >Ths is at the heart of the schitzoid world out of what we operate 
>and
>> >unless we shape our policy and assesment framework on the primary
>> >assumptions of the New Literacy Studies, then we will continue to 
>> >operate in a bi-polar, schitzoid political/pedagogical climate.  In
>> part,
>> >therefore, the issue is political.  In part it is epistemological.  
>I
>> have spoken of the political many times on this list, so will skip 
>it it
>> >this time, but will likely bring it up again when Ron joins us.
>> >
>> >In a forthcoming essay I discuss the gap between educators and
>> >policymakers in the following way:
>> >
>> >"In part, this is due to the fragmentation of knowledge in  
>contemporary
>> >society where policymakers often draw on discourses grounded in
>> >quantification, behaviorism, and positivism, while particularly,
>> >humanistic scholars and ethnographers draw on narrative, history, 
>> >broad based social analysis, and contemporary social philosophy to 
>give 
>> >shape to their world view."  The New Literacy Studies is clearly 
>based
>> on 
>> >the latter, while that of much of the D.C perspective is based on 
>the
>> >former."
>> 
>> >Thus, there is an epistemological divide of great proprions wherein
>> >policy formulations are  powerfully reinforced by a  utilitarian
>> >costs-benefits analysis echoing the impersonalization and 
>abstraction
>> >that is at the core of the quantitative metaphor and The New 
>Literacy
>> >Studies [which] stems from the research paradigm of "thick 
>description."
>> >(Academics, let's hear from you about this!)
>> >
>> >Ron makes an excellent point that at least on first blush, sampling 
>at
>> >the statewide level does not provide the mechanism to evaluate the
>> >efficacy of individual programs.  However, such a sampling pool 
>> >*could* be organized within a state among such programs funded by
>> federal 
>> >money. I don't want to get bogged down in details on that one at 
>this
>> time, 
>> >but >let's also keep in mind another point made by John C. that:
>> >The results might not make us look very good, but if it was done 
>right
>> this approach would also identify ways to improve performance.  
>Funders,
>> in Juliet Merrifield's way of thinking, would then be responsible 
>for
>> providing the resources 
>> >needed to make those changes."
>> >
>> >That, however, would get us into such pesky areas as mutual
>> accountability, the public good, and the value of literacy. The main
>> argument here is that unless there is epistemological symmetry 
>between
>> the new literacy studies, literacy practice, and means of 
>accountability,
>> then the epistemological divide between theory, 
>> >practice, and policy runs rampant.
>> >
>> >The tail is still waging the dog and this is due to politics as 
>much 
>> >as to epistemology.
>> >
>> >George Demetrion
>> >LVA-Connecticut River East
>> >GDemetrion at juno.com
>> >
>> >___________________________________________________________________
>> >
>> >NLA Colleagues,
>> >
>> >I e-mailed Ron Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education 
>
>> >and
>> >Literacy in the Office of Vocational and Adult Education at the 
>U.S.
>> >Department
>> >of Education. I asked him about the question posed here by George
>> >Demetrion and
>> >John Comings, if the USDOE could consider an in-depth sample of 
>> >programs.
>> >I
>> >said:
>> >
>> >> I wonder if you have seen the recent discussion on the NLA list
>> >concerning
>> >> the WIA and the NRS.  In the NRS discussion the question has come 
>up
>> >about
>> >> whether or not USDOE would support the idea of an in-depth 
>> >evaluation
>> >of a
>> >> small (probably random stratified) sample of programs from which 
>we
>> >could
>> >> learn more about program performance and student outcomes.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder if you -- or someone else representing DOE -- might join 
>in
>> >the
>> >> NLA discussion on this.  Is an in-depth sampling evaluation a
>> >> possibility? Could this be done instead of the current plan to 
>> >collect
>> >> data from every program, or would it need to be in addition to 
>this
>> >plan?
>> >
>> >Ron replied (and gave permission to post his reply to the NLA list) 
>:
>> >
>> >> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:53:36 -0400
>> >> From: "Pugsley, Ronald" <Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov>
>> >> To: 'David J Rosen' <DJRosen at world.std.com>
>> >> Subject: RE: WIA and NRS Discussions
>> >>
>> >> HI DAVID,
>> >>
>> >> I have read the message posted by Jon concerning the use of an
>> >evaluation
>> >> model based upon a nationally representative sample.  Although an
>> >> interesting evaluation model, this approach is not sufficient to 
>> >meet
>> >the
>> >> accountability requirements of the Adult Education and Family 
>> >Literacy
>> >Act.
>> >> Specifically, Section 231 (e)(2) requires the States to consider 
>the
>> >success
>> >> of all eligible providers seeking funding under the Act in 
>meeting 
>> >or
>> >> exceeding the performance measures adopted by the state.  In 
>other
>> >words,
>> >> each local provider is to be held accountable to the performance
>> >measures.
>> >> Information gained from a national or state sample cannot be 
>> >attributed
>> >to
>> >> individual programs and therefore does allow each provider to be
>> >> individually held accountable.  Certainly, as we move forward 
>under 
>> >the
>> >new
>> >> law, the Department will be implementing a variety of evaluation
>> >activities
>> >> and the proposed model is one worth considering to measure the 
>> >broader
>> >> impact of the program.
>> >
>> >Finally, I am pleased to  let you know that Ron accepted an 
>invitation 
>> >to
>> >be a
>> >guest on the NLA list to discuss WIA and NRS questions and issues, 
>and
>> >this
>> >will most likely be in November.
>> >
>> >David J. Rosen
>> >NLA List Moderator
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >___________________________________________________________________
>> >Get the Internet just the way you want it.
>> >Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
>> >Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>> >
>> 
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>> Why pay more to get Web access?
>> Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
>> Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>

___________________________________________________________________
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.



From steve at alri.org  Wed Dec 22 09:21:48 1999
From: steve at alri.org (Steve Reuys)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:21:48 -0400
Subject: NLA Info: Office of Indian Education
Message-ID: <199912221441.JAA06771@europe.std.com>


Andy: 

At least as of a few years ago, there was an Office of Indian Education
within the U.S. Department of Education that funded adult education programs
for adults, both on and off reservations. (This funding was entirely separate
from the BIA, which is located in the Dept. of the Interior.) Ron Pugsley
doesn't mention this funding, so it may be that the Office of Indian Education
or its adult ed. funding stream no longer exists, but it would be worth
checking into.

--Steve Reuys,
Adult Literacy Resource Institute, Boston

Hartman, Andrew wrote:

> Ron:
>
> Someone asked me recently if there was WIA,title II funding available for
> Native Americans on reservations.  I know that in some of the k-12 programs
> there are set asides for this purpose.  Does DAEL fund programs on
> reservations?  If not, do you know if the BIA or some other agency has
> funding for this purpose?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Andy Hartman
> NIFL






From jwagner at postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu  Wed Dec 22 03:04:37 1999
From: jwagner at postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Judy Wagner)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:04:37 +0000
Subject: NLA Info: New publications from ERIC/ACVE
Message-ID: <199912221442.JAA06940@europe.std.com>


Happy Holidays!

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education has 
produced a few more publications. They have been sent to the ERICACVE 
listserv and are available on our website <http://ericacve.org>. If you 
would like to have an e-mail or paper copy, please send your request to 
<wagner.6 at osu.edu>.  Be sure to include your mailing address if you want 
paper copies. There is no charge for the publications.

ERIC Digest
Locating Vocational Education Materials (213)

Trends and Issues Alerts
The Mobile Worker in the Flexible Workplace (10)
Emotional Intelligence: Keeping Your Job (9)
Multiple Intelligences and Career Development (8)
Roles for Adult Educators (7)

Judy




Judy Wagner  /   wagner.6 at osu.edu  /  ericacve.org/
ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education
1900 Kenny Road  /  Columbus OH 43210-1090
614/292-8625; 800/848-4815 (ext 2-8625);  FAX: 614/292-1260
TTY/TDD: 614/688-8734









From DJRosen at world.std.com  Wed Dec 22 10:02:03 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (DJRosen at world.std.com)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:02:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Info: Crosspost from NIFL Workplace,Thursday Notes 12/23/1999
Message-ID: <199912221525.KAA17683@europe.std.com>

>From the Desk of Ronald S. Pugsley, Director, DAEL
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
Editor: Sarah Newcomb
Production: Rose Tilghman

December 23, 1999
___________________________________

MI's Governor Moves Adult Ed

Michigan Governor John Engler signed an Executive Order in October that will
transfer the Adult Education Program from the Michigan Department of
Education to a newly created Michigan Department of Career Development in
January. A new director of the program has not been named. The program
currently is moving to a different location. Contact numbers have not been
established at this time.

Homeless Get Jobs with Help

Homeless people told the Urban Institute their top priority was to get a
job--the first step to self--sufficiency-according to a landmark survey
released this month. The survey provides the most complete picture of
homeless in ten years. The report said that, when homeless people get
housing assistance and services such as education and job training, more
than three-fourths in families and 60 percent alone move to an improved
living situation upon completing an assistance program.  Contact
http://www.urbaninstitute.org

Schwab Offers LD Help in Spanish

The Schwab Foundation for Learning in San Mateo has a Spanish language
website to help Spanish speaking parents and teachers assist children
struggling with learning disabilities. Check it out at
http://www.schwablearning.org  And if you're enjoying some benefits of
successful investing this holiday season, you may be interested to know that
discount broker Charles Schwab has dyslexia. So does his son. Schwab
established his foundation in 1987 to provide information on learning
disabilities. Contact 1-800-230-0988.

Family Literacy Links to Employers

New strategies for developing business partnerships with family literacy
programs are available free on the Jobs for the Future (JFF's) web site at
http://www.jff.org  Go to JFF's new Work-Related Learning Guide for Family
Literacy and Adult Education Organizations. It documents winning strategies
from the National Center on Family Literacy's welfare reform efforts,
including the steps that Careers for Families (KY) uses to build a network
of business partnerships.
_______________________________________________________________________

Happy Holidays from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
_______________________________________________________________________

A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
Office of Vocational and Adult Education





From hsmith at coe.tamu.edu  Wed Dec 22 11:49:44 1999
From: hsmith at coe.tamu.edu (Harriet Vardiman Smith)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:49:44 -0600
Subject: NLA Summary: Part 2 of Q&A: WIA, AEFLA, and the NRS
Message-ID: <199912222022.PAA24152@europe.std.com>


Part 2 of Questions and Answers:
WIA, AEFLA, and the National Reporting System

The following questions were posted to the National 
Literacy Advocacy (NLA) listserv sponsored by the 
National Institute for Literacy. During December 1999, 
the answers were provided by Ron Pugsley, Director 
of the Division of Adult Education and Literacy in the 
U.S. Department of Education.
-----------------------------------------------------

Question:  
Can the six levels of performance be 
modified by states and can performance be measured 
on only one of the three areas, such as listening
and speaking for ESL?
Gloria Gillette

Answer:
Gloria, there are a couple of separate questions here.  
But they are related. First, for federal reporting purposes, 
States must use the six levels of performance on our 
report forms which reflect statutory requirements in WIA.  
As you know the functional level descriptors describe 
what a learner entering that level can do in the areas of 
reading and writing, numerically, speaking and listening 
and/or functional or workplace skills.  The local program 
need not assess the learner in all areas, but the assessment 
should be in the areas in which instruction will be focused.

Additional indicators that States want to include may be 
used at the States' option.  In fact, a number of States have 
requested--and we have included in the NRS--optional 
indicators States can use to report outcomes for family 
literacy and workplace literacy programs.  But the legislation 
clearly allows States to develop their own performance 
indicators beyond the statutory ones they must report to us.

One issue in your question may touch on is the extent to 
which project learners, who meet their objectives, may be 
counted.  Although these learners would no longer be 
included in federal reports, they could still be aggregated by 
States and used for State and local reporting.  Washington 
State is one State that has been fairly successful in devising 
a method for doing this and including that method in its 
State plan.  The contact persons would be 
mendoza at sbctc.ctc.edu or bkanes at sbctc.ctc.edu. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Question:
Does WIA "preclude" sampling?
David Rosen/George Demetrion

Answer:
It's true that WIA precludes sampling, but here's how.  
There is no specific statutory language in WIA's Title II that 
says "no sampling allowed."  There is, however, very specific 
language about what the performance measures must be, 
how each State's adjusted levels of performance will be 
expressed and how achievement on those levels must be 
compared to those of other States.  In order to comply with 
the latter statutory language, sampling is unlikely to produce 
comparable data among States on the performance indicators 
based on specific learning outcomes of individual students in 
the various educational functioning levels. 

Regarding the core outcome measures for employment and 
employment-related activities, data match procedures would 
be far less costly and cumbersome than sampling.  There is 
the further issue that sampling may not provide an accurate 
basis for paying performance awards to States that exceed 
their performance targets for Title I, Title II and vocational 
education.

------------------------------------------------------------

Question:
Further comment on this question from section 1: 
Is this true or is it possible that other measures [than 
standardized tests] could be used, such as portfolio 
documentation that demonstrates level gain according to 
specific statewide criteria? 
Gretchen Bitterlin, ESL Coordinator
Continuing Education Centers
San Diego Community College District

Answer:
You raise a good question about the use of standardized tests.  
What Sec. 212 of WIA requires is that the state's 
performance levels on the statutory core indicators be 
"expressed in an objective, quantifiable and measurable form."
And those core indicators must reflect "demonstrated 
improvements" in certain skills.  Now the quickest way to get 
to that is by using standardized tests, although I don't think that 
anyone is very happy with the state of the art in standardized 
tests for adult education.  That is not to say that other measures 
that could reach these objectives, such as portfolio assessment 
against statewide criteria which included the WIA core 
indicators could not be used.  But it would be more difficult for 
the state to standardize this process.  Colorado has a very 
good portfolio assessment system that you might look into, 
although the extent to which it can accommodate the WIA 
core indicators is not clear.  The contact person would be 
Pam Smith or Mary Willoughby at 303/866-6638

While the selection of standardized tests for adult basic and 
English as a second language programs is not ideal in any 
sense of the word, it will as [David Rosen] point[ed] out, 
take a significant investment of time and effort to improve the
situation.  What the role of the federal Department is in this 
sort of policy question has been vigorously debated, but the 
most effective one at the moment appears to be to provide 
a catalyst for discussion in this area rather than to identify and 
fund the development of a government test.  As you note, the 
improvement of adult education tests is a long-term project 
and we will have to use what is available to support the NRS 
for the time being.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Question:
One question I would like to have Ron address is how 
Federal ABE funds are distributed. Many people don't realize 
that there is an established formula. Perhaps Ron could speak 
to it. Also there is a state-by-state list of funds. How can 
someone access it? And lastly, how much discretion do 
states have when they distribute federal funds within a state? 
J. Cretella

Answer:
The Federal Adult education funds are allocated to the states 
and outlying areas through a formula based on certain 
population factors.  First, each state is given a base amount 
of $250,000.  All outlying areas receive a base of $100,000.  
The remainder of the allocation is based on the relative number 
of qualifying adult in each state or outlying area to the total 
number of such qualifying adults in all states and outlying areas.  
A "qualifying adult" is defined as a person who is at least 16 
years of age, but less than 61: who is beyond the age of 
compulsory school attendance of the state or outlying area; 
does not have a secondary school diploma or its recognized 
equivalent; and is not enrolled in secondary school  (Note:  
The 16 to 61 age range used in this formula has nothing to do 
with who may be served in programs.  Persons over 61 may 
be provided  services.)  The number of "qualifying adults" is 
based on Census data and is updated at the time of the Census 
(every ten years).  Although the next Census will take place in 
2000, we do not expect the new population counts to be 
available until at least 2002.

The legislative language describing the allotment of funds to 
states, including additional provisions concerning the Outlying 
areas can be found in Section 211 (c-g) of the Adult 
Education and Family Literacy Act. 

Each year the Office of Vocational and Adult Education 
prepares an allocation schedule containing level of adult 
education state grant funds that each State and Outlying 
Area will receive.  This information is placed on the 
Division of Adult Education and Literacy Web-site and may 
be accessed at  WWW.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/allots.html.

It is very difficult to answer your question about how much 
discretion states have to distribute federal funds.  It is really 
based on an individual point of view.  Let me describe some 
of the conditions under which States distributed federal funds 
and you can decide how much discretion there is.

First, the federal statute establishes the purposes of the 
program and generally describes how the funds may be 
used (allowable costs).  At the general policy level, states 
must spend money to support adult education and literacy 
services, including workplace literacy, family literacy 
services, and English Literacy services.  Of the funds 
allocated to a State, up to 5% may be spend for state 
level administration, up to 12% may be spent for state 
leadership activities, and 82.5% shall be used to award 
grants and contracts to local providers.  Of the funds 
allocated to local programs, some funds must be spent to 
provide programs for corrections education and other 
institutionalized adults but not more than 10% of the funds 
made available to local programs.  The state must fund 
multi-year grants or contracts, on a competitive basis, 
to eligible providers as defined in AEFLA.  The state 
must consider a set of 12 considerations (defined in
Section 231(e) of AEFLA) in awarding local grants or 
contracts.  States may add other criteria as well to the 
competitive funding process.  These are some of the 
conditions under which funds are distributed.   
 
--------------------------------------------------------

Question:
Along the same lines as assessment and funding - what 
about learners who aren't working and don't have "attaining 
employment" as one of their goals? I'm thinking of students 
who are elderly, or who receive disability benefits, or who 
are homemakers. Will the fact that their goals do not fit into 
DOE funding goal frameworks adversely affect a program's 
funding?
Erica Walch, Instructor
Read-Write-Now Adult Learning Center
Springfield, MA

Answer:
You'll be pleased to know that next year we'll be counting for 
employment purposes only those who actually had as a goal 
getting a job or obtaining job advancement.   Concerning the 
impact on funding of enrolling learners who do not have 
employment as a goal from the federal perspective, there is no 
impact.  Federal funds flow on a formula basis to eligible 
persons that do not take their learning goals--or even if they 
are interested in learning--into account.  The formula only 
counts the number of persons who could legally be eligible 
for services in each state.  The legislation does not tie federal 
funding to learner goals or even to the extent to which states 
achieve their predicted performance levels, except that 
financial incentives are provided to states that exceed their 
negotiated performance levels for WIA Title I, Title II and 
vocation education programs.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Question:
Someone asked me recently if there was WIA, title II funding 
available for Native Americans on reservations.  I know that in 
some of the k-12 programs there are set-asides for this 
purpose.  Does DAEL fund programs on reservations?  If not, 
do you know if the BIA or some other agency has funding for 
this purpose?
Andy Hartman
National Institute for Literacy

Answer:
Andy, there are a couple of questions here, so let me take 
them in order. There is no specific WIA Title II funding 
targeted to or set aside for Indians living on reservations.  
However, as with the Adult Education Act, it is possible for 
local tribal education agencies, community colleges, 
community-based organizations of demonstrated effectiveness 
to compete for adult education funds like other agencies and 
organizations in the States under Title 2.  My understanding is 
that the Bureau of Indian Affairs no longer has funds for adult 
education.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Question [somewhat abbreviated]:
Tom Sticht has ? raised some important issues ? as well as 
Catherine King on the relationship between federal policy and 
democracy.  There's a lot more that could be said, but the 
obsession with counting--"objective, measurable, quantitative,
"at least goes to a significant core to where my critique is at.  
"Secondary measures" are fine, I suppose, but if they are not 
what "really" counts, I don't know why hard pressed programs 
are going to spend quality time documenting them, too, in 
addition to documenting what "really" counts.

As I have understood it, EFF all along was designed to link 
pedagogy with policy wherein the standards (the generative 
skills) would be the mechanism of assessment through its 
performance indicators?These, however, do not easily break 
down into "objective, measurable, quantitative," so they're off 
the table, at least as far as primary indicators.  Without the 
clout of a legitimizing assessment system, where does that 
place the policy objectives of EFF? 

On the sampling issue--not that I have any final answer here, 
but at least (even from your comments) there seems to be 
room for interpretation, if not  negotiation.  Think of what the 
alternative is, attempting to obtain data information, pre and 
post of whatever, on every student, an impossible standard, 
particularly for decentralized volunteer tutoring programs, and 
a dubious task in any event,-- all  just because a certain 
interpretation of the law says that that is what's "really" 
needed for the enforcement of policy mandates. 

If there are some real problems here with the WIA and 
particularly with the NRS, why not put a moratorium on the 
data collection process for a year so that we can put together 
some of our top practitioners, researchers, policy folks, and 
reps from VALUE to take a good hard look so we might 
come up with some other alternatives, including sampling.  
George Demetrion
LVA-Connecticut River East

Answer:
George, thank you for the fine summary.  The issues you 
raised are requirements of the Workforce Investment Act, 
including what to measure, when it must be reported 
(annually), how the Department must report it to Congress.  
Because the Act requires core indicators that are not 
EFF's standards, EFF's standards are in the category of 
additional, useful measures a State may choose but which 
are not mandated by law.  No one can declare a 
moratorium on data collection under WIA because it is a 
statutory mandate.  We all will have to work on improving 
it as we go along.  WIA is the work of Congress, not the 
Department of Education.  To keep things simple, the 
Department even chose not to regulate on the new Act - 
for the first time since adult education programs have been 
authorized in federal education law.  As for expressing the 
"debate on policy needs in the public airwaves," I do hope 
my earlier offer of webcast/satellite dialogues this winter will 
help get more people involved in the process.  I look 
forward to keeping in touch with all of you on these issues 
as we move forward.

Ron Pugsley, Director 
Division of Adult Education and Literacy
U.S. Department of Education.
----------------------------------------------------------

Harriet Vardiman Smith
Materials/Research Coordinator
Texas Adult Literacy Clearinghouse
800-441-READ
409-862-6519
website:  http://www.cdlr.tamu.edu/tcall/





From Jaleh_Behroozi at nifl.gov  Wed Dec 22 11:59:39 1999
From: Jaleh_Behroozi at nifl.gov (Behroozi, Jaleh)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:59:39 -0500
Subject: NLA Info: What's New On LINCS
Message-ID: <199912222047.PAA28490@europe.std.com>

What's New On LINCS -- http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/whats_new/whats_new.html
<http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/whats_new/whats_new.html> 

                  December 20,1999


NIFL's Reading Excellence Act (REA) (pdf file)
<http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/REA/reading_act.pdf>  
Technical Assistance for Research-based Practices in Adult Literacy
Announcement is now available online. For more information,  click on the
documents below:
 

Technical Assistance for Research-based Practices in Adult Literacy,
National Reading Excellence Initiative, 

	Cover Letter  
	<http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/collections/policy/letter.html>  

	Statement of Work  
	<http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/collections/policy/sow.html> 

	Program Plan 
	<http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/collections/policy/plan.html> 


What's New at the Regional LINCS Web sites: 

     Eastern LINCS <http://easternlincs.worlded.org/lincs/> 

     	Connections: Taking Risks
	<http://easternlincs.worlded.org/teachers/Connections/index.htm>
	Published by the Adult Literacy Resource Institute/SABES Greater
	Boston Regional Support Center, a series of articles (in PDF
	format) detailing teachers' classroom experiences with changing
	content, method of instruction, or environment. 

        Virtual Visit to Lowell Mills:
	<http://easternlincs.worlded.org/teachers/webpub/lowell/home.htm>  
	A minigrant project developed by Wendy Quinones of the Adult
	Learning Center, North Shore Community College. Her GED class
	photographed and wrote about their visit to a mill museum.
	Included are related lessons and activities. 

        Workplace Interviews/ESOL: ESOL
	<http://easternlincs.worlded.org/teachers/webpub/hackensack/
	careersrequiri/careers.htm>  
	learners interviewed people in various careers. Includes
	additional notes to students and teachers. Created by Kerren
	Vallone, Bergen County Technical Schools of Hackensack, NJ. 

   Southern LINCS <http://hub2.coe.utk.edu/> 

        Visit the new Workforce Education Learning Activities Bank
	<http://www.sagrelto.com/hcat2/hmundx.htm> 
        (LAB). As a collaborative effort between the Virginia
	Adult Education & Literacy Centers, the Southern LINCS
        Consortium and GTE, this new site is an excellent web-based
        resource for workforce education. 

        Browse NC LRC's Online Resource Catalog.
	<http://www.sagrelto.com/hcat2/hmundx.htm>  This growing
        collection of over 800 professional resources emphasizes staff
        development, resource development, and program management.
	Resources are available on loan to literacy programs and
	personnel. 

 Midwest LINCS <http://archon.educ.kent.edu/Midwest/index.html> 

        The Family Literacy Special Collection
	<http://archon.educ.kent.edu/Midwest/FamilyLit/links.html> 
	: Links & Directories page has been updated with new and updated
	links to many resources. 

        The What's Cool page has been updated with a new link to
        Minnesota's The "Hire Me Guide.
	<http://www.abeonline.net/hireme/index.htm>  
	This is a wonderful new resource so please check it out! 

        The Facts & Statistics
	<http://archon.educ.kent.edu/Midwest/facts_stats.html>  
	page has been added. This page has links to various sites for
	facts and statistics and also links to a page that lists facts 
	and statistics by Midwest LINCS state partners. 

     Western/Pacific LINCS <http://literacynet.org/lincs/>  

        "Oregon Weather"
	<http://literacynet.org/orweather/home.html>  
	Lessons up! Developed for adult learners in basic skills
	development programs, the site also includes instructor notes,
	weather links, and hints on adapting the lessons regionally. 

        The new issue of "Literally Literacy"
	<http://literacynet.org/ll/home.html>  is now up with articles on
        literacy trends, correctional education and excerpts from a
        collection of writings by adult learners. 

        Two new publications from the Northwest Regional Literacy
        Resource Center (NWRLRC) are available online (pdf formats): the
	latest Regional Resource Roundup Fall 19
	<http://literacynet.org/nwrlrc/roundup/winter99/home2.html> 99 and
        the Resource Library 1999/2000 Catalog Supplement.
	<http://literacynet.org/nwrlrc/supplement.pdf> 



Jaleh Behroozi Soroui
LINCS Director
National Institute for Literacy
1775 I Street,  Suite 730
Washington, DC.  20006
Phone 202/233-2039
FAX     202/233-2050





From cbking2 at flash.net  Wed Dec 22 14:34:56 1999
From: cbking2 at flash.net (cbking2)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:34:56 -0600
Subject: NLA discussion: Ringing Freedom in a Dumb Bell
Message-ID: <199912222057.PAA00636@europe.std.com>


Hello to all:

Tom Sticht is so right to call for a theory, or THE theory, of adult
education that underpin's, or SHOULD underpin, Congressional law and policy
applications.  Instead (and as George Demetrion has suggested by way of his
cogent questions), there is a pervasive smell of albeit powerful, but still
knee-jerk reaction hovering around this legislation.  If this is true, is it
based in (1) contempt for the poor and undereducated, (2) greed, rather than
good theory, (3) an undertow change of what democratic government means, and
(4) a not-so-subtle relegation of a good education to the rich and a JOB for
the poor.

There is neither a humble regard for the responsibility of power, OR even an
overt hat-tip to our Constitutional mandate and OBLIGATION to provide
education--the key to even a vague idea of what "freedom" or "democracy"
means.

Regarding theory: a good theory, and good accounting practices, will take
into account what every teacher knows about students--the "data" of
education:  First, that in education the individual person, and their own
individual history and insights, are what count; (2) that openness and
creativity in one's life is IN PRINCIPLE unquantifiable in its particular
manifestation, and unpredictable in its development and operations; and (3)
that there is some sense that this individuality and unpredictability
cannot--IN PRINCIPLE--be accounted for but must be considered an "open area"
of (I hesitate to use this word, but it applies here) faith on the part of
policy makers that the long-term, "remote"  education is happening in most
people who partake of our programs.  It's the difference between a closed
system and an open one.  A "closed education" is a contradiction in terms.

The power and flashpoint of all education, then, rests at the crossroads
where the teacher and the student intersect.  The teacher mediates the
general into the particularity of our students.  This is why the teacher is
often so confounded by what seems like, and often is, the absurdity of
quantification, accountability, and its methods.  Nothing ever really fits.

And this is where our theories, and our thinking, has been so short-sighted
and resistant to change, and to the realities of the educational experience.
We want the individual, creative consciousness to fit the theory, and not
the other way around.  But to do that is to inadvertently (try to) destroy
the individual, the creativity, the insights, and to change people and our
education from what it IS into a paradigm based on either natural or
statistical sciences.  In this way, conscious people "should" respond to
testing like trees, planets, rocks and water, rather than the higher level
order that human beings are. Trust me, we don't really want that.

A good theory must account for and use creatively what is true and
applicable about natural and statistical sciences; however, to reduce human
beings to merely these "outcome" and "numerical" type theories and methods
is to dehumanize us, not to mention the theoretician.  These theories do not
fit the data of human experience, and teachers above all know it.

This is nothing new--Charlie Chaplin had it right in his portrayal of the
misfit.

But, for all of Tom Sticht's intelligent analysis--and there is no doubt
about either his good intention or his intelligence--it seems he is still
trying to fit a round peg in the proverbial square hole.  'Tis folly.  And
Ron Pugsley's "The law is the law" has another more recent ominous "ring" to
it.   It doesn't match the power of his position, or the hope implicit for
all of us in the "Department of Education" having an educated head.  I can
understand his being busy, but if he really means that, it's an ironic, and
very clear, mark of the failure of Education itself.  Are we merely being
indulged here?

But if anyone is being indulged, it is Mr. Pugsley by George Demetrion.  If
HE (R. Pugsley) has to be told about the power and responsibility of
questioning in a lawful democracy, we are in big trouble.  And if the past
holds any teaching for us, both of these movements of thought--"that's just
the law" and the "people as round pegs" idea--have bigger, and numerically
more, implications than we can imagine.

But any theory, even an inadequate one, may seem better than no theory to
some; and we are teetering  between theoretical anarchy and a kind of
bureaucratic totalitarianism in our methods at this point.  So I think a
moratorium is a good idea.

If I may bring up an old notion of "soft" and "hard" science regarding goals
and methods, the EFF and the sampling idea, though by no means complete, DO
head us in the right direction, if I read them rightly.  They implicitly
relocate the power of decision-making with the teacher in the classroom
WHERE IT BELONGS, and leave the bureaucrats peeping through the hole, as it
were.  "Hard" science pertains to the relatively static and predictable laws
governing the natural world.  Statistical science accounts for numerical
ocurrences and events and rightly focuses on a kind of intelligible
standardization.

But "soft" refers to human beings PRECISELY because there is an openness and
unpredictability, a freedom, and a hope for qualitative change in us which
institutionalized education seeks to set the stage for.

This is the theoretical point:  That in education, "soft" is the right
paradigm, rather than "hard."  An explication of what that means is where a
theory of education needs to begin.  We have been working theoretically
under what the natural sciences have given us, and it doesn't fit the data.
Any scientist worth his/her sald will tell you this is wrong-headed.  Pay
attention to the data, and the right theory will emerge.

Also, the "career" of adults is extremely important, but only as a valid
subset of what a more comprehensive idea of education means.  A collapse of
the principles of education into merely a "career" orientation reeks of
washing one's hands of the responsibility and definition of educators, it
makes teachers into job counsellors, and at the level of government is a
great loss of consciousness on the part of those that still are benefiting
from the concrete ideals of a developed democracy.   We are witnessing a
clear picture of "the snake eating its tail" coming into reality.  Who isn't
educated here?  And if everyone has a job and a television, does that mean
we're done?

Merry Christmas to all,

Catherine King

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nla-approval at world.std.com [mailto:nla-approval at world.std.com]On
> Behalf Of Pugsley, Ronald
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 2:32 PM
> To: nla at world.std.com
> Subject: NLA Discussion: Testing and Assessment Questions
>
>
>
> I want thank Tom Sticht for his responses to these questions on
> standardized
> tests and just as a footnote add a few points.  While the selection of
> standardized tests for adult basic and English as a second
> language programs
> is not ideal in any sense of the word, it will as you (David Rosen) point
> out, take a significant investment of time and effort to improve the
> situation.  What the role of the federal Department is in this sort of
> policy question has been vigorously debated, but the most effective one at
> the moment appears to be to provide a catalyst for discussion in this area
> rather than to identify and fund the development of a government test.  As
> you note, the improvement of adult education tests is a long-term project
> and we will have to use what is available to support the NRS for the time
> being.
>
> Ron Pugsley
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Thomas Sticht
> > Sent:	Friday, December 10, 1999 12:37 PM
> > To:	DJRosen at world.std.com
> > Subject:	NLA Discussion: Testing and Assessment Questions
> >
> >
> > David: You have asked Ron Pugsley and me for some responses to  a set of
> > questions based on an appendix to  my  "Testing and Accountability in
> > Adult Literacy Education" paper posted at
> >
> > http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/sticht/testing/page88.htm
> >
> > I have listed my responses to your questions below.
> >
> > Q1.  Tom, is this the most up-to-date independent, comprehensive review
> > of standardized assessments for adult literacy/basic education/ESOL ?
> >
> > Answer: There may be others but it is the only one I know about David.
> > Note that it leaves out the Tests of Applied Skills (TALS), which is the
> > commercial version of the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), Work
> > Keys, the Adult Measure of Essential Skills (AMES), and the PhonePass
> > computer based English language assessment. Interestingly, the National
> > Reporting System includes the AMES but not the TALS in its list of
> > examples of tests that might be used for accountability purposes. This
> > is sort of strange because it is the TALS (actually the government's
> > version, NALS), which is used to identify the scale of need for adult
> > literacy education, but is not included as one of the measures for
> > determining if the need is being met in ESL/ABE/ASE  programs. The field
> > could use a more up to date and inclusive review. In my new workshop I
> > am developing for 2000 I will review these other tests, but I have not
> > written anything up about them yet.
> >
> > Q2.  Tom and Ron, Gregg wrote that there are hundreds of standardized
> > tests, but only a few developed for ABE and ESL. Do you think that as a
> > field we have a full range of high quality standardized instruments, or
> > does more work need to be done in this area?  Do we have a good set of
> > tools to answer the questions Congress has posed with the WIA/AEFLA , or
> > not yet?
> >
> > Answer: In my judgment the testing of adult literacy is in a state of
> > confusion. For instance, on page 19 of the NRS Draft Guidelines for July
> > 1999, after listing examples of tests that might be used for placement
> > of students into the six levels of the NRS, the report states: Quote:
> > "These benchmarks are provided only as examples of how students
> > functioning at each level would perform on the tests. Their inclusion in
> > no way is meant to imply that the tests are equivalent or that they
> > should be used as the basis for assessment. In addition, the tests do
> > not necessarily measure the same skills."End quote.
> >
> > But if the tests are not equivalent (in some sense) or they do not
> > measure the same skills, then what do they measure and how can they all
> > be used interchangeably for placement and assessment for advancement?
> > How does that allow for comparisons across programs that use different
> > tests?
> >
> > Q 3.  Tom and Ron, as I read these reviews, I am not greatly impressed
> > with the quality of some of these tests.  Some  have published data on
> > their validity; some don't.  Some include reliability data; some don't.
> > Few appear to me to meet the standards of reliability and validity we
> > have come to expect of tests used in K-12.  Would you agree, or not?
> > Just because a test is widely used does not, in my view, make it valid
> > and reliable, only popular.
> >
> > Answer: In a paper entitled Assessing Adult Literacy by Telephone,
> > published in the Journal of Literacy Research in 1996, colleagues and I
> > discussed issues of validity in regard to the NALS and made the point
> > that it is not clear what the NALS measures (a point I posted earlier on
> > the NLA list serv). This is a point that Dick Venezky has also made. To
> > the extent that we do not know what a test measures, it is not known if
> > it is a valid measure. In the absence of a theory of literacy, it is not
> > possible to develop valid measures of literacy.
> >
> > As  indicated above, the NRS report implies that while the CASAS, TABE,
> > ABLE and AMES all purport to measure something,  just what is being
> > measured is unknown. One aspect of validity is that a test is supposed
> > to measure only what it is supposed to measure and nothing else. That is
> > one of the reasons "standardized procedures" are called for, so that if
> > all other conditions are held constant, the only thing left to be
> > contributing to variation in test performance is the "stuff" that is
> > supposed to be being measured. Presently, the field of adult literacy
> > education is without a generally agreed to theory of literacy and an
> > array of tests that measure the constructs of such a theory.
> >
> > Q4.  Finally, if either of you think we do need to develop new valid and
> > reliable assessments, including tests and performance-based instruments,
> > how will this happen?  Where will the funds come from to support these
> > efforts which, as I understand it, usually take years of precise work by
> > trained psychometricians?
> >
> > Answer: The federal government is presently spending millions of dollars
> > developing the new National Adult Assessment of Literacy Survey (NAALS)
> > and the International Life Skills Survey. If there is a theory of adult
> > literacy behind these developments, then a considerable effort is needed
> > to tell the field about it. I have given numerous workshops over the
> > last two years with hundreds of teachers and administrators and almost
> > none (less than 10 percent)  of the participants has ever even seen a
> > NALS item or read anything about the test (you can view such items in my
> > paper with Bill Armstrong on Adult Literacy in the United States posted
> > on www.nald.ca under Full Test Documents). In my judgment, both
> > government and  commercial test developers  need to pursue this effort
> > of developing and disseminating a validated theory of adult literacy if
> > standardized testing is to be improved.
> >
> > A second approach to measuring adult's progress in adult literacy
> > education might be developed, I think, that makes it possible to place
> > aspects of whatever learning takes place in a class or tutoring session
> > onto a scale of measurement. This is something I am thinking about now,
> > and is based on the idea expressed by S. S. Stevens some 50 years ago in
> > the Handbook of Experimental Psychology that measurement is the
> > assignment of numerals to objects or events according to rules. With
> > computer databases of gigantic sizes now possible, it may be possible to
> > create a sort of "peoples assessment center" where the outcomes of
> > adults learning (e.g., new vocabulary) are assigned numerals according
> > to a set of rules that define one or more scales of measurement. I have
> > not given this a lot of thought, but I think the main idea is that a
> > different way of measuring adult's knowledge and learning may be
> > developed that has as much theoretical and psychometric rigor as present
> > standardized tests but which make possible a test-free, bottom-up
> > scaling of learning. I have to think about this a little more.
> >
> > Thanks for your good questions, David.
> >
> > Tom Sticht
>
>




From sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net  Wed Dec 22 13:27:43 1999
From: sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net (Sioux Falls Literacy Council)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:27:43 -0600
Subject: NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
Message-ID: <199912222110.QAA02717@europe.std.com>

George et all NLA subscribers:

George, you wrote:  "If there are some real problems here with the WIA
and particularly with the NRS, why not put a moratorium on the data
collection process for a year so that we can put together some of our
top practitioners, researchers, policy folks, and reps from VALUE to
take a good hard look so we might come up with some other alternatives,
including sampling." 

I'd like to add my comment to this part of your e-mail.  YES sir!  I
favor the suggested moratorium.  I agree.  We do need a 'good hard look'
before a frustrating record-keeping system is in place without
consideration for the Level 1 Literacy Student.  It's apparent to me
there are far too many questions to forge forward without gathering
input from all of the above ... including ... not exCLUDing ... learners
from VALUE.

You also wrote:  "There's a lot more that could be said, but the
obsession with counting--'objective, measurable, quantitative,' at least
goes to a significant core to where my critique is at.  'Secondary
measures' are fine, I suppose, but if they are not what 'really' counts,
I don't know why hard pressed programs are going to spend quality time
documenting them, too, in addition to documenting what 'really' counts."

Just a brief comment about the above:  As the director of one of those
'hard pressed programs' that is under-staffed, I will *have* to give up
program development and instructional time for the documentation you
wrote about.  And it's not even clear what is 'objective, measurable,
quantitative' for literacy students!  So what's the worth of doing it?

In an earlier response to a question raised by Archie Willard, Ron
Pugsley said the responsibility to count data was going to be that of
the state Dept. of Ed's... yet he cautioned it shouldn't take away from
instructional time. How do we do THAT?

By the way, I don't feel as though Ron Pugsley really *answered*
Archie's questions ... when I read the answers, it felt as though they
were more a "politically correct" thing to say to a concerned adult
learner leader rather than hard-core answers ... Archie raised some very
valid concerns.

It doesn't sound as though there will be any federal requirements of the
state Dept. of Ed.'s to make sure the literacy student will receive
services either ... starting with addressing the need for using
assessment tools that would accurately record data and then, in doing
the documentation, meet the needs of the literacy level adult learner. 

I am concerned that we move cautiously.  Is it clear to the folks from
the federal gov't just exactly what the needs of the literacy student
are?  That's what we should be 'quantatively' documenting.  Before we
add requiring an assessment/test be done at entry, we need to give the
literacy student the chance to experience the reading program in a
non-threatening manner FIRST, I believe.  Throw a Comprehensive Test out
on the desk in front of the learner when they couldn't read the *street
signs* on the way to the Center and they'll run as fast as they can out
the door.  "Failure again!  I'm too stupid," they'll be muttering as
they dash away. 

Is that what we are all about?  And all for the sake of "counting"! I
hope *our* little program in Sioux Falls isn't!  At least I *strive* not
to be!  I favor a moratorium on the data collection process for a year
as you suggested.

Nancy Hansen
sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net
Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council
Sioux Falls, SD

Footnote:  Do you know what *one* very important thing I've learned
about working with adult literacy students?  It's to speak/write more
concisely and with less 'high-falutin' vocabulary' (as one of our
students called it).  How can we each 'break it down' so learners can
understand all this?  It truly *is* "where the rubber hits the road" for
all of us!



From Wil_Hawk at nifl.gov  Wed Dec 22 15:29:29 1999
From: Wil_Hawk at nifl.gov (Hawk, Wil)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 15:29:29 -0500
Subject: NLA Info: National Literacy Summit, February 14-15, 2000
Message-ID: <199912222132.QAA07673@europe.std.com>


What is the National Literacy Summit?

The National Literacy Summit will convene leaders from the adult education
and literacy field for a two-day intensive meeting and planning session at
which they will agree upon a vision for adult and family literacy in the
21st century and steps to achieve it. They will be joined by key
policymakers and business leaders with an interest in literacy. 
What is the goal of the National Literacy Summit?

The goal of the Summit is for the adult education and literacy field to
develop a realistic vision that can guide future planning and investments at
the state and local level. In addition to creating an ambitious yet
achievable vision, participants will agree on an action plan for achieving
it, and release this information on September 8, 2000. 

Who will attend the National Literacy Summit?

The Summit will be by invitation only. A steering committee of sponsoring
organizations is coordinating invitations. Regional follow-up meetings will
be held throughout 2000. 

How can I participate even if I am not invited to the Summit?

Summit participants will develop their vision and action plan for literacy
based upon a draft paper currently being authored by the Summit sponsors.
You can provide your input by reviewing the draft document and forwarding
your comments to the National Institute for Literacy. Click on the link
below to review the document and provide your input. 

A draft of the Summit document will soon be available at -- Literacy Skills
for 21st Century America: a Blueprint for Creating a More Literate America
<http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/policy/summit/blueprint.html>
 
How does the National Literacy Summit relate to other recent summits?

This Summit incorporates, includes some of the same participants, and builds
on ideas generated at the following summits: 

*	January 1999 - Vice President Gore's Summit on 21st Century Skills
	for 21st Century Jobs, Washington, DC 
*	April 1999 - Senator Paul Simon and First Lady Barbara Bush's
	Literacy Symposium, Carbondale, Illinois 
*	November 1999 - Rep. Tom Sawyer's Literacy 2000 Pre-Summit
	Conference, Midwest Meeting, Kent, Ohio

Who is sponsoring the National Literacy Summit?

The Summit is being planned by the following organizations: 
*	Lila-Wallace Reader's Digest Fund 
*	National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy 
*	National Coalition for Literacy 
*	National Council of State Directors of Adult Education 
*	National Institute for Literacy 
*	U.S. Department of Education's Office of Vocational and Adult
	Education

Additional key organizations that are promoting and working with this effort
are:
*	AFL-CIO 
*	American Council on Education 
*	National Association of Manufacturers 
*	National League of Cities 
*	U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
*	U.S. Department of Labor


Christy Gullion
Senior Policy Analyst
National Institute for Literacy
Phone:  202/233-2033
Fax:  202/233-2050
 



From RBickerton at doe.mass.edu  Wed Dec 22 17:08:47 1999
From: RBickerton at doe.mass.edu (Bickerton, Robert P)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:08:47 -0500
Subject: NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
Message-ID: <199912222322.SAA05794@europe.std.com>


George, et al:

I don't have the time right now to provide comprehensive 
answers to the many questions you pose, but I am very 
interested in having our "community" address and engage 
them -- I was also intimately involved in almost all the 
stages in the reauthorization of adult ed that led, ultimately 
to WIA, so I know that (over time) I can shed a great deal 
of light on these questions/issues.

One short part of "the answers" is that a moratorium will 
almost certainly not be an option -- for two reasons:

1.  These issues were negotiated with members of Congress 
and their staff over a four year period.  Some of you may 
recall the numerous postings I sent to our colleagues in the 
field (via this list and countless other venues) that raised 
these and many other issues.  Many advocated with Congress 
for the positions arrived at through painstaking negotiations 
among members of the National Coalition for Literacy -- 
unfortunately, the vast majority of our field did not.  
(I learned during this process that grassroots advocacy hits 
its highest volume when survival and/or funding is at stake, 
but not when the topic is "policy!")  After hundreds of hours 
of negotiation, I cannot imagine that the members of Congress 
who took the lead on the House and Senate committees that 
developed WIA would now support a moratorium in its 
implementation.  

2.  Such resistance can theoretically be overcome by a very 
widespread, aggressive and tenacious (over time) advocacy 
campaign -- a level of effort I do not believe our field is 
prepared to invest in this issue -- regardless of how important 
it may be to the "heart and soul" of our work.  If you believe 
otherwise, please don't endeavor to convince us with words -- 
do the organizing and get out the troops -- I'm willing to be 
proven wrong and if so, I'll help along the way.

I hope to have time to contribute more soon,
in the meantime -- enjoy the holidays and have a wonderful 
New Years,

bob bickerton, MA director of adult ed


-----Original Message-----
From: GEORGE E. DEMETRION [mailto:gdemetrion at juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 12:06 AM
To: nla at world.std.com
Subject: NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS


Ron:

Thanks for your response.  Lots of issues out there.  Agreed, the law is
what the law is.

Question:  what role (if any) did your office and/or the Clinton
administration have in establishing the WIA?  More broadly, why is ABE
and literacy tied to the Workforce Investment Act that symbolically
reduces literacy as an economic development tool, and whatever did happen
to the National Literacy Act and why?

The law is the law, but there is also a Congress that meets in January. 
The stipulations were created by human beings and they can be undone by
human beings.  Given the nature of the discussion we've had on how
problematic "quantifiable, measurable and objective" are in accurately
assessing adult literacy learning, is your office ready, willing and able
to go to Congress and ask for a moratorium so we can put a better
reporting system in place?  State Directors, agency heads, and policy
analysts, would you be willing to join Ron to ask Congress to legislate a
moratorium so we could put together a more coherent system grounded in
"mutual accountability?"  If so, there are not a few of us on this list
who would readily join you.

This issue of sampling has been raised in highly intelligent quarters and
deserves much more of a serious consideration than you have so far given
to it.  Such a focus would allow us to spend much more time on teaching
so that we could *begin* to create an adult literacy/ABE system worthy of
our collective passion, knowledge and experience.  We need govt to be an
active partner in this, not leading the pack, not issuing mandates, but
playing a creative role as partners in a much more dynamic democratic
process that that which currently characterizes our discourse and
"delivery" systems.

In all seriousness, I'm not convinced (or haven't seen any evidence of
it) that "Congress" (or is it the legislative aides, policy analysts and
think tanks?) has had sufficient information needed to put together
legislation that is coherent with our best practice and research.  The
100 + posts on this topic this fall, to say nothing of the reports,
monographs and research projects (both field based and academic)
provides that information.  Could you give us some feedback on the
theoretical premises that gave shape to the NRS, and whose baby was that,
by the way?  Who are the achitects of the NRS?  Perhaps we might hear
from them.

Where does the buck stop on the NRS?  Your office says it's Congress.  (I
wonder what "Congress" would say?  State directors might say, it's your
office.  Programs say, it's our state ABE agencies.  There's a certain
amorphousness about this policy that is not easy to pin down, and then,
who's responsible for the WIA in the first place?  Is it the religious
right?  Is it connected to Clinton's emphasis on the global economy, did
it come out of congressional energies, reform movements within
ABE/literacy?  Policy advocates?  Think tanks?

It's important for the sake of literacy to publically describe the
hisorical and political process on how the WIA and the NRS came to be,
even a thumb nail sketch.  It's important because responsibility for it
needs to be placed and possible sources for repeal, reforms, and avenues
to achieve any moratoriums particularly on the NRS need to be identified.

Finally, on the EFF. From the getgo, EFF developers have linked the most
daunting adult literacy/lifelong learning reform initiative to date to
policy as well as to pedagogy in the quest to fulfuill National
Educational Goal 6.  The standards are an essential piece of it not just
as a tool for teachers and students to tell how they're doing, but as
part of a broader mechanism to create a national consensus on "results
that matter."  This is the vision of EFF.  So because the "core
indicators are not EFF standards" (because, I presume, they are not
"quantifiable, objective, and measurable") they get relegated as
"secondary" measures.

Question:  Why wasn't (or was it?) EFF an integral part of the discussion
in the formation of the new legislation?  What happened here?  What role,
if any, was your office playing in efforts to support the EFF frame in
light of the emerging legislation?  What role were the EFF developers
playing with Congress and with your office during this time?  Then, for
the EFFers, if the standards are no longer a part of the "real picture"
of federal policy, then what does that mean for the framework?  What does
it mean for your quest for consenus building? (I've been critical of that
aspect of EFF, but that's besides the point).

Ron, these questions and those like them are quite important because
without this knowledge policy takes on a form of mystique as if it is
this omnipotent power or state of nature hovering over literacy land. 
The historical forces that interplayed in the development of literacy
policy in the 1990s is an important story that deserves a broad audience,
certainly knowledge that should be readily available to us on this list
with as little mystification and spin as possible.  While I do appreciate
the webcast/satellite dialogues that your office will provide, the need,
in my view, is for an independent source of literacy journalism which the
NLA potentially provides.  It is *this* forum and others like it that in
my view, the field needs, if it is going to exercise more of an
independent judgment and influence on the politics and pedagogy of
literacy.  

I can think of no better venue for that than the National Literacy
Advocacy.  

While I have been a critic of much federal policy on ABE/literacy, I
extend my personal thanks for your willingness to engage us.

George Demetrion
LVA-Connecticut River East
GDemetrion at juno.com


On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:13:06 -0500 "Pugsley, Ronald"
<Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov> writes:
>
>Response to Question from George Demetrion dated December 21
>
>George, thank you for the fine summary.  The issues you raised are
>requirements of the Workforce Investment Act, including what to 
>measure,
>when it must be reported (annually), how the Department must report it 
>to
>Congress.  Because the Act requires core indicators that are not EFF's
>standards, EFF's standards are in the category of additional, useful
>measures a State may choose but which are not mandated by law.  No one 
>can
>declare a moratorium on data collection under WIA because it is a 
>statutory
>mandate.  We all will have to work on improving it as we go along.  
>WIA is
>the work of Congress, not the Department of Education.  To keep things
>simple, the Department even chose not to regulate on the new Act-for 
>the
>first time since adult education programs have been authorized in 
>federal
>education law.  As for expressing the "debate on policy needs in the 
>public
>airwaves," I do hope my earlier offer of webcast/satellite dialogues 
>this
>winter will help get more people involved in the process.  I look 
>forward to
>keeping in touch with all of you on these issues as we move forward.
>
>Ron Pugsley
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	GEORGE E. DEMETRION 
>> Sent:	Tuesday, December 21, 1999 11:24 AM
>> To:	nla at world.std.com
>> Subject:	NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
>> 
>> 
>> Ron:
>> 
>> Thanks for taking on these questions.  I realize it may be a bit 
>much for
>> one person, but perhaps you have staff support in some of your 
>responses.
>> Instead of posting something new, let me pick an earlier message 
>from
>> the archives to which perhaps you will be able to respond.  This 
>goes
>> back to your original message in October when you agreed to answer
>> questions on the NLA.  There are many concerns to say the least as
>> indicated in the 8 or 9 questions I posted a couple weeks back.  I 
>think
>> also, Tom Sticht has also raised some important issues that have not 
>yet
>> been fully responded to as well as Catherine King on the 
>relationship
>> between federal policy and democracy.  There are other critical 
>questions
>> also that need to be answered, too.
>> 
>> There's a lot more that could be said, but the obsession with
>> counting--"objective, measurable, quantitative," at least goes to a
>> significant core to where my critique is at.  "Secondary measures" 
>are
>> fine, I suppose, but if they are not what "really" counts, I don't 
>know
>> why hard pressed programs are going to spend quality time 
>documenting
>> them, too, in addition to documenting what "really" counts.
>> 
>> Your joint letter with Andy Hartman was interesting. (I'm working 
>from
>> memory).  As I have understood it, EFF all along was designed to 
>link
>> pedagogy with policy wherein the standards (the generative skills) 
>would
>> be the mechanism of assessment through its performance indicators (I
>> understand there's new terminology now) and types of evidence.  
>These,
>> however, do not easily break down into "objective, measurable,
>> quantitative," so they're off the table, at least as far as primary
>> indicators.  Without the clout of a legitimizing assessment system, 
>where
>> does that place the policy objectives of EFF?  Not that I'm 
>disappointed
>> about that, as I've expressed elsewhere as I am not supportive of 
>any
>> hegemony of EFF even as I think there's a certain degree of validity 
>in
>> the framework.  But as a point of curiosity, it's interesting that 
>the
>> EFF developers have spent so much time establishing standards to be 
>told
>> they don't "really" count in the world of policy, but you can add 
>them to
>> your reporting system if you'd like.  
>> 
>> On the sampling issue--not that I have any final answer here, but at
>> least (even from your comments) there seems to be room for
>> interpretation, if not negotiation.  Think of what the alternative 
>is,
>> attempting to obtain data information (pre and post of whatever, on 
>every
>> student, an impossible standard, particularly for decentralized 
>volunteer
>> tutoring programs, and a dubious task in any event,-- all  just 
>because a
>> certain interpretation of the law says that that is what's "really"
>> needed for the enforcement of policy mandates.
>> 
>> To me, this is of dubious value that could have a lot of negative
>> consequences (folks have discussed this.  I don't need to do so 
>here).
>> 
>> If there are some real problems here with the WIA and particularly 
>with
>> the NRS, why not put a moratorium on the data collection process for 
>a
>> year so that we can put together some of our top practitioners,
>> researchers, policy folks, and reps from VALUE to take a good hard 
>look
>> so we might come up with some other alternatives, including 
>sampling. 
>> While you have previously, obtained feedback from the field, I would
>> venture to assume that the process of information gathering and 
>mutual
>> influence may not have been as open as it could have been.  If we 
>are
>> going to take any of our research and best practices seriously at 
>all,
>> then I think it imperative that the federal government listen to the
>> voices from the field in a much more substantial way than it has.
>> 
>> There have been a profusion of voices on the NLA this fall.  If such
>> discussion is to have any merit at all, then it must have an 
>influence on
>> where the rubber hits the road--in this case on the formation of a 
>viable
>> adult literacy/ABE federal policy grounded in our finest research 
>and
>> practices.  And the debate on policy needs to be expressed in the 
>public
>> airwaves and not made behind closed doors among the power elite in 
>the
>> corridors of Washington D.C.
>> 
>> George Demetrion
>> LVA-Connecticut River East
>> GDemetrion at juno.com
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:49:56 -0700 "GEORGE E. DEMETRION"
>> <gdemetrion at juno.com> writes:
>> >
>> >David:
>> >
>> >Good work on asking Ron Pugsley to clear up the matter as to 
>whether
>> >USDOE would support a sampling process at the state level to assess 
>
>> >the efficacy of adult ed/literacy in the state.
>> >
>> >Thanks Ron, for the direct answer.  It wasn't the answer many of us 
>
>> >were looking for, but your response was unequivocal and clear.
>> >
>> >This is a good starting point for a dialogue with your office and I 
>
>> >look forward to the  more formal opportunity to discuss these 
>issues
>> with 
>> >you in November.
>> >
>> >I'd like to make a few comments, here, though and I'll start with 
>John
>> >Comings' original assumption that:
>> >
>> >"Congress may want a lot less than we think.  Our field has 
>> >interpreted the  call for accountability to mean that we must 
>measure
>> increases in 
>> >skill and improvements in the lives of every adult student.  In 
>fact, I
>> believe 
>> >that Congress is asking a simple question: "What do we get for our 
>> >investment in ABE/ESL/GED programs?"
>> >
>> >Moving beyond the specifics of the WIA for the moment (which I 
>still
>> >can't download and therefore read), do you think John's point is 
>> >accuate? Specifically,
>> 
>> * Congress may want a lot less than we think and 
>> 
>> >*I believe that Congress is asking a simple question: "What do we 
>get 
>> >for our investment in ABE/ESL/GED programs?"
>> >
>> >Are these the "real" issues?, which may or may not be the case, but 
>if 
>> >we can have some discussion on this that would be useful.
>> >
>> >What I'm getting at (and I'm speculating) is that such policy
>> formulations
>> >reflective of the WIA do not stem so much from directly what
>> congressional
>> >members think and believe, but from the research base from which 
>they 
>> >draw that shape the detailed policy formulations--specifically, 
>from:
>> >
>> >1.  Congressional research aides (or whatever their title is) that 
>focus
>>  on such    issues as education
>> >2.  From the research think tanks
>> >3.  From the policy analysis and lobbyists in our field
>> >
>> >I would speculate (because I don't really know) that these three
>> >constituents are the ones that really work out the details of our 
>> >policy which then get sifted through various political processes,
>> including 
>> >the impact of public opinion (and, paranthetically, to what extent 
>does
>> the NLA list serve as a viable source of information on equal level, 
>say,
>> with #'s 1,2,&3?  Perhaps part of the nearer term reform is that it 
>might
>> do so.  The NLA is not just 
>> >a table, David, but a force in its own right as an excellent cross 
>> >section of the temper of our times.  I would argue that it needs to 
>be
>> the 
>> >Fourth Estate of our field).
>> >
>> >If #'s 1,2, &3 are the real policy formulators (and if not, please
>> illuminate), then the emphasis on "objective," "standardize," 
>"uniform"
>> criteria within any given state, an important part of the NRS, is
>> understandable.  Going back to John's point, are these criteria
>> --developed by the "experts" -- what congress "really" cares about 
>or did
>> these accountability criteria become part of the law because the 
>policy
>> formulators (#1,2,& 3 above) identified them as essential to meet 
>the
>> need of "accountability" based on the "self-evident" assumption of 
>the
>> quantitative metaphor?
>> >
>> >The issue, in part is epistemology (how we know) or the world view 
>that
>> >shapes policy thinking in juxtaposition to what our best research 
>is
>> telling us about adult literacy education.  There is, I contend, a
>> profound epistemological chasm between the policy assumptions that 
>went
>> into the WIA, particularly in assessment and that which gives shape 
>to
>> what Juliet Merrifield has referred to as "The New Literacy Studies" 
>that
>> she links with the concept of "literacy practices." (Perhaps someone 
>else
>> can discuss this.  I want to stay focused on policy).  In Contested 
>> >Ground: Performance Accountability in Adult Basic Education (p. 32)
>> Juliet Merrifield states the following:
>> 
>> >"..while the theories of New Literacy Studies are being applied in
>> teaching, they have had much less currency at the level of 
>educational
>> systems and policies--institutions, funding, accountability."
>> >
>> >Ths is at the heart of the schitzoid world out of what we operate 
>and
>> >unless we shape our policy and assesment framework on the primary
>> >assumptions of the New Literacy Studies, then we will continue to 
>> >operate in a bi-polar, schitzoid political/pedagogical climate.  In
>> part,
>> >therefore, the issue is political.  In part it is epistemological.  
>I
>> have spoken of the political many times on this list, so will skip 
>it it
>> >this time, but will likely bring it up again when Ron joins us.
>> >
>> >In a forthcoming essay I discuss the gap between educators and
>> >policymakers in the following way:
>> >
>> >"In part, this is due to the fragmentation of knowledge in  
>contemporary
>> >society where policymakers often draw on discourses grounded in
>> >quantification, behaviorism, and positivism, while particularly,
>> >humanistic scholars and ethnographers draw on narrative, history, 
>> >broad based social analysis, and contemporary social philosophy to 
>give 
>> >shape to their world view."  The New Literacy Studies is clearly 
>based
>> on 
>> >the latter, while that of much of the D.C perspective is based on 
>the
>> >former."
>> 
>> >Thus, there is an epistemological divide of great proprions wherein
>> >policy formulations are  powerfully reinforced by a  utilitarian
>> >costs-benefits analysis echoing the impersonalization and 
>abstraction
>> >that is at the core of the quantitative metaphor and The New 
>Literacy
>> >Studies [which] stems from the research paradigm of "thick 
>description."
>> >(Academics, let's hear from you about this!)
>> >
>> >Ron makes an excellent point that at least on first blush, sampling 
>at
>> >the statewide level does not provide the mechanism to evaluate the
>> >efficacy of individual programs.  However, such a sampling pool 
>> >*could* be organized within a state among such programs funded by
>> federal 
>> >money. I don't want to get bogged down in details on that one at 
>this
>> time, 
>> >but >let's also keep in mind another point made by John C. that:
>> >The results might not make us look very good, but if it was done 
>right
>> this approach would also identify ways to improve performance.  
>Funders,
>> in Juliet Merrifield's way of thinking, would then be responsible 
>for
>> providing the resources 
>> >needed to make those changes."
>> >
>> >That, however, would get us into such pesky areas as mutual
>> accountability, the public good, and the value of literacy. The main
>> argument here is that unless there is epistemological symmetry 
>between
>> the new literacy studies, literacy practice, and means of 
>accountability,
>> then the epistemological divide between theory, 
>> >practice, and policy runs rampant.
>> >
>> >The tail is still waging the dog and this is due to politics as 
>much 
>> >as to epistemology.
>> >
>> >George Demetrion
>> >LVA-Connecticut River East
>> >GDemetrion at juno.com
>> >
>> >___________________________________________________________________
>> >
>> >NLA Colleagues,
>> >
>> >I e-mailed Ron Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education 
>
>> >and
>> >Literacy in the Office of Vocational and Adult Education at the 
>U.S.
>> >Department
>> >of Education. I asked him about the question posed here by George
>> >Demetrion and
>> >John Comings, if the USDOE could consider an in-depth sample of 
>> >programs.
>> >I
>> >said:
>> >
>> >> I wonder if you have seen the recent discussion on the NLA list
>> >concerning
>> >> the WIA and the NRS.  In the NRS discussion the question has come 
>up
>> >about
>> >> whether or not USDOE would support the idea of an in-depth 
>> >evaluation
>> >of a
>> >> small (probably random stratified) sample of programs from which 
>we
>> >could
>> >> learn more about program performance and student outcomes.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder if you -- or someone else representing DOE -- might join 
>in
>> >the
>> >> NLA discussion on this.  Is an in-depth sampling evaluation a
>> >> possibility? Could this be done instead of the current plan to 
>> >collect
>> >> data from every program, or would it need to be in addition to 
>this
>> >plan?
>> >
>> >Ron replied (and gave permission to post his reply to the NLA list) 
>:
>> >
>> >> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:53:36 -0400
>> >> From: "Pugsley, Ronald" <Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov>
>> >> To: 'David J Rosen' <DJRosen at world.std.com>
>> >> Subject: RE: WIA and NRS Discussions
>> >>
>> >> HI DAVID,
>> >>
>> >> I have read the message posted by Jon concerning the use of an
>> >evaluation
>> >> model based upon a nationally representative sample.  Although an
>> >> interesting evaluation model, this approach is not sufficient to 
>> >meet
>> >the
>> >> accountability requirements of the Adult Education and Family 
>> >Literacy
>> >Act.
>> >> Specifically, Section 231 (e)(2) requires the States to consider 
>the
>> >success
>> >> of all eligible providers seeking funding under the Act in 
>meeting 
>> >or
>> >> exceeding the performance measures adopted by the state.  In 
>other
>> >words,
>> >> each local provider is to be held accountable to the performance
>> >measures.
>> >> Information gained from a national or state sample cannot be 
>> >attributed
>> >to
>> >> individual programs and therefore does allow each provider to be
>> >> individually held accountable.  Certainly, as we move forward 
>under 
>> >the
>> >new
>> >> law, the Department will be implementing a variety of evaluation
>> >activities
>> >> and the proposed model is one worth considering to measure the 
>> >broader
>> >> impact of the program.
>> >
>> >Finally, I am pleased to  let you know that Ron accepted an 
>invitation 
>> >to
>> >be a
>> >guest on the NLA list to discuss WIA and NRS questions and issues, 
>and
>> >this
>> >will most likely be in November.
>> >
>> >David J. Rosen
>> >NLA List Moderator
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >___________________________________________________________________
>> >Get the Internet just the way you want it.
>> >Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
>> >Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>> >
>> 
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>> Why pay more to get Web access?
>> Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
>> Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>

___________________________________________________________________
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.



From millard at netins.net  Wed Dec 22 20:40:45 1999
From: millard at netins.net (Archie Willard)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 19:40:45 -0600
Subject: NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
Message-ID: <199912231207.HAA18210@europe.std.com>


George,

I feel a moratorium is a good idea and I encourage others to give their
support in asking for one. In the past months I have expressed my
misgivings about the NRS. I think there should be some rethinking about
the whole process. As I see the wheels of the NRS and the WIA coming
into place I get an empty feeling inside just to think what is going
happen to a person who is looking for help from a literacy program. How
confusing it will be for that person to walk into a program and try to
make improvements in his/her life. When I started in a literacy program
I was made to feel like a real person. The people who ran the program
cared about me. They wanted me to succeed and to have a better life.
They did not have to make me jump through all kinds of hoops just to
give me help.  If there had not been a caring atmosphere in the program,
I think I would have left the place as soon as possible. I can feel glad
that I had the opportunity to get this kind of help when it was out
there.

As an adult learner I feel concerned about the level 1 and level 2
learners who will be left behind because of all the new requirements. If
we have a moratorium it would let the researchers, the professionals and
the adult learners work together to fill in the cracks. I encourage Ron
Pugsley and others to help to see that a moratorium happens.  I feel
George is right when he talked about "government partnering with the
literacy field and not leading the pack, not issuing mandates, but
playing a creative role as partners in a much more dynamic democratic
process than that which currently characterizes our discourse and
'delivery' systems."


--
Archie Willard
Eagle Grove, IA  50533 (US)
millard at netins.net
FAX - 515-448-3480
URL - http://207.28.234.137/archiew.html





From PGr1649039 at aol.com  Thu Dec 23 01:52:14 1999
From: PGr1649039 at aol.com (PGr1649039 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:52:14 EST
Subject: NLA Question: American Indian Education System
Message-ID: <199912231215.HAA19321@europe.std.com>

[Please reply directly to Pam Graham,<PGr1649039 at aol.com> not to the NLA
list.  Thanks, David J. rosen, NLA List Moderator]

Hi:  I am doing a research paper about the American Indian Education system.  
I was given your e-mail address.  I am specifically looking for adult 
education information.  Can you help?     

Thanks, Pam Graham



From DJRosen at world.std.com  Thu Dec 23 11:47:26 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:47:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Info: Taking Risks
Message-ID: <199912231736.MAA13248@europe.std.com>

NLA Colleagues,

The latest issue of the Adult Literacy Resource Institute's
Journal, Connections, is now available online in full-text format on the
EasternLINCS Web site.

	http://easternlincs.worlded.org/teachers/Connections/

Called _Taking Risks_ , it includes articles by Boston area practitioners
and others about taking risks in the classroom, such as:

+  "Can I Keep This Book," an article about a Boston Public
Library/ Adult Literacy Resource Institute-sponsored project which 
brings together adult new readers and authors of books with emotionally
challenging content;

+  "Putting Lesbian and Gay Families in the Picture," 

+  "Making a Pitch for Poetry in ABE," 

+  "Discourse and Change: Working Through Domestic Violence with
   Learners," 

and others.

I hope you find the articles interesting and useful, and we would love to
have your comments on them.

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






From Janet_Isserlis at Brown.edu  Thu Dec 23 16:20:12 1999
From: Janet_Isserlis at Brown.edu (Janet Isserlis)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 16:20:12 -0500
Subject: NLA Info: National Literacy Summit, February 14-15, 2000
Message-ID: <199912232247.RAA08730@europe.std.com>


>The National Literacy Summit will convene leaders from the adult education
>and literacy field for a two-day intensive meeting and planning session at
>which they will agree upon a vision for adult and family literacy in the
>21st century and steps to achieve it.

This is a very interesting plan.  I'm hoping that the summit isn't
necessarily about a group of people
>" agree[ing] upon a vision for adult and family literacy in the
>21st century and steps to achieve it. .."

so much as the continuation of an ongoing conversation, through which steps
will be suggested and put forward and to which all interested parties will
have access and input.

I'm imagining that participations is by invitation only because of
space/funding limitations, but am hoping that this process will be as open
as it possibly/reasonably can, if it's to have real meaning for the field
at large.

I'm hoping that the planners, if you have time, might tell us more about
your thinking as the summit draws nearer.

thanks

Janet Isserlis





From gdemetrion at juno.com  Thu Dec 23 22:02:36 1999
From: gdemetrion at juno.com (GEORGE E. DEMETRION)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 19:02:36 -0800
Subject: NLA Discussion: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
Message-ID: <199912240327.WAA19851@europe.std.com>

Allan asked me to post this for him.

George
__________________________________________________________________

My friend George Demetrion has shared a few of the more poignant exhanges
on this issue and I would like to add a few thoughts.

It is 2 days before Christmas.  Just over a week until the new
millennium.  I lived in the US for over a decade and am now back in
Canada -- and am re-familiarized with the distressing issues of literacy
here.  Sitting at the end of the 20th century, one can only conclude that
somehow the conditions of literacy education in North America just keep
getting more and more difficult. I fear the conditions  will soon become
untenable and we won't have anything like a "field" at all before we get
very far into the next century.  How I wish it were otherwise.

Like many reading this, I can remember when a person could actually build
a career in the field of adult literacy. I can remember when programs were
flourishing with the support of a few willing volunteers to help the
programs along -- now, as Tom Sticht says, it is a field dominated by
volunteers. Today, the handfull of full-time literacy practitioners
attempt to support the many volunteers -- the staffing pyramid is upside
down.  I can remember when we had an education infrastructure; not a
charitable donation number. I can even remember when there were funded
university and college courses -- even entire degrees -- required of every
teacher before they could enter an ABE classroom. Teachers and
administrators had some training in reading disorders, in teaching 
techniques, counselling methods, in the applications of new methods and
materials.  In Canada, this entire set of program funds and the exciting
support for whole systems was ultimately identified as a "funding soft
spot" by a Senate Committee.  By the mid-1980's, in both Canada and the US
(as I found it when I did doctoral studies in the US), the field was
becoming relegated to the level of the many "causes" that politicians
(or their wives) would pick up or put down according to the polls and
personal image. Somehow, the necessity for supporting a major system of
education dissipated in the late 1980's. We need a new imperative.

I say all this not because it will come as a surprise to many, but
because, days before the new millennium, I honestly think the next stage
of the "devolution" of literacy will be the over-defining of it -- the
categorizing, the measuring -- for the elimination of the perceived
unnecessary or unproductive parts of it.

Studies have since shown that the public support remains for literacy in
the taxpaying public.  Support remains in the field of practice.  We have
multiple studies supporting the need.  Support is there with people like
Ron Pugsley.  But the political imperative to do the right thing for
literacy seems to be gone (or is leaving the building). For what it's
worth, the wider field of Adult Education (continuing professional
education -- ie., Cervero & Wilson; adult teaching in higher
education -- ie., Brookfield; adult ed' research -- ie., Merriam) is now
using words like "responsible," "moral," "ethical," "justice," "social
change."  The shift is from the mechanics of adult education to the
reasons for it.  Perhaps it is a sign of postmodernity but the wider field
is moving to an increased insistence on practitioners taking the stance of
"responsible knowledge brokers."

Perhaps a moratorium is needed.  But, I would certainly argue that those
who have lived literacy in the field have lost whatever significant
wide-spread influence they may once have had in helping to shape policy.
Assuming we will still have a democracy in the next century, I can only
hope that those who "can't possibly know best" when it comes to literacy
policy can be made to hear the true needs of this field from those who
make it happen every day. This discussion is a start.

-
Allan Quigley
Chair
Adult Education Department
Xavier Hall
St. Francis Xavier University
Box 5000
ANTIGONISH, Nova Scotia
Canada, B2G 2W5

------------





GEORGE E. DEMETRION wrote:

> Allan:
>
> There may be some repeats here as responses are cross referenced in
> various posts.  It would be neat if you could join this real time
> discussion while Ron Pugsley's still on the airwaves.  There are other
> important posts that I can't find that are archived on the NLA.
>
> Also, the discussion on the WIA and NRS goes back to early September
with
> well over 100 documented posts on the topic on the NLA.  Ron is a late
> comer to this discussion
>
> george
>
> --------- Begin forwarded message ----------
> From: "Pugsley, Ronald" <Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov>
> To: nla at world.std.com
> Subject: NLA Discussion: Ron Pugsley's Replies to Questions
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:31:15 -0500
> Message-ID: <199912171926.OAA07963 at europe.std.com>
>
> Hello Archie,  I appreciated your note recently and apologize for the
> late
> response.  You raise a number of issues and I will attempt to respond
to
> each.  Unfortunately, I "wiped out" your incoming e-mail and so am
> working
> from a hard copy.  This does not help others, but I think everyone will
> be
> able to follow our discussion.
>
> First, let me address a few comments about the measurement and
reporting
> of educational gain.  The use of educational functioning levels is not
> new
> to the NRS.  This reporting framework has been the basis of reporting
> individual student gain for many years.  To accommodate a local
program's
> ability to more frequently report student gain, a number of new
> educational
> functioning levels have been added to the reporting system.  The
> additional
> levels have narrowed the skill range between the levels thus allowing
> programs to record and report educational gains more frequently for
each
> adult learner.
>
> Secondly, we concur with your concern regarding the delivery system's
> need
> to target those adults at the lowest literacy levels.  To support a
high
> level of service to this population, the Department has included as one
> of
> its primary performance indicators under the Government Performance and
> Review Act that 50% of all adults served in the federally supported
> program
> will be beginning level ABE and beginning level English literacy
> learners.
> In addition, states were required to include special assessments of
this
> population in their state plans and provide specific strategies for
> providing services to a variety of special populations, including the
> learning disabled and adults at low literacy levels.
>
> We are also concerned about the overall cost to the delivery system to
> implement the accountability system required under AEFLA; however,
> increases
> in the level of Federal support for adult education and literacy
programs
> coupled with the fact that local programs (under the new provisions of
> AEFLA) are receiving a larger share of the funds allocated to the
states
> provide enough additional resources at the local level to invest in
> accountability without reducing the total number of dollars used for
> instruction.  This does not mean that we believe there is enough money
in
> adult education, but it does mean that additional resources have been
> invested to support much of the accountability effort.
>
> We agree with your recommendation to set reasonable goals for all types
> and
> levels of adult learners.  The NRS is designed to support a local
> program's ability to report on all learners regardless of their needs
or
> their individual goals.  The NRS supports the ability of state and
local
> programs to individually negotiate and establish performance goals
based
> on the types of learners and types of programs being offered.  Although
> the National Reporting System requires specific outcomes data based on
> the
> purposes and outcomes contained the Act, it also accommodates
additional
> measures that states and local programs determine to be important.
>
> Over the past several years we have seen a more rapid growth in the
> investment in adult education at the federal level than at anytime in
the
> history of the program.  We are hopeful that this trend will continue.
> Successfully implementing the new requirements of the Adult Education
and
> Family Literacy Act will go a long way in supporting our request for
> additional funds.
>
> We strongly agree with the need to develop additional assessment tools
in
> adult education.  It has been a long and difficult struggle to engage
> research and investment interest in adult assessment issues.  We will
> continue to do what we can to review and promote this need.  Having
said
> this, we also believe there is a strong need for professional
> development/training in assessment instructions and application...for
> instruments currently in place.  Have a happy holiday season.  I look
> forward to seeing you in the new year...ron
>
> --------- End forwarded message ----------
> --------- End forwarded message ----------
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Why pay more to get Web access?
> Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
> Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.



-Ph         902-867-3244
FAX       902-867-3765
E-Mail   aquigley at stfx.ca


--------------DEB617DF62D087774129B66C
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Allan Quigley
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"

begin:          vcard
fn:             Allan Quigley
n:              ;Allan Quigley
adr:            Department of Adult Education;;Xavier Hall,         
;P.O. Box 5000, St. Francis Xavier University;Antigonish    Nova
Scotia;B2G 2W5;Canada
email;internet: aquigley at stfx.ca
tel;work:       902-867-3952
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard


--------------DEB617DF62D087774129B66C--

--------- End forwarded message ----------
--------- End forwarded message ----------
--------- End forwarded message ----------

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.



From cbking2 at flash.net  Thu Dec 23 22:10:00 1999
From: cbking2 at flash.net (cbking2)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 21:10:00 -0600
Subject: NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
Message-ID: <199912240346.WAA22397@europe.std.com>

To Bob Bickerton's comment about a moratorium below:

"After hundreds of hours of negotiation, I cannot imagine that the members
of Congress who took the lead on the House and Senate committees that
developed WIA would now support a moratorium in its implementation."

Unfortunately, as Bob well knows, and using a quantitative strategem, there
is no evidence that a large number of hours (and our money) spent on a task
NECESSARILY means, or equals: the task is done intelligently and well.

On the contrary, the thing about intelligence (education?) is that an
insight only takes a half-second, but then, some people NEVER "get it," no
matter how hard, or how long they work at it.  And by the way, these people
got paid, whether they did it well or not.

Well, I think there is a plethora of evidence they didn't do it well, unless
their goal was to continue the trend to obviate education.  It seems that
while teachers were busy doing their job, as Archie expressed so well in his
recent post, these people were busy pulling out the rug we were all standing
on.

If we have no moratorium where new voices can speak to the REAL PROBLEMS and
REAL QUESTIONS that have been raised about the current trends, and if
national meetings are closed to dialogue of interested and intelligent
voices from the field, then

(1) Our government and our people have lost the creative opportunity that
our new form of communicating in a democracy, the internet, has afforded us;
a form much-touted by the business community, not to mention the profits
made by its use.

(2) We have embraced the self-congratulatory policy of the ignorant that
says, "We spent so much time and money, it MUST be right," or, "keep going,
even if it's wrong," which is the opposite of intelligent and
responsible--it's one working definition of careless ignorance?   Because
intelligent input is late on the scene, ignorance wins?

I'm sure there were lots of good thoughts and intentions in the non-smoking
rooms of Congress.  I don't mean to degrade that.  But it won't be the first
time in history great effort has come to naught, or worse, been destructive
of the very ground it stands on.  I also think there is some bad will
involved, however, or in the very least, unthinking, band-wagon,
short-sightedness.

(3) If the WIA and NRS are wrong-headed in many respects, then no matter
what we say, or put into policy, in they end, THEY WON'T WORK, and they may
even make things worse, which stands a HIGH degree of probability in this
case.  There is a "canon of operations" at work here that will work its
logic out on its own.  That is, what Archie and others SAY will happen, WILL
HAPPEN, because they KNOW how things are where it counts, and either we care
about that, or we don't.

But let's not pretend we don't understand what we're up to.

(4) I have stated this before:  Where we have been emasculating teachers all
along, by continuing in this way, by not listening to late but reasonable
voices from the trenches WHERE THE RAW DATA IS, we continue in our
denegration of the already battered position of teacher, what used to be
called "the divine profession."  The NRS and the WIA continue to drag the
power away from the classroom and from the student FOR THEM, and point
everything towards the outcomes, the numbers, the accounting, the
"behavior," FOR THE ACCOUNTANTS.  The student turns from a conscious human
being becoming educated to a piece of information--used for the state.  And
the teacher merely mediates this relationship between the used student and
the obtuse but omni-present state.

Archie will tell you this, I think.  Students are extremely sensitive to the
divided structural power set-up in the classroom.  This move of deafness
just constitutes more of the same.

Bob Bickerton's comment about the bad timing of advocacy is important, I
think.  Part of the problem is that the nebulous and unified "WE" have
assumed that policy makers and Congress know what they are doing and have a
clear sight of the longer road, that we are all in this together, and that
"WE" can go on with our work knowing the good will and trust lies at the
back of what we know to be a good cause, well intentioned on our part, and
well played out in most of our programs.  Shame on us?

The other things is, our focus is in the classroom where it should be.  How
many  adult education teachers are involved with a teacher's association
that has a continuous voice at the level of policy?

But obviously, while we have been looking the other way, those who have
forgotten how we got here have had the loudest voice.

Also, it is true that, just because "WE" on this forum raise questions and
take exception to particular issues, it does not mean we necessarily are
right, or that things should necssarily change, just because we have asked.
But ***IF*** this is an authentic dialogue, and ***IF*** we are really taken
seriously, then the questions and issues need to be addressed as to "why, or
why not."

Of course, there is a tension between everybody talking and nothing getting
done on the one hand, and closed, dogmatic decision-making on the other
hand.  But this forum is both an analytical resource from educated people
who spend their intelligence on the scene, as well as a group of informed
citizens.  To ignore the voices, is to waste our valuable (free) informed
resources that may inspire insights in policy makers, and more, to ignore
our citizens who happen to pay your salaries.

Catherine King




u> -----Original Message-----
> From: nla-approval at world.std.com [mailto:nla-approval at world.std.com]On
> Behalf Of Bickerton, Robert P
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 4:09 PM
> To: nla at world.std.com
> Subject: NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
>
>
>
> George, et al:
>
> I don't have the time right now to provide comprehensive
> answers to the many questions you pose, but I am very
> interested in having our "community" address and engage
> them -- I was also intimately involved in almost all the
> stages in the reauthorization of adult ed that led, ultimately
> to WIA, so I know that (over time) I can shed a great deal
> of light on these questions/issues.
>
> One short part of "the answers" is that a moratorium will
> almost certainly not be an option -- for two reasons:
>
> 1.  These issues were negotiated with members of Congress
> and their staff over a four year period.  Some of you may
> recall the numerous postings I sent to our colleagues in the
> field (via this list and countless other venues) that raised
> these and many other issues.  Many advocated with Congress
> for the positions arrived at through painstaking negotiations
> among members of the National Coalition for Literacy --
> unfortunately, the vast majority of our field did not.
> (I learned during this process that grassroots advocacy hits
> its highest volume when survival and/or funding is at stake,
> but not when the topic is "policy!")  After hundreds of hours
> of negotiation, I cannot imagine that the members of Congress
> who took the lead on the House and Senate committees that
> developed WIA would now support a moratorium in its
> implementation.
>
> 2.  Such resistance can theoretically be overcome by a very
> widespread, aggressive and tenacious (over time) advocacy
> campaign -- a level of effort I do not believe our field is
> prepared to invest in this issue -- regardless of how important
> it may be to the "heart and soul" of our work.  If you believe
> otherwise, please don't endeavor to convince us with words --
> do the organizing and get out the troops -- I'm willing to be
> proven wrong and if so, I'll help along the way.
>
> I hope to have time to contribute more soon,
> in the meantime -- enjoy the holidays and have a wonderful
> New Years,
>
> bob bickerton, MA director of adult ed
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GEORGE E. DEMETRION [mailto:gdemetrion at juno.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 12:06 AM
> To: nla at world.std.com
> Subject: NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
>
>
> Ron:
>
> Thanks for your response.  Lots of issues out there.  Agreed, the law is
> what the law is.
>
> Question:  what role (if any) did your office and/or the Clinton
> administration have in establishing the WIA?  More broadly, why is ABE
> and literacy tied to the Workforce Investment Act that symbolically
> reduces literacy as an economic development tool, and whatever did happen
> to the National Literacy Act and why?
>
> The law is the law, but there is also a Congress that meets in January.
> The stipulations were created by human beings and they can be undone by
> human beings.  Given the nature of the discussion we've had on how
> problematic "quantifiable, measurable and objective" are in accurately
> assessing adult literacy learning, is your office ready, willing and able
> to go to Congress and ask for a moratorium so we can put a better
> reporting system in place?  State Directors, agency heads, and policy
> analysts, would you be willing to join Ron to ask Congress to legislate a
> moratorium so we could put together a more coherent system grounded in
> "mutual accountability?"  If so, there are not a few of us on this list
> who would readily join you.
>
> This issue of sampling has been raised in highly intelligent quarters and
> deserves much more of a serious consideration than you have so far given
> to it.  Such a focus would allow us to spend much more time on teaching
> so that we could *begin* to create an adult literacy/ABE system worthy of
> our collective passion, knowledge and experience.  We need govt to be an
> active partner in this, not leading the pack, not issuing mandates, but
> playing a creative role as partners in a much more dynamic democratic
> process that that which currently characterizes our discourse and
> "delivery" systems.
>
> In all seriousness, I'm not convinced (or haven't seen any evidence of
> it) that "Congress" (or is it the legislative aides, policy analysts and
> think tanks?) has had sufficient information needed to put together
> legislation that is coherent with our best practice and research.  The
> 100 + posts on this topic this fall, to say nothing of the reports,
> monographs and research projects (both field based and academic)
> provides that information.  Could you give us some feedback on the
> theoretical premises that gave shape to the NRS, and whose baby was that,
> by the way?  Who are the achitects of the NRS?  Perhaps we might hear
> from them.
>
> Where does the buck stop on the NRS?  Your office says it's Congress.  (I
> wonder what "Congress" would say?  State directors might say, it's your
> office.  Programs say, it's our state ABE agencies.  There's a certain
> amorphousness about this policy that is not easy to pin down, and then,
> who's responsible for the WIA in the first place?  Is it the religious
> right?  Is it connected to Clinton's emphasis on the global economy, did
> it come out of congressional energies, reform movements within
> ABE/literacy?  Policy advocates?  Think tanks?
>
> It's important for the sake of literacy to publically describe the
> hisorical and political process on how the WIA and the NRS came to be,
> even a thumb nail sketch.  It's important because responsibility for it
> needs to be placed and possible sources for repeal, reforms, and avenues
> to achieve any moratoriums particularly on the NRS need to be identified.
>
> Finally, on the EFF. From the getgo, EFF developers have linked the most
> daunting adult literacy/lifelong learning reform initiative to date to
> policy as well as to pedagogy in the quest to fulfuill National
> Educational Goal 6.  The standards are an essential piece of it not just
> as a tool for teachers and students to tell how they're doing, but as
> part of a broader mechanism to create a national consensus on "results
> that matter."  This is the vision of EFF.  So because the "core
> indicators are not EFF standards" (because, I presume, they are not
> "quantifiable, objective, and measurable") they get relegated as
> "secondary" measures.
>
> Question:  Why wasn't (or was it?) EFF an integral part of the discussion
> in the formation of the new legislation?  What happened here?  What role,
> if any, was your office playing in efforts to support the EFF frame in
> light of the emerging legislation?  What role were the EFF developers
> playing with Congress and with your office during this time?  Then, for
> the EFFers, if the standards are no longer a part of the "real picture"
> of federal policy, then what does that mean for the framework?  What does
> it mean for your quest for consenus building? (I've been critical of that
> aspect of EFF, but that's besides the point).
>
> Ron, these questions and those like them are quite important because
> without this knowledge policy takes on a form of mystique as if it is
> this omnipotent power or state of nature hovering over literacy land.
> The historical forces that interplayed in the development of literacy
> policy in the 1990s is an important story that deserves a broad audience,
> certainly knowledge that should be readily available to us on this list
> with as little mystification and spin as possible.  While I do appreciate
> the webcast/satellite dialogues that your office will provide, the need,
> in my view, is for an independent source of literacy journalism which the
> NLA potentially provides.  It is *this* forum and others like it that in
> my view, the field needs, if it is going to exercise more of an
> independent judgment and influence on the politics and pedagogy of
> literacy.
>
> I can think of no better venue for that than the National Literacy
> Advocacy.
>
> While I have been a critic of much federal policy on ABE/literacy, I
> extend my personal thanks for your willingness to engage us.
>
> George Demetrion
> LVA-Connecticut River East
> GDemetrion at juno.com
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:13:06 -0500 "Pugsley, Ronald"
> <Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov> writes:
> >
> >Response to Question from George Demetrion dated December 21
> >
> >George, thank you for the fine summary.  The issues you raised are
> >requirements of the Workforce Investment Act, including what to
> >measure,
> >when it must be reported (annually), how the Department must report it
> >to
> >Congress.  Because the Act requires core indicators that are not EFF's
> >standards, EFF's standards are in the category of additional, useful
> >measures a State may choose but which are not mandated by law.  No one
> >can
> >declare a moratorium on data collection under WIA because it is a
> >statutory
> >mandate.  We all will have to work on improving it as we go along.
> >WIA is
> >the work of Congress, not the Department of Education.  To keep things
> >simple, the Department even chose not to regulate on the new Act-for
> >the
> >first time since adult education programs have been authorized in
> >federal
> >education law.  As for expressing the "debate on policy needs in the
> >public
> >airwaves," I do hope my earlier offer of webcast/satellite dialogues
> >this
> >winter will help get more people involved in the process.  I look
> >forward to
> >keeping in touch with all of you on these issues as we move forward.
> >
> >Ron Pugsley
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From:	GEORGE E. DEMETRION
> >> Sent:	Tuesday, December 21, 1999 11:24 AM
> >> To:	nla at world.std.com
> >> Subject:	NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
> >>
> >>
> >> Ron:
> >>
> >> Thanks for taking on these questions.  I realize it may be a bit
> >much for
> >> one person, but perhaps you have staff support in some of your
> >responses.
> >> Instead of posting something new, let me pick an earlier message
> >from
> >> the archives to which perhaps you will be able to respond.  This
> >goes
> >> back to your original message in October when you agreed to answer
> >> questions on the NLA.  There are many concerns to say the least as
> >> indicated in the 8 or 9 questions I posted a couple weeks back.  I
> >think
> >> also, Tom Sticht has also raised some important issues that have not
> >yet
> >> been fully responded to as well as Catherine King on the
> >relationship
> >> between federal policy and democracy.  There are other critical
> >questions
> >> also that need to be answered, too.
> >>
> >> There's a lot more that could be said, but the obsession with
> >> counting--"objective, measurable, quantitative," at least goes to a
> >> significant core to where my critique is at.  "Secondary measures"
> >are
> >> fine, I suppose, but if they are not what "really" counts, I don't
> >know
> >> why hard pressed programs are going to spend quality time
> >documenting
> >> them, too, in addition to documenting what "really" counts.
> >>
> >> Your joint letter with Andy Hartman was interesting. (I'm working
> >from
> >> memory).  As I have understood it, EFF all along was designed to
> >link
> >> pedagogy with policy wherein the standards (the generative skills)
> >would
> >> be the mechanism of assessment through its performance indicators (I
> >> understand there's new terminology now) and types of evidence.
> >These,
> >> however, do not easily break down into "objective, measurable,
> >> quantitative," so they're off the table, at least as far as primary
> >> indicators.  Without the clout of a legitimizing assessment system,
> >where
> >> does that place the policy objectives of EFF?  Not that I'm
> >disappointed
> >> about that, as I've expressed elsewhere as I am not supportive of
> >any
> >> hegemony of EFF even as I think there's a certain degree of validity
> >in
> >> the framework.  But as a point of curiosity, it's interesting that
> >the
> >> EFF developers have spent so much time establishing standards to be
> >told
> >> they don't "really" count in the world of policy, but you can add
> >them to
> >> your reporting system if you'd like.
> >>
> >> On the sampling issue--not that I have any final answer here, but at
> >> least (even from your comments) there seems to be room for
> >> interpretation, if not negotiation.  Think of what the alternative
> >is,
> >> attempting to obtain data information (pre and post of whatever, on
> >every
> >> student, an impossible standard, particularly for decentralized
> >volunteer
> >> tutoring programs, and a dubious task in any event,-- all  just
> >because a
> >> certain interpretation of the law says that that is what's "really"
> >> needed for the enforcement of policy mandates.
> >>
> >> To me, this is of dubious value that could have a lot of negative
> >> consequences (folks have discussed this.  I don't need to do so
> >here).
> >>
> >> If there are some real problems here with the WIA and particularly
> >with
> >> the NRS, why not put a moratorium on the data collection process for
> >a
> >> year so that we can put together some of our top practitioners,
> >> researchers, policy folks, and reps from VALUE to take a good hard
> >look
> >> so we might come up with some other alternatives, including
> >sampling.
> >> While you have previously, obtained feedback from the field, I would
> >> venture to assume that the process of information gathering and
> >mutual
> >> influence may not have been as open as it could have been.  If we
> >are
> >> going to take any of our research and best practices seriously at
> >all,
> >> then I think it imperative that the federal government listen to the
> >> voices from the field in a much more substantial way than it has.
> >>
> >> There have been a profusion of voices on the NLA this fall.  If such
> >> discussion is to have any merit at all, then it must have an
> >influence on
> >> where the rubber hits the road--in this case on the formation of a
> >viable
> >> adult literacy/ABE federal policy grounded in our finest research
> >and
> >> practices.  And the debate on policy needs to be expressed in the
> >public
> >> airwaves and not made behind closed doors among the power elite in
> >the
> >> corridors of Washington D.C.
> >>
> >> George Demetrion
> >> LVA-Connecticut River East
> >> GDemetrion at juno.com
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:49:56 -0700 "GEORGE E. DEMETRION"
> >> <gdemetrion at juno.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >David:
> >> >
> >> >Good work on asking Ron Pugsley to clear up the matter as to
> >whether
> >> >USDOE would support a sampling process at the state level to assess
> >
> >> >the efficacy of adult ed/literacy in the state.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks Ron, for the direct answer.  It wasn't the answer many of us
> >
> >> >were looking for, but your response was unequivocal and clear.
> >> >
> >> >This is a good starting point for a dialogue with your office and I
> >
> >> >look forward to the  more formal opportunity to discuss these
> >issues
> >> with
> >> >you in November.
> >> >
> >> >I'd like to make a few comments, here, though and I'll start with
> >John
> >> >Comings' original assumption that:
> >> >
> >> >"Congress may want a lot less than we think.  Our field has
> >> >interpreted the  call for accountability to mean that we must
> >measure
> >> increases in
> >> >skill and improvements in the lives of every adult student.  In
> >fact, I
> >> believe
> >> >that Congress is asking a simple question: "What do we get for our
> >> >investment in ABE/ESL/GED programs?"
> >> >
> >> >Moving beyond the specifics of the WIA for the moment (which I
> >still
> >> >can't download and therefore read), do you think John's point is
> >> >accuate? Specifically,
> >>
> >> * Congress may want a lot less than we think and
> >>
> >> >*I believe that Congress is asking a simple question: "What do we
> >get
> >> >for our investment in ABE/ESL/GED programs?"
> >> >
> >> >Are these the "real" issues?, which may or may not be the case, but
> >if
> >> >we can have some discussion on this that would be useful.
> >> >
> >> >What I'm getting at (and I'm speculating) is that such policy
> >> formulations
> >> >reflective of the WIA do not stem so much from directly what
> >> congressional
> >> >members think and believe, but from the research base from which
> >they
> >> >draw that shape the detailed policy formulations--specifically,
> >from:
> >> >
> >> >1.  Congressional research aides (or whatever their title is) that
> >focus
> >>  on such    issues as education
> >> >2.  From the research think tanks
> >> >3.  From the policy analysis and lobbyists in our field
> >> >
> >> >I would speculate (because I don't really know) that these three
> >> >constituents are the ones that really work out the details of our
> >> >policy which then get sifted through various political processes,
> >> including
> >> >the impact of public opinion (and, paranthetically, to what extent
> >does
> >> the NLA list serve as a viable source of information on equal level,
> >say,
> >> with #'s 1,2,&3?  Perhaps part of the nearer term reform is that it
> >might
> >> do so.  The NLA is not just
> >> >a table, David, but a force in its own right as an excellent cross
> >> >section of the temper of our times.  I would argue that it needs to
> >be
> >> the
> >> >Fourth Estate of our field).
> >> >
> >> >If #'s 1,2, &3 are the real policy formulators (and if not, please
> >> illuminate), then the emphasis on "objective," "standardize,"
> >"uniform"
> >> criteria within any given state, an important part of the NRS, is
> >> understandable.  Going back to John's point, are these criteria
> >> --developed by the "experts" -- what congress "really" cares about
> >or did
> >> these accountability criteria become part of the law because the
> >policy
> >> formulators (#1,2,& 3 above) identified them as essential to meet
> >the
> >> need of "accountability" based on the "self-evident" assumption of
> >the
> >> quantitative metaphor?
> >> >
> >> >The issue, in part is epistemology (how we know) or the world view
> >that
> >> >shapes policy thinking in juxtaposition to what our best research
> >is
> >> telling us about adult literacy education.  There is, I contend, a
> >> profound epistemological chasm between the policy assumptions that
> >went
> >> into the WIA, particularly in assessment and that which gives shape
> >to
> >> what Juliet Merrifield has referred to as "The New Literacy Studies"
> >that
> >> she links with the concept of "literacy practices." (Perhaps someone
> >else
> >> can discuss this.  I want to stay focused on policy).  In Contested
> >> >Ground: Performance Accountability in Adult Basic Education (p. 32)
> >> Juliet Merrifield states the following:
> >>
> >> >"..while the theories of New Literacy Studies are being applied in
> >> teaching, they have had much less currency at the level of
> >educational
> >> systems and policies--institutions, funding, accountability."
> >> >
> >> >Ths is at the heart of the schitzoid world out of what we operate
> >and
> >> >unless we shape our policy and assesment framework on the primary
> >> >assumptions of the New Literacy Studies, then we will continue to
> >> >operate in a bi-polar, schitzoid political/pedagogical climate.  In
> >> part,
> >> >therefore, the issue is political.  In part it is epistemological.
> >I
> >> have spoken of the political many times on this list, so will skip
> >it it
> >> >this time, but will likely bring it up again when Ron joins us.
> >> >
> >> >In a forthcoming essay I discuss the gap between educators and
> >> >policymakers in the following way:
> >> >
> >> >"In part, this is due to the fragmentation of knowledge in
> >contemporary
> >> >society where policymakers often draw on discourses grounded in
> >> >quantification, behaviorism, and positivism, while particularly,
> >> >humanistic scholars and ethnographers draw on narrative, history,
> >> >broad based social analysis, and contemporary social philosophy to
> >give
> >> >shape to their world view."  The New Literacy Studies is clearly
> >based
> >> on
> >> >the latter, while that of much of the D.C perspective is based on
> >the
> >> >former."
> >>
> >> >Thus, there is an epistemological divide of great proprions wherein
> >> >policy formulations are  powerfully reinforced by a  utilitarian
> >> >costs-benefits analysis echoing the impersonalization and
> >abstraction
> >> >that is at the core of the quantitative metaphor and The New
> >Literacy
> >> >Studies [which] stems from the research paradigm of "thick
> >description."
> >> >(Academics, let's hear from you about this!)
> >> >
> >> >Ron makes an excellent point that at least on first blush, sampling
> >at
> >> >the statewide level does not provide the mechanism to evaluate the
> >> >efficacy of individual programs.  However, such a sampling pool
> >> >*could* be organized within a state among such programs funded by
> >> federal
> >> >money. I don't want to get bogged down in details on that one at
> >this
> >> time,
> >> >but >let's also keep in mind another point made by John C. that:
> >> >The results might not make us look very good, but if it was done
> >right
> >> this approach would also identify ways to improve performance.
> >Funders,
> >> in Juliet Merrifield's way of thinking, would then be responsible
> >for
> >> providing the resources
> >> >needed to make those changes."
> >> >
> >> >That, however, would get us into such pesky areas as mutual
> >> accountability, the public good, and the value of literacy. The main
> >> argument here is that unless there is epistemological symmetry
> >between
> >> the new literacy studies, literacy practice, and means of
> >accountability,
> >> then the epistemological divide between theory,
> >> >practice, and policy runs rampant.
> >> >
> >> >The tail is still waging the dog and this is due to politics as
> >much
> >> >as to epistemology.
> >> >
> >> >George Demetrion
> >> >LVA-Connecticut River East
> >> >GDemetrion at juno.com
> >> >
> >> >___________________________________________________________________
> >> >
> >> >NLA Colleagues,
> >> >
> >> >I e-mailed Ron Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education
> >
> >> >and
> >> >Literacy in the Office of Vocational and Adult Education at the
> >U.S.
> >> >Department
> >> >of Education. I asked him about the question posed here by George
> >> >Demetrion and
> >> >John Comings, if the USDOE could consider an in-depth sample of
> >> >programs.
> >> >I
> >> >said:
> >> >
> >> >> I wonder if you have seen the recent discussion on the NLA list
> >> >concerning
> >> >> the WIA and the NRS.  In the NRS discussion the question has come
> >up
> >> >about
> >> >> whether or not USDOE would support the idea of an in-depth
> >> >evaluation
> >> >of a
> >> >> small (probably random stratified) sample of programs from which
> >we
> >> >could
> >> >> learn more about program performance and student outcomes.
> >> >>
> >> >> I wonder if you -- or someone else representing DOE -- might join
> >in
> >> >the
> >> >> NLA discussion on this.  Is an in-depth sampling evaluation a
> >> >> possibility? Could this be done instead of the current plan to
> >> >collect
> >> >> data from every program, or would it need to be in addition to
> >this
> >> >plan?
> >> >
> >> >Ron replied (and gave permission to post his reply to the NLA list)
> >:
> >> >
> >> >> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:53:36 -0400
> >> >> From: "Pugsley, Ronald" <Ronald_Pugsley at ed.gov>
> >> >> To: 'David J Rosen' <DJRosen at world.std.com>
> >> >> Subject: RE: WIA and NRS Discussions
> >> >>
> >> >> HI DAVID,
> >> >>
> >> >> I have read the message posted by Jon concerning the use of an
> >> >evaluation
> >> >> model based upon a nationally representative sample.  Although an
> >> >> interesting evaluation model, this approach is not sufficient to
> >> >meet
> >> >the
> >> >> accountability requirements of the Adult Education and Family
> >> >Literacy
> >> >Act.
> >> >> Specifically, Section 231 (e)(2) requires the States to consider
> >the
> >> >success
> >> >> of all eligible providers seeking funding under the Act in
> >meeting
> >> >or
> >> >> exceeding the performance measures adopted by the state.  In
> >other
> >> >words,
> >> >> each local provider is to be held accountable to the performance
> >> >measures.
> >> >> Information gained from a national or state sample cannot be
> >> >attributed
> >> >to
> >> >> individual programs and therefore does allow each provider to be
> >> >> individually held accountable.  Certainly, as we move forward
> >under
> >> >the
> >> >new
> >> >> law, the Department will be implementing a variety of evaluation
> >> >activities
> >> >> and the proposed model is one worth considering to measure the
> >> >broader
> >> >> impact of the program.
> >> >
> >> >Finally, I am pleased to  let you know that Ron accepted an
> >invitation
> >> >to
> >> >be a
> >> >guest on the NLA list to discuss WIA and NRS questions and issues,
> >and
> >> >this
> >> >will most likely be in November.
> >> >
> >> >David J. Rosen
> >> >NLA List Moderator
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >___________________________________________________________________
> >> >Get the Internet just the way you want it.
> >> >Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
> >> >Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
> >> >
> >>
> >> ___________________________________________________________________
> >> Why pay more to get Web access?
> >> Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
> >> Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
> >
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Why pay more to get Web access?
> Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
> Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>
>




From ALCDGG at langate.gsu.edu  Fri Dec 24 09:33:48 1999
From: ALCDGG at langate.gsu.edu (Daphne Greenberg)
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 09:33:48 -0500
Subject: NLA Info: National Literacy Summit, February 14-15, 2000
Message-ID: <199912241535.KAA28219@europe.std.com>

I would also like to add my concerns about who will be invited to the summit.
I hope that the conveners will make a serious attempt to draw as wide and 
representative an audience as possible.  Whenever there is a conference of 
this sort that is by invitation only, unless it is representative, the 
"noninvitees" end up feeling very excluded.  This is what happens yearly with 
the Pfizer conference, which is an invitation only annual event.  Although 
there are many constituents interested in health literacy, Pfizer invites only 
those who they think are the "powers that be" in health literacy.  Of course, 
this is their choice, and they have their reasons for doing so, but one hopes 
that a National Literacy Summit will be more inclusive.  So I urge the Summit 
conveners to be very thoughtful in terms of who is invited.  For example, I 
would hope to see learners, providers, researchers, and policy makers 
represented, as well as a nice balance of gender and ethnic diversity.  Only 
then, can a "vision for the 21st century" have hope of being a vision that 
the field will want to latch onto.


Daphne

Daphne Greenberg
Center for the Study of Adult Literacy
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA 30303-3083
Fax: 404-651-1415
Ph: 404-651-0400
E-mail: alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu

>>> Janet_Isserlis at Brown.edu 12/23 4:20 PM >>>

>The National Literacy Summit will convene leaders from the adult education
>and literacy field for a two-day intensive meeting and planning session at
>which they will agree upon a vision for adult and family literacy in the
>21st century and steps to achieve it.

This is a very interesting plan.  I'm hoping that the summit isn't
necessarily about a group of people
>" agree[ing] upon a vision for adult and family literacy in the
>21st century and steps to achieve it. .."

so much as the continuation of an ongoing conversation, through which steps
will be suggested and put forward and to which all interested parties will
have access and input.

I'm imagining that participations is by invitation only because of
space/funding limitations, but am hoping that this process will be as open
as it possibly/reasonably can, if it's to have real meaning for the field
at large.

I'm hoping that the planners, if you have time, might tell us more about
your thinking as the summit draws nearer.

thanks

Janet Isserlis







From gdemetrion at juno.com  Fri Dec 24 13:37:16 1999
From: gdemetrion at juno.com (GEORGE E. DEMETRION)
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:37:16 -0800
Subject: NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
Message-ID: <199912241731.MAA12292@europe.std.com>


Thanks Bob:

You raise important issues that also open up opportunities for
intriguing possibilities.  Yes, the historical overview that you and
others can provide is important work that can help provide a better
picture of how and why we are where we are.  Of course, there's the
court's history and revisionist history.

 On your first point:

Clearly you and your colleagues did work hard in getting the legislation
passed. Yet, I suspect,  the inner circle was a bit small.  Also, I have
a feeling that a sense of "realism" was operative among you from the
beginning in which traditional DC policy language would be the vehicle
that would circumscribe language about literacy instead of the best
insights from the field (practice and research) shaping policy.  From
that point of view, the tail has been waging the dog all along.

On your second point:

(a) "Talk" is an important form of doing, particularly through this
medium of instantaneous international communication.  It represents a
democratization of power in providing voices across the economic, social,
and political spectrum to get their messages out into the open market of
the exchange of ideas.  If it wasn't for such "talk" it's doubtful that
Ron Pugsley would have been on the airwaves here as part of a national
debate on literacy of no small proportions.  Such "talk," moreover, is
not mere "palaber" as my father-in-law would put it, but probing,
critical, contentious analysis that at least holds the possibility of
getting at some of the most basic issues in our field.  I think we've
accomplished that to some decent degree here this fall.  "Talk" is the
foundation of any potential policy reconstruction.

(b)  The issue of whether "we" (and I share with Catherine how ambiguous
that "we" is--a discussion for another day) have convinced you and other
policy makers is of the utmost importance.  It is unrefutable that a
substantial critical analysis of the WIA and NRS has been mounted on the
NLA this fall among some very cogent voices of the field representing
students, practitioners, and researchers.  I don't need to name names
here or revisit arguments.  If you and/or other policy folks (or others)
disagree with the brunt of the leveled critique, then a substantial
counter-rebuttal is required that in fact can link WIA and NRS to viable
research and practice that puts some real holes in the core of the
critique that has been made.  If on the other hand, you accept the
validity of much of the critique as applied to best practices and
research, but argue that political "reality" dictates the acceptance of
the legislation as the best deal the field can get, then you are honor
bound to publically and vocally accept its absurdity and say to the
field, to the press and to others "the critique is basically on target,
but Congress is too dense (too preoccupied), too unconcerned to really
grasp or to find out what a substantial ABE/adult literacy policy should
be and to provide substantial resources to reconstruct the field in a
manner that would make this nation literacy rich.  For those reasons,
you, oh hard pressed practitioner, are forced to play the game that
Congress has foisted upon the field if you want any state or federal
money."

I'm being dramatic, of course, but the points are sound:

1)  you either reject the critique mounted by the critics of WIA/NRS and
then are required to continue the talk and tell us how we are wrong, or

2)  you largely accept the critique based on sound premises of practice,
research and theory, but argue that political realism demands adherence
anyway


(c)  This brings us to the point of advocacy.

If you and other policy folks and others accept # 1, then make the point
in a substantial and sustained way that counters the critique and adds
new insight.  if that's where the field is at, then the talk really does
need to continue and those who hold more public, official  power than
others really do need to become vocal and public if there is going to be
any substantial link between literacy and a vigorous civic democracy.

If you and your colleagues accept #2, then I would encourage you all to
take a significant role, but including more voices from the field in
order to refashion policy.  The call for a moratorium would be a good
start for the short haul in order to begin exploring longer term issues
that more effectively link good social policy with best practices in the
field and sound research and theory.  

Another good start is to make sure that the forthcoming National Literacy
Summit becomes an inclusive format and that the focus does not become
preoccupied linking adult literacy with the needs of the postindustrial
economy.  Could we have a public listing on this list of who gets
invited?  Hint:  do not marginalize critics of current federal policy. 
Let's make sure that the "we" of any emerging consensus is as inclusive
as possible.

Finally, Bob, I do agree with you that *historically* the "field" has
been reluctant to mount a vigorous advocacy campaign for more reasons
than I want to go into here at this point, but that's history.  There's a
line that Paul Jurmo wrote some decade ago that bears repeating:

"Participatory advocates should also pull together all their
allies--learners, practitioners, community members, and others--to create
a power block--a critical mass--of learner-centered advocates.  To
accomplish this, advocates will have to be willing to compromise [not too
easily, though--GD], communicate, find areas of agreement, and sometimes
agree to disagree with others who nonetheless have shown an interest in
learner-centered education.  The resulting solidarity can, if necessary,
serve as a stick that advocates of participatory approaches can use to
convince unsupportive institutions of power that these approaches
represent" (p. 84, Participatory Literacy Education, Fingeret & Jurmo).

We have our local theaters of operation--literacy coalitions and other
venues.  At the same time any significant social movement to reconstruct
literacy needs to have a centered national focus that the NLA offers. 
The corridors of D.C need to see the light of day from the cornfield of
Iowa, radiating points west, east, north and south.

I don't want to take this any further at this stage except to suggest
that if we have broad consensus on what are considered best practices and
sound theory and research, on their own terms rather than on their
servant role in supporting unsound policy, then perhaps we are ready to
move forward in the creation of some policy and advocacy strategies. 
Bob, Ron and others, are you with us on this?  If so, then let us begin
the hard work of refashioning national policy so that the dog can wag the
tail (thanks Gloria!).  If you really do disagree with the basic premises
of the leveled critique against current policy, then take the critique out
of the closet and let's have a substantial national and very public
debate/dialogue and discussion on adult literacy and ABE policy.  Either
way, there's work to do.  How should we move forward from here?

George Demetrion
LVA-Connecticut River East
GDemetrion at juno.com

p.s.  Like the Germans and English during WWI perhaps we may have a one
day moratorium of our own.

Merry Christmas


On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:08:47 -0500 "Bickerton, Robert P"
<RBickerton at doe.mass.edu> writes:
>
>George, et al:
>
>I don't have the time right now to provide comprehensive 
>answers to the many questions you pose, but I am very 
>interested in having our "community" address and engage 
>them -- I was also intimately involved in almost all the 
>stages in the reauthorization of adult ed that led, ultimately 
>to WIA, so I know that (over time) I can shed a great deal 
>of light on these questions/issues.
>
>One short part of "the answers" is that a moratorium will 
>almost certainly not be an option -- for two reasons:
>
>1.  These issues were negotiated with members of Congress 
>and their staff over a four year period.  Some of you may 
>recall the numerous postings I sent to our colleagues in the 
>field (via this list and countless other venues) that raised 
>these and many other issues.  Many advocated with Congress 
>for the positions arrived at through painstaking negotiations 
>among members of the National Coalition for Literacy -- 
>unfortunately, the vast majority of our field did not.  
>(I learned during this process that grassroots advocacy hits 
>its highest volume when survival and/or funding is at stake, 
>but not when the topic is "policy!")  After hundreds of hours 
>of negotiation, I cannot imagine that the members of Congress 
>who took the lead on the House and Senate committees that 
>developed WIA would now support a moratorium in its 
>implementation.  
>
>2.  Such resistance can theoretically be overcome by a very 
>widespread, aggressive and tenacious (over time) advocacy 
>campaign -- a level of effort I do not believe our field is 
>prepared to invest in this issue -- regardless of how important 
>it may be to the "heart and soul" of our work.  If you believe 
>otherwise, please don't endeavor to convince us with words -- 
>do the organizing and get out the troops -- I'm willing to be 
>proven wrong and if so, I'll help along the way.
>
>I hope to have time to contribute more soon,
>in the meantime -- enjoy the holidays and have a wonderful 
>New Years,
>
>bob bickerton, MA director of adult ed
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: GEORGE E. DEMETRION [mailto:gdemetrion at juno.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 12:06 AM
>To: nla at world.std.com
>Subject: NLA Discussion: WIA and NRS
>
>
>Ron:
>
>Thanks for your response.  Lots of issues out there.  Agreed, the law 
>is
>what the law is.
>
>Question:  what role (if any) did your office and/or the Clinton
>administration have in establishing the WIA?  More broadly, why is ABE
>and literacy tied to the Workforce Investment Act that symbolically
>reduces literacy as an economic development tool, and whatever did 
>happen
>to the National Literacy Act and why?
>
>The law is the law, but there is also a Congress that meets in 
>January. 
>The stipulations were created by human beings and they can be undone 
>by
>human beings.  Given the nature of the discussion we've had on how
>problematic "quantifiable, measurable and objective" are in accurately
>assessing adult literacy learning, is your office ready, willing and 
>able
>to go to Congress and ask for a moratorium so we can put a better
>reporting system in place?  State Directors, agency heads, and policy
>analysts, would you be willing to join Ron to ask Congress to 
>legislate a
>moratorium so we could put together a more coherent system grounded in
>"mutual accountability?"  If so, there are not a few of us on this 
>list
>who would readily join you.
>
>This issue of sampling has been raised in highly intelligent quarters 
>and
>deserves much more of a serious consideration than you have so far 
>given
>to it.  Such a focus would allow us to spend much more time on 
>teaching
>so that we could *begin* to create an adult literacy/ABE system worthy 
>of
>our collective passion, knowledge and experience.  We need govt to be 
>an
>active partner in this, not leading the pack, not issuing mandates, 
>but
>playing a creative role as partners in a much more dynamic democratic
>process that that which currently characterizes our discourse and
>"delivery" systems.
>
>In all seriousness, I'm not convinced (or haven't seen any evidence of
>it) that "Congress" (or is it the legislative aides, policy analysts 
>and
>think tanks?) has had sufficient information needed to put together
>legislation that is coherent with our best practice and research.  The
>100 + posts on this topic this fall, to say nothing of the reports,
>monographs and research projects (both field based and academic)
>provides that information.  Could you give us some feedback on the
>theoretical premises that gave shape to the NRS, and whose baby was 
>that,
>by the way?  Who are the achitects of the NRS?  Perhaps we might hear
>from them.
>
>Where does the buck stop on the NRS?  Your office says it's Congress.  
>(I
>wonder what "Congress" would say?  State directors might say, it's 
>your
>office.  Programs say, it's our state ABE agencies.  There's a certain
>amorphousness about this policy that is not easy to pin down, and 
>then,
>who's responsible for the WIA in the first place?  Is it the religious
>right?  Is it connected to Clinton's emphasis on the global economy, 
>did
>it come out of congressional energies, reform movements within
>ABE/literacy?  Policy advocates?  Think tanks?
>
>It's important for the sake of literacy to publically describe the
>hisorical and political process on how the WIA and the NRS came to be,
>even a thumb nail sketch.  It's important because responsibility for 
>it
>needs to be placed and possible sources for repeal, reforms, and 
>avenues
>to achieve any moratoriums particularly on the NRS need to be 
>identified.
>
>Finally, on the EFF. From the getgo, EFF developers have linked the 
>most
>daunting adult literacy/lifelong learning reform initiative to date to
>policy as well as to pedagogy in the quest to fulfuill National
>Educational Goal 6.  The standards are an essential piece of it not 
>just
>as a tool for teachers and students to tell how they're doing, but as
>part of a broader mechanism to create a national consensus on "results
>that matter."  This is the vision of EFF.  So because the "core
>indicators are not EFF standards" (because, I presume, they are not
>"quantifiable, objective, and measurable") they get relegated as
>"secondary" measures.
>
>Question:  Why wasn't (or was it?) EFF an integral part of the 
>discussion
>in the formation of the new legislation?  What happened here?  What 
>role,
>if any, was your office playing in efforts to support the EFF frame in
>light of the emerging legislation?  What role were the EFF developers
>playing with Congress and with your office during this time?  Then, 
>for
>the EFFers, if the standards are no longer a part of the "real 
>picture"
>of federal policy, then what does that mean for the framework?  What 
>does
>it mean for your quest for consenus building? (I've been critical of 
>that
>aspect of EFF, but that's besides the point).
>
>Ron, these questions and those like them are quite important because
>without this knowledge policy takes on a form of mystique as if it is
>this omnipotent power or state of nature hovering over literacy land. 
>The historical forces that interplayed in the development of literacy
>policy in the 1990s is an important story that deserves a broad 
>audience,
>certainly knowledge that should be readily available to us on this 
>list
>with as little mystification and spin as possible.  While I do 
>appreciate
>the webcast/satellite dialogues that your office will provide, the 
>need,
>in my view, is for an independent source of literacy journalism which 
>the
>NLA potentially provides.  It is *this* forum and others like it that 
>in
>my view, the field needs, if it is going to exercise more of an
>independent judgment and influence on the politics and pedagogy of
>literacy.  
>
>I can think of no better venue for that than the National Literacy
>Advocacy.  
>
>While I have been a critic of much federal policy on ABE/literacy, I
>extend my personal thanks for your willingness to engage us.
>
>George Demetrion
>LVA-Connecticut River East
>GDemetrion at juno.com
>

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.



From MKutner at air.org  Thu Dec 23 16:06:13 1999
From: MKutner at air.org (Kutner, Mark)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 16:06:13 -0500
Subject: NLA Info: Professional Development Conference
Message-ID: <199912242251.RAA14474@europe.std.com>


Attention Adult Educators:

Learn about what is new in adult education and professional development

How:
Attend the Third National PRO-NET Professional Development Conference  -
"Looking to the future: Lessons learned and lessons to be learned in
promoting effective professional development."  sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Education's Division of Adult Education and Literacy and the
Pelavin Research Institute.

This conference is designed to consider future trends and developments in
professional development and to reflect upon the last decade of research and
development.  The conference will include plenary as well as concurrent
sessions to enable attendees to participate in a variety of presentations
and activities.  

When: 
February 10 and 11, 2000 

Where: 
The Madison Hotel, Washington, D.C. 
(The hotel deadline for reservations is January 11, 2000.  Reservations made
after this date will be accepted on a space available basis only and the
government rate cannot be guaranteed).    

Several interesting topics are planned for the conference. Examples of
sessions are listed below:   

Implementing systemic change. This session will present 5 essential steps
for implementing change. Professional development opportunities must be
designed to ensure that people at different levels within the system
understand and carry out their roles and responsibilities if constructive
change is to occur. 

How do we know if professional development works? This session will examine
the ways to assess the impact of professional development. The speakers will
discuss the different levels of assessment and address the needs of
different audiences: the instructor, the organization, and the adult
learner. 

Getting connected:  Using technology for professional development.  There
are a variety of ways in which 	technology can be used to deliver effective
professional development.  A technology panel will discuss some of the
options available and what needs to be considered in planning and
implementing professional development through 	technology. 
An introduction to instructor and management competencies.  This session
will introduce a practical set of instructor competencies with accompanying
performance indicators. This information can be used to help improve the
quality and effectiveness of adult education instruction. In addition to the
information for instructors, a set of management competencies will also be
introduced. 

An introduction to mentoring. This session will provide an overview of
mentoring and draws upon the experiences of several programs engaged in
mentoring.  Panel members will discuss how they used mentoring, as well as
the strengths and barriers to effective mentoring.

Training instructors in teaching employability skills. This session will
focus on aspects of instruction, including curriculum content, assessment,
and teaching employability skills.

For more information about the conference and registration please contact
Renee Sherman at (202) 944-5327 or via e-mail at rsherman at air.org 




From John_Comings at harvard.edu  Fri Dec 24 19:55:57 1999
From: John_Comings at harvard.edu (John Comings)
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:55:57 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: NLA Info: National Literacy Summit, February 14-15, 2000
Message-ID: <199912250551.AAA21447@europe.std.com>


Let me speak for the Summit Steering Committee and encourage others 
to comment. The Summit is a process that we hope will have several 
events that will allow for wide participation.  There is a Summit 
Document in draft form that will be available on the Web at NIFL's 
site, and we hope that everyone will take a look at it and make 
comments and suggestions. We hope that some of that dialogue will 
happen on the NLA listserve.

An early draft of the Summit Document has already been read and 
discussed at a one day conference at Kent State in OH.  That meeting 
was attended by around a 100 people from OH and nearby states, 
including Congressman Sawyer. The sponsors of that meeting could give 
an accurate count and makeup of the group, but it was diverse in all 
the ways that our field is.

The Summit meeting in DC will have learners, teachers, program 
directors, state directors, researchers, national officials, national 
leaders, and representatives of foundations, government agencies and 
advocacy groups that are interested in adult literacy.  This meeting 
will help shape the Summit Document and add specific recommendation 
to it. The draft of the document that comes out of that meeting will 
also be made available, and we hope that it, too, will be discussed 
on the listserves and in state and regional meetings.

By September, we hope to have incorporated all of the feedback into a 
final document that will be made public on labor day or on 
international literacy day.

The Summit process has two goals.  The first is to produce a document 
that sets out a common vision for our field.  Not a vision formed in 
reaction to the present legislation but one built around what we feel 
represents a positive future for our field.  The document will set 
out our case for investment in ABE/ESOL/ASE services and a plan for 
improving and expanding those services.  The second goal is to 
involve as many members of our field in this dialogue so that the 
common vision will be one shared by all.

This is an ambitious task, and, like most of what we do in our field, 
we undertake it with inadequate resources.  The DC meeting has 
limited space, and that is why it is invitational.  But, the Steering 
Committee has spent a lot of time trying to be sure that a 
representative sample of every group attends.  Please participate it 
the process in whatever way you can.
----------------------------------------
John Comings                     Phone: 617.496.0516
NCSALL -- Nichols House          Fax:   617.495.4811
7 Appian Way                     Email: John_Comings at harvard.edu
Graduate School of Education     Web:   http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall
Harvard University
Cambridge MA 02138




From elsa.auerbach at umb.edu  Sat Dec 25 19:04:56 1999
From: elsa.auerbach at umb.edu (Elsa Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 20:04:56 -0400
Subject: NLA Info: National Literacy Summit, February 14-15, 2000
Message-ID: <199912261135.GAA19809@europe.std.com>

John,

 Clearly, your hope is that the document produced by the summit will have a
strong impact on future policy.  Since the force of the document may be
significant, it is important that the field be involved and informed to the
extent possible in every aspect of planning and content.  Given the climate
of vigorous debate, the selective (yet abundantly clear) responses from Ron
Pugsley to questions on this list, and the significant critiques to current
policy, the summit will only have credibility among those on the ground if
it represents those who DON'T work within the EFF-NIFL-NCSALL-DOE, etc. etc.
axis and may disagree with the dominant agenda.  It will have greater force
among policy makers if it has the field behind it (since people will only
mobilize around a document that they feel is adequately representative).

Could you address the following?

1.  Who is funding the Summit (please be as specific as possible)?

2.  Please specify exactly what the invitation process is and who is in
charge of making invitations.

3.  You talk about diversity in terms of roles (learners, researchers,
practitioners, etc.) but not in terms of ideology.  Has there been a
deliberate effort to invite those who challenge the policy agenda on
ideological grounds?  I assume invited George Demetrion, Catherine King,
Andres Muro, etc. (people who I only know through this list, but whose
critiques are central to any discussion of literacy on a national level)
been invited? If not, please explain.

4. Have you earmarked funding for those who are on the ground, in the
trenches and whose may disagree with current policy (that is, have you set
aside money for those whose programs cannot afford to pay and who have
important divergent views to contribute)? If not, would you be willing to do
so?  IF there is no money in the current budget to insure their invitation,
have you sought money from funders specifically for this purpose?

5. Can those who can pay their own way participate?

6.  Who is on the Summit Steering Committee?

7.  Specifically what percent of the summit participants represent ESOL
constituents and ESOL work?  Does this percentage reflect the actual number
of those being served? I ask this question because all too often ESOL work
and learners are underrepresented in national research agendas,
publications, and policy debates. Exactly how many of those currently slated
to participate have a first language other than English?  A racial and
linguistic breakdown of invitees would be welcome.

Thanks for your responses.  The more transparent the process is, the more
credibility the summit will have.

Elsa Auerbach


John Comings wrote:

> Let me speak for the Summit Steering Committee and encourage others
> to comment. The Summit is a process that we hope will have several
> events that will allow for wide participation.  There is a Summit
> Document in draft form that will be available on the Web at NIFL's
> site, and we hope that everyone will take a look at it and make
> comments and suggestions. We hope that some of that dialogue will
> happen on the NLA listserve.
>
> An early draft of the Summit Document has already been read and
> discussed at a one day conference at Kent State in OH.  That meeting
> was attended by around a 100 people from OH and nearby states,
> including Congressman Sawyer. The sponsors of that meeting could give
> an accurate count and makeup of the group, but it was diverse in all
> the ways that our field is.
>
> The Summit meeting in DC will have learners, teachers, program
> directors, state directors, researchers, national officials, national
> leaders, and representatives of foundations, government agencies and
> advocacy groups that are interested in adult literacy.  This meeting
> will help shape the Summit Document and add specific recommendation
> to it. The draft of the document that comes out of that meeting will
> also be made available, and we hope that it, too, will be discussed
> on the listserves and in state and regional meetings.
>
> By September, we hope to have incorporated all of the feedback into a
> final document that will be made public on labor day or on
> international literacy day.
>
> The Summit process has two goals.  The first is to produce a document
> that sets out a common vision for our field.  Not a vision formed in
> reaction to the present legislation but one built around what we feel
> represents a positive future for our field.  The document will set
> out our case for investment in ABE/ESOL/ASE services and a plan for
> improving and expanding those services.  The second goal is to
> involve as many members of our field in this dialogue so that the
> common vision will be one shared by all.
>
> This is an ambitious task, and, like most of what we do in our field,
> we undertake it with inadequate resources.  The DC meeting has
> limited space, and that is why it is invitational.  But, the Steering
> Committee has spent a lot of time trying to be sure that a
> representative sample of every group attends.  Please participate it
> the process in whatever way you can.
> ----------------------------------------
> John Comings                     Phone: 617.496.0516
> NCSALL -- Nichols House          Fax:   617.495.4811
> 7 Appian Way                     Email: John_Comings at harvard.edu
> Graduate School of Education     Web:   http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall
> Harvard University
> Cambridge MA 02138




John Comings wrote:

> Let me speak for the Summit Steering Committee and encourage others
> to comment. The Summit is a process that we hope will have several
> events that will allow for wide participation.  There is a Summit
> Document in draft form that will be available on the Web at NIFL's
> site, and we hope that everyone will take a look at it and make
> comments and suggestions. We hope that some of that dialogue will
> happen on the NLA listserve.
>
> An early draft of the Summit Document has already been read and
> discussed at a one day conference at Kent State in OH.  That meeting
> was attended by around a 100 people from OH and nearby states,
> including Congressman Sawyer. The sponsors of that meeting could give
> an accurate count and makeup of the group, but it was diverse in all
> the ways that our field is.
>
> The Summit meeting in DC will have learners, teachers, program
> directors, state directors, researchers, national officials, national
> leaders, and representatives of foundations, government agencies and
> advocacy groups that are interested in adult literacy.  This meeting
> will help shape the Summit Document and add specific recommendation
> to it. The draft of the document that comes out of that meeting will
> also be made available, and we hope that it, too, will be discussed
> on the listserves and in state and regional meetings.
>
> By September, we hope to have incorporated all of the feedback into a
> final document that will be made public on labor day or on
> international literacy day.
>
> The Summit process has two goals.  The first is to produce a document
> that sets out a common vision for our field.  Not a vision formed in
> reaction to the present legislation but one built around what we feel
> represents a positive future for our field.  The document will set
> out our case for investment in ABE/ESOL/ASE services and a plan for
> improving and expanding those services.  The second goal is to
> involve as many members of our field in this dialogue so that the
> common vision will be one shared by all.
>
> This is an ambitious task, and, like most of what we do in our field,
> we undertake it with inadequate resources.  The DC meeting has
> limited space, and that is why it is invitational.  But, the Steering
> Committee has spent a lot of time trying to be sure that a
> representative sample of every group attends.  Please participate it
> the process in whatever way you can.
> ----------------------------------------
> John Comings                     Phone: 617.496.0516
> NCSALL -- Nichols House          Fax:   617.495.4811
> 7 Appian Way                     Email: John_Comings at harvard.edu
> Graduate School of Education     Web:   http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall
> Harvard University
> Cambridge MA 02138



--------------04BCC2B860141D2797485E7B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>
John,

<P>&nbsp;Clearly, your hope is that the document produced by the summit
will have a strong impact on future policy.&nbsp; Since the force of the
document may be significant, it is important that the field be involved
and informed to the extent possible in every aspect of planning and content.&nbsp;
Given the climate of vigorous debate, the selective (yet abundantly clear)
responses from Ron Pugsley to questions on this list, and the significant
critiques to current policy, the summit will only have credibility among
those on the ground if it represents those who DON'T work within the EFF-NIFL-NCSALL-DOE,
etc. etc. axis and may disagree with the dominant agenda.&nbsp; It will
have greater force among policy makers if it has the field behind it (since
people will only mobilize around a document that they feel is adequately
representative).

<P>Could you address the following?

<P>1.&nbsp; Who is funding the Summit (please be as specific as possible)?

<P>2.&nbsp; Please specify exactly what the invitation process is and who
is in charge of making invitations.

<P>3.&nbsp; You talk about diversity in terms of <U>roles</U> (learners,
researchers, practitioners, etc.) but not in terms of <U>ideology</U>.&nbsp;
Has there been a deliberate effort to invite those who challenge the policy
agenda on ideological grounds?&nbsp; I assume invited George Demetrion,
Catherine King, Andres Muro, etc. (people who I only know through this
list, but whose critiques are central to any discussion of literacy on
a national level) been invited? If not, please explain.

<P>4. Have you earmarked funding for those who are on the ground, in the
trenches and whose may disagree with current policy (that is, have you
set aside money for those whose programs cannot afford to pay and who have
important divergent views to contribute)? If not, would you be willing
to do so?&nbsp; IF there is no money in the current budget to insure their
invitation, have you sought money from funders specifically for this purpose?

<P>5. Can those who can pay their own way participate?

<P>6.&nbsp; Who is on the Summit Steering Committee?

<P>7.&nbsp; Specifically what percent of the summit participants represent
ESOL constituents and ESOL work?&nbsp; Does this percentage reflect the
actual number of those being served? I ask this question because all too
often ESOL work and learners are underrepresented in national research
agendas, publications, and policy debates. <U>Exactly how many of those
currently slated to participate have a first language other than English?</U>&nbsp;
A racial and linguistic breakdown of invitees would be welcome.

<P>Thanks for your responses.&nbsp; The more transparent the process is,
the more credibility the summit will have.

<P>Elsa Auerbach
<BR>&nbsp;

<P>John Comings wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Let me speak for the Summit Steering Committee and
encourage others
<BR>to comment. The Summit is a process that we hope will have several
<BR>events that will allow for wide participation.&nbsp; There is a Summit
<BR>Document in draft form that will be available on the Web at NIFL's
<BR>site, and we hope that everyone will take a look at it and make
<BR>comments and suggestions. We hope that some of that dialogue will
<BR>happen on the NLA listserve.

<P>An early draft of the Summit Document has already been read and
<BR>discussed at a one day conference at Kent State in OH.&nbsp; That meeting
<BR>was attended by around a 100 people from OH and nearby states,
<BR>including Congressman Sawyer. The sponsors of that meeting could give
<BR>an accurate count and makeup of the group, but it was diverse in all
<BR>the ways that our field is.

<P>The Summit meeting in DC will have learners, teachers, program
<BR>directors, state directors, researchers, national officials, national
<BR>leaders, and representatives of foundations, government agencies and
<BR>advocacy groups that are interested in adult literacy.&nbsp; This meeting
<BR>will help shape the Summit Document and add specific recommendation
<BR>to it. The draft of the document that comes out of that meeting will
<BR>also be made available, and we hope that it, too, will be discussed
<BR>on the listserves and in state and regional meetings.

<P>By September, we hope to have incorporated all of the feedback into
a
<BR>final document that will be made public on labor day or on
<BR>international literacy day.

<P>The Summit process has two goals.&nbsp; The first is to produce a document
<BR>that sets out a common vision for our field.&nbsp; Not a vision formed
in
<BR>reaction to the present legislation but one built around what we feel
<BR>represents a positive future for our field.&nbsp; The document will
set
<BR>out our case for investment in ABE/ESOL/ASE services and a plan for
<BR>improving and expanding those services.&nbsp; The second goal is to
<BR>involve as many members of our field in this dialogue so that the
<BR>common vision will be one shared by all.

<P>This is an ambitious task, and, like most of what we do in our field,
<BR>we undertake it with inadequate resources.&nbsp; The DC meeting has
<BR>limited space, and that is why it is invitational.&nbsp; But, the Steering
<BR>Committee has spent a lot of time trying to be sure that a
<BR>representative sample of every group attends.&nbsp; Please participate
it
<BR>the process in whatever way you can.
<BR>----------------------------------------
<BR>John Comings&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Phone: 617.496.0516
<BR>NCSALL -- Nichols House&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Fax:&nbsp;&nbsp; 617.495.4811
<BR>7 Appian Way&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Email: John_Comings at harvard.edu
<BR>Graduate School of Education&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Web:&nbsp;&nbsp;
<A HREF="http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall">http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall</A>
<BR>Harvard University
<BR>Cambridge MA 02138</BLOCKQUOTE>
&nbsp;
<BR>&nbsp;

<P>John Comings wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Let me speak for the Summit Steering Committee and
encourage others
<BR>to comment. The Summit is a process that we hope will have several
<BR>events that will allow for wide participation.&nbsp; There is a Summit
<BR>Document in draft form that will be available on the Web at NIFL's
<BR>site, and we hope that everyone will take a look at it and make
<BR>comments and suggestions. We hope that some of that dialogue will
<BR>happen on the NLA listserve.

<P>An early draft of the Summit Document has already been read and
<BR>discussed at a one day conference at Kent State in OH.&nbsp; That meeting
<BR>was attended by around a 100 people from OH and nearby states,
<BR>including Congressman Sawyer. The sponsors of that meeting could give
<BR>an accurate count and makeup of the group, but it was diverse in all
<BR>the ways that our field is.

<P>The Summit meeting in DC will have learners, teachers, program
<BR>directors, state directors, researchers, national officials, national
<BR>leaders, and representatives of foundations, government agencies and
<BR>advocacy groups that are interested in adult literacy.&nbsp; This meeting
<BR>will help shape the Summit Document and add specific recommendation
<BR>to it. The draft of the document that comes out of that meeting will
<BR>also be made available, and we hope that it, too, will be discussed
<BR>on the listserves and in state and regional meetings.

<P>By September, we hope to have incorporated all of the feedback into
a
<BR>final document that will be made public on labor day or on
<BR>international literacy day.

<P>The Summit process has two goals.&nbsp; The first is to produce a document
<BR>that sets out a common vision for our field.&nbsp; Not a vision formed
in
<BR>reaction to the present legislation but one built around what we feel
<BR>represents a positive future for our field.&nbsp; The document will
set
<BR>out our case for investment in ABE/ESOL/ASE services and a plan for
<BR>improving and expanding those services.&nbsp; The second goal is to
<BR>involve as many members of our field in this dialogue so that the
<BR>common vision will be one shared by all.

<P>This is an ambitious task, and, like most of what we do in our field,
<BR>we undertake it with inadequate resources.&nbsp; The DC meeting has
<BR>limited space, and that is why it is invitational.&nbsp; But, the Steering
<BR>Committee has spent a lot of time trying to be sure that a
<BR>representative sample of every group attends.&nbsp; Please participate
it
<BR>the process in whatever way you can.
<BR>----------------------------------------
<BR>John Comings&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Phone: 617.496.0516
<BR>NCSALL -- Nichols House&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Fax:&nbsp;&nbsp; 617.495.4811
<BR>7 Appian Way&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Email: John_Comings at harvard.edu
<BR>Graduate School of Education&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Web:&nbsp;&nbsp;
<A HREF="http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall">http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall</A>
<BR>Harvard University
<BR>Cambridge MA 02138</BLOCKQUOTE>
&nbsp;</HTML>

--------------04BCC2B860141D2797485E7B--

--------------63B5EFD6D2B9C4ED031992A3
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Elsa Auerbach
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"

begin:          vcard
fn:             Elsa Auerbach
n:              Auerbach;Elsa
adr;dom:        ;;English Dept., UMass/Boston;Boston;MA;02125;
email;internet: elsa.auerbach at umb.edu
tel;work:       617-287-5763
tel;fax:        617-287-6511
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard


--------------63B5EFD6D2B9C4ED031992A3--




From tsticht at aznet.net  Sun Dec 26 18:25:29 1999
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 15:25:29 -0800
Subject: NLA Discussion: Summit Vision
Message-ID: <199912270136.UAA07654@europe.std.com>

Feedback on the Summit Vision Paper

To: Christy Gullion

From: Tom Sticht, 12/26/99

This Summit vision paper starts with a skills-based argument that in my
judgment immediately slants the paper toward the cliche' of adult
literacy education (ALE) as a remedial, second chance learning
opportunity for adults who are deficient in the basic three R's of
reading, writing, and arithmetic. It repeats the decades old arguments
of the importance of education credentials and literacy skills for
successfully meeting the demands of life in contemporary society,
whether that was or is the society of the 1940s, 60s 80s or the 00s. 

Even when the paper produces caveats like basic skills are not enough,
or basic skills includes more than the three R's, or literacy means a lot
more today, the basic impression that I take from the paper as a
document that deals with adult literacy is of the remedial, second
chance cliche'.

In setting up this view of ALE as a skills-deficiency, remedial, crisis
oriented problem, the vision is propagated of the helpless adult in need
of some volunteer tutoring in phonics so he or she can get some sort of
entry level job and support a family. Since a little tutoring can't take
much time, if we really put a special effort into it, we can take all
those adults with literacy skills below the Level 3 of the National
Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) and in a decade long campaign, we can
remediate these 90 or so million illiterates and, in a watered down
version of Lake Wobegon, we can get at least 70 percent  above average
(Level 3 of the NALS)! This will help us compete against other great
economies, like Sweden where literacy rates are really high. 

In short, for me, the tone of the document is deficiency oriented. It
reinforces the marginalized image of the field of ALE that exists today.
It makes economic arguments that, in today's climate of economic
prosperity and high rates of employment, are not particularly persuasive
for trying to bring about a revolution in adult education in the United
States of the 21st century. 

In my judgment, the paper should lead off with and be organized around a
more positive view of both the social and economic good sense of
providing for a system of continuing education that extends existing
educational opportunities for all adults. The paper should focus less on
the negative aspects of ALE and more on the positive outcomes of adult
education, such as the promotion of good citizenship to participate in
the democratic process that can lead to a better society with less crime
(with cost savings due to less money spent on adult imprisonment),
better health and health services over the lifetime (with cost savings
due to less money being spent on government provided health services) ,
greater effectiveness of the K-12 education system as a beneficiary of
adult's experiences with their children (with cost savings due to less
need for remedial and compensatory education programs),  and the many
social rewards that education opens up and stimulates in terms of the
participation in and  appreciation of cultural events and institutions
such as museums, theatre, art, literature, music, science and general
human spiritual awakening.

The paper should argue for an adult continuing education system that
provides opportunities for developing communication and creative
abilities for adults that can help them continuously develop their
intellectual, creative  and aesthetic talents. The program should be
funded at well beyond the present level of just over $300 per enrollee.
Indeed, such a system, instilled as a permanent educational system for
adults, should be funded at at least $3000 per enrollee, about half of
what we presently spend per child in the K-12 system. With some
5,000,000 enrollees per year, this would cost about $15,000,000,000 per
year. This is much less than the cost that the present chaotic system of
disparate programs such as the imprisonment of 500,000 undereducated
adults per year (at $20,000 per prisoner per year, it costs about
$10,000,000,000 to keep half a million adults in prison), unknown but no
doubt extensive medical care for undereducated adults, and compensatory
education for millions of the children of undereducated adults. Further,
not only can such an approach to ALE potentially  save billions of
dollars in cost-avoidance of negative expenditures, it has the potential
of helping adults increase their productivity in ways that can produce a
positive increase in the economic base of the nation. 

>From my point of view, the new vision of adult education should avoid
the old cliche's of remediation, second chance, and marginalized
education aimed at eradicating poverty and welfare. Instead, it  should
strike a positive tone and  build on the positive accomplishments of
adult education and argue strongly for the development of the adult
education system as a stable, well-funded, permanent continuing
education system for adults that can bridge the K-12 and college domains
of education , but also lead to various certificates and non-credit
education for a better society.  

I note that some of these ideas have found their way into the Summit
vision paper from earlier papers that I have written. But they are well
down in the Summit paper and in my judgment they are overridden by the
negative tone and cliche' view of adult literacy education give in the
early parts of the Summit paper. 

On a more mundane note, let me say that I believe that in such an
important paper, whenever factual information or someone else's ideas
are presented there should be a clear attribution of whose work and
words is being presented, and there should be a complete bibliographic
citation so that others can look up the cited information. 

Thanks for your attention to these ideas. I hope they are of use as the
work on the Summit vision paper continues.

Tom Sticht



From rkrawiec at mindspring.com  Mon Dec 27 00:57:39 1999
From: rkrawiec at mindspring.com (richard krawiec)
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 21:57:39 -0800
Subject: NLA Discussion: Summit Vision
Message-ID: <199912270508.AAA00470@europe.std.com>

To Thomas Sticht;

Thanks, as always, for your insight and stance.

I did wish to question the figure you quote, $20,000, for incarcerating an
adult. The actual cost, I believe, is much higher.  In NC I was told(by the
education director at Women's Prison in Raleigh) that it costs $35,000 per
year to maintain one woman, and $33,000 to maintain one man. I doubt that
our expenses here exceed the national average.

rk

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Sticht <tsticht at aznet.net>
To: <nla at world.std.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 1999 3:25 PM
Subject: NLA Discussion: Summit Vision


> Feedback on the Summit Vision Paper
>
> To: Christy Gullion
>
> From: Tom Sticht, 12/26/99
>
> This Summit vision paper starts with a skills-based argument that in my
> judgment immediately slants the paper toward the cliche' of adult
> literacy education (ALE) as a remedial, second chance learning
> opportunity for adults who are deficient in the basic three R's of
> reading, writing, and arithmetic. It repeats the decades old arguments
> of the importance of education credentials and literacy skills for
> successfully meeting the demands of life in contemporary society,
> whether that was or is the society of the 1940s, 60s 80s or the 00s.
>
> Even when the paper produces caveats like basic skills are not enough,
> or basic skills includes more than the three R's, or literacy means a lot
> more today, the basic impression that I take from the paper as a
> document that deals with adult literacy is of the remedial, second
> chance cliche'.
>
> In setting up this view of ALE as a skills-deficiency, remedial, crisis
> oriented problem, the vision is propagated of the helpless adult in need
> of some volunteer tutoring in phonics so he or she can get some sort of
> entry level job and support a family. Since a little tutoring can't take
> much time, if we really put a special effort into it, we can take all
> those adults with literacy skills below the Level 3 of the National
> Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) and in a decade long campaign, we can
> remediate these 90 or so million illiterates and, in a watered down
> version of Lake Wobegon, we can get at least 70 percent  above average
> (Level 3 of the NALS)! This will help us compete against other great
> economies, like Sweden where literacy rates are really high.
>
> In short, for me, the tone of the document is deficiency oriented. It
> reinforces the marginalized image of the field of ALE that exists today.
> It makes economic arguments that, in today's climate of economic
> prosperity and high rates of employment, are not particularly persuasive
> for trying to bring about a revolution in adult education in the United
> States of the 21st century.
>
> In my judgment, the paper should lead off with and be organized around a
> more positive view of both the social and economic good sense of
> providing for a system of continuing education that extends existing
> educational opportunities for all adults. The paper should focus less on
> the negative aspects of ALE and more on the positive outcomes of adult
> education, such as the promotion of good citizenship to participate in
> the democratic process that can lead to a better society with less crime
> (with cost savings due to less money spent on adult imprisonment),
> better health and health services over the lifetime (with cost savings
> due to less money being spent on government provided health services) ,
> greater effectiveness of the K-12 education system as a beneficiary of
> adult's experiences with their children (with cost savings due to less
> need for remedial and compensatory education programs),  and the many
> social rewards that education opens up and stimulates in terms of the
> participation in and  appreciation of cultural events and institutions
> such as museums, theatre, art, literature, music, science and general
> human spiritual awakening.
>
> The paper should argue for an adult continuing education system that
> provides opportunities for developing communication and creative
> abilities for adults that can help them continuously develop their
> intellectual, creative  and aesthetic talents. The program should be
> funded at well beyond the present level of just over $300 per enrollee.
> Indeed, such a system, instilled as a permanent educational system for
> adults, should be funded at at least $3000 per enrollee, about half of
> what we presently spend per child in the K-12 system. With some
> 5,000,000 enrollees per year, this would cost about $15,000,000,000 per
> year. This is much less than the cost that the present chaotic system of
> disparate programs such as the imprisonment of 500,000 undereducated
> adults per year (at $20,000 per prisoner per year, it costs about
> $10,000,000,000 to keep half a million adults in prison), unknown but no
> doubt extensive medical care for undereducated adults, and compensatory
> education for millions of the children of undereducated adults. Further,
> not only can such an approach to ALE potentially  save billions of
> dollars in cost-avoidance of negative expenditures, it has the potential
> of helping adults increase their productivity in ways that can produce a
> positive increase in the economic base of the nation.
>
> From my point of view, the new vision of adult education should avoid
> the old cliche's of remediation, second chance, and marginalized
> education aimed at eradicating poverty and welfare. Instead, it  should
> strike a positive tone and  build on the positive accomplishments of
> adult education and argue strongly for the development of the adult
> education system as a stable, well-funded, permanent continuing
> education system for adults that can bridge the K-12 and college domains
> of education , but also lead to various certificates and non-credit
> education for a better society.
>
> I note that some of these ideas have found their way into the Summit
> vision paper from earlier papers that I have written. But they are well
> down in the Summit paper and in my judgment they are overridden by the
> negative tone and cliche' view of adult literacy education give in the
> early parts of the Summit paper.
>
> On a more mundane note, let me say that I believe that in such an
> important paper, whenever factual information or someone else's ideas
> are presented there should be a clear attribution of whose work and
> words is being presented, and there should be a complete bibliographic
> citation so that others can look up the cited information.
>
> Thanks for your attention to these ideas. I hope they are of use as the
> work on the Summit vision paper continues.
>
> Tom Sticht
>




From DJRosen at world.std.com  Mon Dec 27 19:47:41 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 19:47:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Call to Action: Return of the Tin Horn Dictator
Message-ID: <199912280240.VAA25133@europe.std.com>


NLA Colleagues, 

Last year, in response to the list moderator's urgings for literacy 
activism, a subscriber replied that these were the rantings of a 
Tin Horn Dictator.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

               **** The Return of the Tin Horn Dictator ****

Mounting the soapbox for his annual hortatory, the Tin Horn Dictator
holds up a large banner on which is written

		============================================
		The New Millenium Right to Complain Campaign
		============================================

He begins to speak, 

"Ladies and Gentlemen, as you have heard me say before, in this democracy
of ours complaining is not a natural right;  it must be earned.  I have
seen plenty of robust complaining in 1999, and as good as that might be for 
the soul and psyche, I wonder how many of you tilling in the literacy
field -- and complaining good and loud about it -- have earned this right
to complain."

A voice in the crowd asks, "Earn the right to complain, you say? You bet I've 
earned it....I teach long hours and get paid a pittance for it.  And, mind
you, I still don't have health benefits."

"Still, you need to do more," replies the Tin Horn Dictator.

Another voice cries out "I'm a student, husband and parent. I hold a job,
and have community responsibilities, too.  Isn't that enough?

"Unh Unh," says the uncompromising Tin Horn Dictator.

"Well, there's not much *I* can do about advocacy" says someone who works in 
a university.

"You bet there is" says the THD.

"I work in a library. We can't be political, you know."

"Nonsense," says the THD.

"Well, what about me? I work for a state education department.  The law says 
I can't be an advocate."

The THD shows some understanding of the bureaucrat's problem but says, "Even 
so, there's plenty you can do which isn't advocacy, as such, but which will 
help.  I'll tell you how in just a bit.  There are lots of ways to earn
the right to complain, for example:

1.  Does your state have an adult literacy public policy (advocacy) committee 
yet?  If so, does it meet monthly?  Does the committee have a yearly plan 
for how it will work with legislators to increase funds and in other ways 
improve adult literacy education?  Are you on this committee?

2.  In 1999 did you write at least one letter and make at least one phone call 
to each of the following: 

	a) your Congressperson, 
	b) both Senators, 
	c) your State Representative and 
	d) your State Senator 

about the need to increase funds for adult literacy? (That's 5 letters and 5 
phone calls.)  If you are a U.S. citizen you have a right and responsibility 
to communicate with the representatives you elect.  Wars have been fought and 
lives have been lost to defend that right.  

3.  In 1999 did you encourage others to write and call their representatives?  
How many people did you encourage to do this? 

4.  Did you invite a legislator in 1999 to visit an adult literacy program and 
to talk with students about why they were there, what they were getting out of 
the program, and what needs were still not being met?

5.  Did you speak before a community group in 1999 about why they need to 
support adult literacy with more funds (to reduce waiting lists, provide more 
seats in classes, offer more hours of instruction, help adult learners get 
computers to use for learning) ?

6.  Did you start a postcard campaign where adults on long waiting lists for 
services mail a card to their legislators asking for help, or where students 
who are graduating thank a legislator for the public funds that made this 
achievement possible, but also point out how many others are on waiting lists 
for this learning opportunity?

7.  Did you write a letter to a newspaper to inform readers about the
state of adult literacy in your community?  Many people are aware that adults 
need these services now, but they mistakenly assume that the needs are being 
met.  We need to help them know about the reality, that we still have under 
$300 per student per year of federal funding, and in some states little or no 
additional state funds, and that nationally we are meeting at best 10% of
the need.

8.  State education department people can provide the information which 
legislators and advocates need.  You can: 

	a) ask programs to keep waiting lists and provide an accurate, 
	unduplicated count of the number of people waiting for 
	services and how long the average wait is;

	b)  determine what percent of the need (based on Census data) 
	is being met in your state;

	c)  provide information which shows what the investment is 
	and what the measures of quality and outcomes are, and what 
	investment would be needed to meet high standards of: 

		1) enrollment; 
		2) retention; 
		3) student satisfaction; 
		4) achievement of learning outcomes; and 
		5) impact on income,  family and community life, civic 
		participation, and other changes which legislators
 		-- and all of us -- want to see."

"So, folks," says the Tin Horn Dictator, " examine your heart.  Did you 
earn the right to complain in 1999?  If not, don't stop complaining, but
do get busy in the new year, and make a difference."

The Tin Horn Dictator puts down his horn and asks if others would like to speak.



David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator





From mev at winternet.com  Tue Dec 28 08:25:55 1999
From: mev at winternet.com (Mev Miller)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 99 07:25:55 -0600
Subject: NLA Info: Pedagogy & Theatre of the Oppressed Conf.
Message-ID: <199912281420.JAA05105@europe.std.com>


I am forwarding this for friends who are not on the list. Please direct 
questions to the persons listed below and not to me. Cross-posted. Thanks.

Mev Miller
____________________________________________________
Pedagogy And Theatre of the Oppressed
THE 6TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
>From S?o Paul to St. Paul: Extending the Freire/Boal Legacy Educating for Social Change Around the World

June 15-18, 2000
Minneapolis, Minnesota

CALL FOR PROPOSALS
We invite proposals on all aspects of emancipatory education and theatre including power relations in the learning environment, systems of structural privilege and oppression, and subversive challenge. We encourage proposals that relate to any oppressed group. For inclusion in the conference, your proposal must relate in some manner to Paulo Freire's model of liberatory education or Augusto Boal's approach to interactive theatre. We welcome proposals from teachers, theatre artists, and community activists who employ in their work or research the ideas of Freire and/or Boal. Please make this connection clear in your proposal. We strongly encourage interactive presentations. Proposals must be postmarked or emailed via website by January 31st, 2000.  Web submissions are available, and are strongly encouraged.

PRESENTATION FORMAT
Unless otherwise noted, all sessions are 90 minutes in length.

Theatre of the Oppressed Workshops
Workshops based directly on the work of Augusto Boal.  2 or 2 1/2 hours in length.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed Workshops
Experiential activities which include audience involvement, presentations and new techniques.

Debates or Dialogues
Discussions of any aspect of liberatory education by two or more presenters.

Performances
Staged plays, musical arrangements, comedy motifs, dances, etc.  (Length may vary.  Say how much time you need.)

Panels
Pre-formed groups of 3 or 4 presentations addressing a specific area of research or concerns.

Paper Discussions
Summaries of research, written and delivered from notes.  (Please don?t read.)  Each presentation should last approx. 15 minutes, excluding discussion.  Papers will be clustered in groups of 3 or 4, with time for dialogue.


About The Pedagogy and Theatre of the Oppressed...
The Pedagogy and Theatre of the Oppressed is a not-for-profit organization with a mission to challenge oppressive systems by promoting critical thinking and social justice. We organize an annual meeting that focuses on the work of liberatory educators, activists, and community organizers. Conference attendees will collaborate in investigations of the roots of class, race, and gender inequalities. This event provides opportunities to combine action and  reflection. 

 Liberatory practitioners and theorists will find the conference a stimulating place to share their knowledge and to reflect on and improve their work. We hope that what we practice in our conference can be achieved in the world.

The 2000 conference will be held on the Minneapolis campus of the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Join us for interesting and provocative discussions and performances, as we collectively consider ways to apply the ideologies and practices of Freire and Boal.

Attendees will include social activists from across the United States and from around the world.


Our website at www.unomaha.edu/~pto will provide updates about the conference as information becomes available.

Questions may be directed to:
? Doug Paterson (Pres. Elect/Conference Chair)
402.554.2422
paterson at unomaha.edu    or
? Carol Lloyd (President)
402.554.3471
Carol_Lloyd at unomaha.edu    or
? Eleni Roulis (on-site Conference Chair)
651.962.4405
e9roulis at stthomas.edu

__________________________________________________
Proposal Cover Sheet   		MAIL BY JANUARY 31st , 2000
 Send me information on the 2000 Pedagogy & Theatre of the Oppressed Conference.

 Workshop:  Theatre of the Oppressed.  Title: 					

 Workshop: Pedagogy of the Oppressed.  Title: 					

 Debate or dialogue. Title: 							

 Performance. Title: 							

 Panel. Title: 								

 Paper discussion. Title: 							

 Willing to serve as chairperson.  Preferred area(s): 				

 Willing to read proposals for next year?s conference.				

 I would like to join the national organization.  Please send membership information.

Name of Submitter: 								

Title: 									

Department: 	                                			Fax: 				

Daytime Phone: 	                             			E-mail Address: 			

Organization/Agency:  							

Organization/Agency Address: 							

City: 			                               	 State 		            Country 			 

Zip/Postal Code 			

Home Address: 								

City: 				                                State 		            Country			 




Submit to: 

    Ms. Christene Sirois
  Executive Conference Coordinator
  University of St. Thomas
  1000 LaSalle Avenue, MOH217
  Minneapolis, MN 55403-2009
  USA

    Attn: PTO Conference


Mev Miller
mev at winternet.com




From Dwyoho at aol.com  Tue Dec 28 09:55:56 1999
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:55:56 EST
Subject: NLA Call to Action: Dear Tin Horn Dictator
Message-ID: <199912281610.LAA21872@europe.std.com>


Mr. Dictator:  I think I have earned about a 50% right to complain, based on 
your list of qualifications.  Could you help grow my enthusiasm for 
saber-rattling a bit by convincing me that contacting legislators really 
makes a difference?  Maybe some real life examples where it has made a 
difference?  I think the reason I score 50%, an "F" after all, is I don't 
think it matters and I may be wrong.  Mostly, it appears my saber is 
deflected (when I do occasionally rattle it) by party politics, other special 
interests and the media.  I need a shot of adrenalin.  Thank you,  Mr. Tin 
Horn.  By the way, I don't think you're a dictator, but a cheerleader.   

Deborah W. Yoho
Chief Executive Officer
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
921 Woodrow Street  
Columbia, SC  29205
803/765-2555   dwyoho at aol.com



From Dwyoho at aol.com  Tue Dec 28 10:13:06 1999
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:13:06 EST
Subject: NLA Discussion: Summit paper
Message-ID: <199912281611.LAA22011@europe.std.com>


I sent these comments directly to Ms. Gullion, but thought I'd post them here 
in case further dialog might result.

In reference to "Literacy Skills for 21st Century America":

1.  Under family literacy, I find the following statement judgmental and just 
plain not true:  "But if adults do not attend to their own literacy needs 
first, they may never be able to help their children."  For one thing, many 
parents who are fully literate don't help their children.  And there are 
things an illiterate parent can do to help their children (even academically) 
without reading a word.  Make the case instead that a parent of any skill 
level actively engaged in lifelong learning presents a powerful role model 
for their children for which there is no substitute .
2.  Under "V.  Current Reponse", 4 types of services are mentioned:  ABE, 
ESOL, ASE, and family literacy.  Up to 30% of enrollees in our program 
already have a high school diploma.  Where do they fit under these four 
categories?  Here is a specific example where the emphasis on credentials and 
basic skills has biased this section.  Dr. Sticht's comments are cogent here. 
 I suspect the reason for this oversight in this section of the programs who 
serve the needs of the many adults who do not need a credential, but have 
other goals, is because the larger "systems" generally developing policy 
overlook them too, especially in the wave of welfare reform.  Although 
learners in programs other than ESOL, ABE, family literacy or ASE are 
described in the section under financial investment, the point needs to be 
made here.  In fact, the later section under investment may be confusing as 
presented.
3.  It seems to me that the demographic data regarding participants should be 
compared with those of the general adult population to have real meaning.
4.  Could you please listen to Archie Willard and stop calling adult learners 
"students"?  In strict definition, of course we are all students.  But the 
term is widely associated with a picture of one-way communication from the 
teacher who knows to the student who doesn't.  In our program, we talk about 
"learning partners" as much as possible, precisely because the term is 
ambiguous.
5.  Why capitalize "Governors"?
6.  The section on aging baby boomers is simply unclear, particularly in 
connecting the need for literacy programs to the projected shifts in the 
labor market.  I think I understand what you mean because I understand the 
issue, but if this document is to be distributed outside the adult ed family 
this entire portion should be rewritten.
7.  Under Challenge 6, Public Support, the link between a lack of public 
support and uncoordinated services is not offered and may be too subtle 
without specific discussion.  I would also like to see a discussion of how 
the stereotype of the dependent, incompetent adult has affected public 
support.  The attitude I run into most often is "they've had their chance."
8.  The question I get most often when I speak to Kiwanis and  Rotary is "Why 
do we have this problem?"  And the answer is not simply because of weaknesses 
in the k-12 system.  Some discussion of the many reasons why persons come to 
adulthood without adequate reading skills would be helpful.  There is mention 
of learning disabilities and the  prevalence of older Americans among Level 
One learners.  I see no mention of the awful legacy of segregated schools and 
the continued problems experienced in rural areas (although the needs of 
urban centers are mentioned many times.  Another bias?)  And there are other 
reasons. 
9.  Save yourself some grief and correct the numerous typos and syntax 
problems now.  I'm resisting offering those comments, assuming the eyes of 
several editors will be involved.  But some of the offered feedback may be 
along those lines and you can save yourself some time correcting them on the 
site right away. 

Overall, Dr. Sticht has already nailed my main concerns.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I won't take up your time with 
comments on the many things about the document that are excellent, except to 
say keep on keeping on.   


Deborah W. Yoho
Chief Executive Officer
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
921 Woodrow Street  
Columbia, SC  29205
803/765-2555   dwyoho at aol.com



From sgabb412 at hotmail.com  Tue Dec 28 12:03:56 1999
From: sgabb412 at hotmail.com (Sally Gabb)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:03:56 PST
Subject: NLA Discussion: The ESEA and the Digital Divide
Message-ID: <199912281741.MAA06734@europe.std.com>

On Dec. 16 David Rosen wrote:

>I want to see the ESEA address the needs of adults and families, not just 
>children.  This is particularly poignant when we consider how few adult 
>learners have access to computers and the opportunity to learn to be 
>comfortable and competent in using them.
>

As someone who works with immigrants and refugees, I am particularly 
sensitive to the existing and expanding 'digital divide'.  Our learners are 
hungry to access technology skills, and we struggle for funding to set up 
necessary technology.

It seems that ESEA easily refers to 'needs of adults and families' and the 
importance of the always mentioned 'family literacy' in success of children, 
yet this vital component in today's world is being held hostage from adult 
ed.  I encourage a national advocacy effort once again to include adult ed 
in ESEA technology language.  Thanks for addressing this issue.  Sally Gabb

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com




From John_Comings at harvard.edu  Tue Dec 28 12:21:29 1999
From: John_Comings at harvard.edu (John Comings)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 12:21:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: NLA Discussion: Summit paper
Message-ID: <199912281751.MAA08398@europe.std.com>


Speaking again for the Steering Committee for the Summit, I want to 
thank Elsa Auerbach and Deborah Yoho for their comments on NLA about 
the Summit Draft Paper.  This document is a draft that is meant to 
focus a dialogue out of which will come a final draft.  Sharing the 
draft now with all of its weaknesses, including typos, is a sign that 
it is not yet set in stone.

Along with advice on how to improve the draft, I would be interested 
in reading other ways to articulate the points that the document is 
trying to make.  The first part of the document attempts to make our 
case for the investment of tax dollars not only to support our 
existing services but to improve and expand them, as well.  How can 
we make a strong case that is both easily understood and honest?

I'm on vacation but will try to get to the many other points and 
questions later.

John Comings, NCSALL

----------------------------------------
John Comings                     Phone: 617.496.0516
NCSALL -- Nichols House          Fax:   617.495.4811
7 Appian Way                     Email: John_Comings at harvard.edu
Graduate School of Education     Web:   http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall
Harvard University
Cambridge MA 02138




From DJRosen at world.std.com  Tue Dec 28 12:12:58 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 12:12:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Call to Action: Tin Horn Dictator/Cheerleader Replies
Message-ID: <199912281751.MAA08427@europe.std.com>

NLA Colleagues,

On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 Deborah Yoho wrote:

> Could you help grow my enthusiasm for saber-rattling a bit by
> convincing me that contacting legislators really makes a difference?  

Deborah, you can sheathe the saber.  The pen and phone are mightier in
this cause. I hope you will hear from those in other states, too, but
here's our experience in Massachusetts:

Contacting legislators makes a huge difference -- if it is done
systematically and regularly over time through a well-organized campaign.
Our goal was to have every adult literacy education program reach their
state representative and senator and to win their support for adult
literacy education.  Gradually, over several years, with the help of
thousands of students, tutors, teachers and other practitioners we
have nearly achieved this. Learner applicants on waiting lists have sent
their representatives and senators a postcard.  At least once a year
students, teachers and tutors have sent letters to state and national
legislators -- in one case, a workplace education program told us the
total number of student letters exceeded 2,500 in one year, but that
volume, while impressive, isn't necessary.  

We have now reached the greatest majority of state and (Massachusetts)
national legislators, and it has made a difference in our state, and also
nationally.  In our state we achieved a 700% increase in adult
literacy education funding in a five-year period.  When our legislature
finally passed its FY 2000 budget in November this year, we got an
additional $3.5 million -- and this year the legislature didn't have to
over-ride the governor's veto. Even our conservative Republican governor was
on board with adult literacy, this year at least.

Organization is the key to success.  Our statewide professional
organization has a volunteer public policy committee which meets monthly,
and has done so for over a decade.  We set goals, plan an annual campaign,
cheerlead, and report back to the field each year what has been
accomplished.  Last year, when we were a little late in getting out the
annual legislator Meet and Greet Campaign materials, a student said to a
teacher "Aren't we writing our legislators this year?" That only happens
when you've been at it a while.

You wrote:

> I think the reason I score 50%, an "F" after all, is I don't 
> think it matters and I may be wrong.  Mostly, it appears my saber is 
> deflected (when I do occasionally rattle it) by party politics, other special 
> interests and the media.  

50% is pretty good, not an "F" at all.  If 50% of the practitioners and
adult learners in South Carolina scored 50% I bet your state would get an
"A" and would begin to see significant state funding for adult literacy
education. However, Deborah, and other South Carolina colleagues who may
be on the NLA list, you can't do it alone.  You need to organize, and as
the late Myles Horton, founder of the Highlander Education Center in
Tennessee urged, plan for the long haul. 

In our first few years at this, as we were reaching legislators
one-by-one, we reported back to the field "Victory, our line item was the
only item in the education budget that wasn't cut this year," or "Victory,
we got $1 million more for adult education this year!"  But year by year
students and practitioners reached more legislators.  Year by year,
staying together, speaking with one voice, collecting persuasive data on
need, demand and supply of services, we have seen an impressive change.
When we started in the mid 1980's we spent $44 per student per year on
adult literacy education.  Today we spend nearly $2,000 per student per
year.  We see more intensity of services, much higher 
persistence/retention rates, more levels of service, and counseling,
access to technology, and technology training are now the norm, not the
exception.

Does reaching legislators matter? In Massachusetts it does.  And I think
there are other states where it does, too.  Perhaps we could hear from
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and other states where reaching
legislators has made a difference.

David J. Rosen
(AKA Tin Horn Cheerleader)




From JCretella at aol.com  Tue Dec 28 16:05:08 1999
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:05:08 EST
Subject: NLA Call to Action: Dear Tin Horn Dictator
Message-ID: <199912282306.SAA03928@europe.std.com>


Dear D. Yoho..I can speak to part of your concern about contacting 
legislators..I have been doing it for years and encouraging others to do it 
too...It does make a differnce in most cases..to call, write or meet a 
legislator or staff person...If your interest is not part of a legislator's 
agenda of topic...it soon will be ..if you know what you're talking about
and convince him/her that their agenda is not complete without paying attention 
to your interest...You can be sure, unless your legislator is  a complete 
idiot..and some are not really complete...that they will want to know that 
literacy and adult education can make a big difference in the life of their 
constituents (it is up to you to show them how)...also you can remind them 
that students are voters too...I could go on but I think this is enough 
for now..what do you think?

Jay



From JCretella at aol.com  Tue Dec 28 15:54:16 1999
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:54:16 EST
Subject: NLA Call to Action: Return of the Tin Horn Dictator
Message-ID: <199912282306.SAA03873@europe.std.com>


Dear Tin...a great treatise on the nuts and bolts of advocacy...good analysis 
...and good suggestions wherever one is in the field...Hopefully, we in the 
field will get together...and differ too...to let everyone know who we are 
and what we do...There is a perception in our field of literacy that "someone 
is doing it..." so I don't have to...I think this list and the advocacy
list demonstrates just how much expertise we do have...and it's ok to talk to 
one another about our concerns...and learning various points of view..but 
advocacy is not us talking to us...it goes beyond that...let's keep the 
dialog going..talk to each other...but let's also branch out to 
others..thanks,

jay



From Dwyoho at aol.com  Tue Dec 28 16:05:28 1999
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:05:28 EST
Subject: NLA Call to Action: on following Tin Horn's example
Message-ID: <199912282307.SAA04116@europe.std.com>


David, thank you.  I'm on the road to being convinced.  One question:  who (I 
mean by position or affiliation) has provided and/or continues to provide 
leadership for an on-going, coordinated advocacy effort in Massachusetts?  I 
see in your reply reference to the professional association.  Who else? I 
also note the critical involvement of adult learners.  Is there a state 
equivalent of VALUE in Massachusetts?  I have been interested in helping in 
any way I can to develop a state learner association--we sent two learners to 
the national VALUE conference--but not much is happening yet, and I feel like 
a voice in the wilderness sometimes.  But I tell you what:  I'll make it a 
New Year's resolution to make an apointment to talk personally with my reps 
in the state House and Senate so I can at least take the measure of those men 
and attach their faces to their names and my face to a name.  I'll also get 
as many learners as I can to write postcards and personally deliver them 
while I'm at it.  Do you have any suggestions for those of us who do not feel 
in a position to lead the way to a long-term, coordinated effort,  but who 
would follow if someone would just raise the banner high enough for all to 
see, despite turfism and complaceny and general rustiness?           

Deborah W. Yoho
Chief Executive Officer
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
921 Woodrow Street  
Columbia, SC  29205
803/765-2555   dwyoho at aol.com



From DJRosen at world.std.com  Tue Dec 28 21:53:16 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 21:53:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Discussion: Taking Steps toward Coordinated Advocacy
Message-ID: <199912290317.WAA09253@europe.std.com>

NLA Colleagues,

Deborah Yoho wrote:

> who (I mean by position or affiliation) has provided and/or continues to 
> provide leadership for an on-going, coordinated advocacy effort in 
> Massachusetts?  I see in your reply reference to the professional
> association. Who else? 

We benefit from many kinds of leadership:  

1) A small group of stalwart activists who year in and out do the work of
the public policy committee. These are mostly program administrators, but
also teachers, graduate students, an adult learner and others. They work
at volunteer programs, community-based organizations, city-sponsored
organizations, community colleges, the state literacy resource center,
with organized labor, corrections, and other entities.  Some came to the
field as community activists, some have become activists as they
realized how necessary to achieving the goal of helping students educating
legislators is. Over the years, many have come from volunteer and
community-based organizations. 

2) Enlightened leadership within the adult education section of the state
department of education. People who work for the state cannot initiate
contact with legislators, but in our state at critical points they have
been able to respond to legislators' inquiries with hard data on the need,
the demand for services (unduplicated counts of people on waiting lists)
and a comprehensive picture of the supply of services.  They understand
that the work of the first group is critical to the success of the entire
adult literacy effort.  

3) Champions in the legislature.  Some legislators, usually because they
have learned from talking with adult learners, take this issue very
seriously.  They understand that their constituents need and benefit from
from high quality adult literacy services, and that the Massachusetts
economy relies on a highly literate workforce. Over the years the
champions have changed, but we have always had at least one champion in
the legislature to carry the flag for others to walk behind.  The
importance of having a champion for literacy within the legislature cannot
be overestimated.  What part of the state the champion comes from or what the 
party affiliation is may not matter. 

>I also note the critical involvement of adult learners.  Is there a state 
> equivalent of VALUE in Massachusetts?  I have been interested in helping in 
> any way I can to develop a state learner association--we sent two learners to 
> the national VALUE conference--but not much is happening yet, and I feel like 
> a voice in the wilderness sometimes.  

Yes, there is. It's the Massachusetts Alliance for Adult Literacy, Mass
AAL. It was inspired by the formation of VALUE and is relatively new.
Somewhat fragile, its adult learner leaders hope with some support
from the state department of education to get stronger in the next year.

> But I tell you what:  I'll make it a 
> New Year's resolution to make an apointment to talk personally with my reps 
> in the state House and Senate so I can at least take the measure of those men 
> and attach their faces to their names and my face to a name.  I'll also get 
> as many learners as I can to write postcards and personally deliver them 
> while I'm at it.  Do you have any suggestions for those of us who do not feel 
> in a position to lead the way to a long-term, coordinated effort,  but who 
> would follow if someone would just raise the banner high enough for all to 
> see, despite turfism and complaceny and general rustiness?           

This is a great New Year's resolution, and it may be even more interesting
and effective if learners accompany you on your 'acti-visit' to the State
House, or if your reps and senators visit your program and talk with 
learners.

I do have a suggestion of how to raise the banner.  Call a meeting of a
few people who are likely to want to work on this together, ideally people
who already trust each other.  Begin to build a statewide public policy
committee.  Keep it open to all who want to join, but make clear it
requires regular attendance, and work beyond the meetings -- calling,
organizing a telephone and fax tree, sending out mailings, meeting with
legislators, holding events, organizing campaigns. If this can be
associated with your state professional association, great. If not,
perhaps that would come later.  In some cases, an advocacy group needs to
develop strength on its own before joining with the state professional
association. In some cases, a separate organization works effectively with
the professional organization but remains independent.

I would be glad to answer other questions, invite my Massachusetts
advocacy colleagues to add their perspectives, and hope people from other
states who are involved in advocacy will jump in here too.

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




From Dwyoho at aol.com  Wed Dec 29 09:12:16 1999
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:12:16 EST
Subject: NLA Discussion: Taking Steps toward Coordinated Advocacy
Message-ID: <199912291930.OAA00260@europe.std.com>

I think you could be right and intend to test your faith in this by having a 
go at it.  Thanks for the encouragement, and I would like to suggest that we 
share on this list from time to time a few details of our efforts, and the 
results, in order to inspire a continued fight.  Thanks, Debbie

Deborah W. Yoho
Chief Executive Officer
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
921 Woodrow Street  
Columbia, SC  29205
803/765-2555   dwyoho at aol.com




From sjroyce at earthlink.net  Wed Dec 29 12:36:42 1999
From: sjroyce at earthlink.net (Sherry Royce)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:36:42 -0800
Subject: NLA Call to Action: Dear Tin Horn Dictator
Message-ID: <199912292006.PAA05478@europe.std.com>

Hello, Jay -

For the past 20 years, Pennsylvania has opened its annual PAACE Midwinter
Conference with a Legislative Luncheon that speaks to legislators in
language they understand.

Ten Outstanding Adult Students of the Year are nominated by ABLE programs
funded through PDE's Bureau of ABLE and selected by a Success Stories panel.
The following letter is then sent to their respective representatives:

" Dear Senator or Representative _______:
I am enclosing your invitation from the Pennsylvania Association for Adult
Continuing Education (PAACE) to the Legislative Luncheon to be held on
Wednesday, February 2, 2000, at the Hershey Convention Center.  The luncheon
honors twenty Pennsylvanians enrolled in adult basic literacy and higher
education programs that have overcome great barriers in achieving success
through adult education.
This year, Odessa ---, one of the outstanding students to be recognized at
the luncheon, resides in your district.  I am enclosing a synopsis of this
student?s success story.  Perhaps you would like to sponsor a resolution, to
be presented at the luncheon, recognizing the outstanding educational
achievement of your constituent.
I hope you can be present to join us in recognizing Pennsylvania?s
Outstanding Adult Education Students.  Please communicate your intentions to
attend the luncheon by calling me at ----.  I look forward to seeing you at
the luncheon."

This letter and a formal invitation to the luncheon are personally delivered
by Joan Leopold, the executive director of PAACE, our professional
organization. Invitations to the luncheon are also sent out to all members
of the Appropriations, Education and Labor committees.  Although not all
members with Success Stories students attend the luncheon, they do get
excited when one of their constituents wins a Success Story award, they do
provide a formal commendation, and they do send their legislative assistants
if they cannot attend.

In the last administration, Governor Casey's wife was always present both at
the luncheon and took part in the following session where the students tell
their stories.  In addition, a booklet with our outstanding students' 
Success Stories, a description of their programs, and an introduction by
the Governor is published and sent to all of Pennsylvania's state and
national legislators.  When we started this practice in 1980, we had no
state funds for adult education.  We now have $11,000,000 in state funding
for literacy and family literacy.

One on one messages from adult education practitioners are good; student
advocacy is better; but an all out campaign over time using students,
teachers, and the professional association is best.

Dr. Sherry Royce
1938 Crooked Oak Drive
Lancaster, Pa 17601
V:717-569-1663  F:717-560-9903
email: sjroyce at earthlink.net

-----Original Message-----
From: nla-approval at world.std.com [mailto:nla-approval at world.std.com]On
Behalf Of JCretella at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 1:05 PM
To: nla at world.std.com
Subject: NLA Call to Action: Dear Tin Horn Dictator



Dear D. Yoho..I can speak to part of your concern about contacting
legislators..I have been doing it for years and encouraging others to do it
too...It does make a differnce in most cases..to call, write or meet a
legislator or staff person...If your interest is not part of a legislator's
agenda of topic...it soon will be ..if you know what you're talking about
and convince him/her that their agenda is not complete without paying
attention
to your interest...You can be sure, unless your legislator is  a complete
idiot..and some are not really complete...that they will want to know that
literacy and adult education can make a big difference in the life of their
constituents (it is up to you to show them how)...also you can remind them
that students are voters too...I could go on but I think this is enough
for now..what do you think?

Jay





From Dwyoho at aol.com  Wed Dec 29 14:52:04 1999
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:52:04 EST
Subject: NLA Discussion: Summit Paper and Rural issues in adult literacy
Message-ID: <199912292036.PAA09901@europe.std.com>


In reference to the Summit paper, I notice that all examples except for one 
mention of West Virginia are cited from urban locations:   New York, Chicago, 
LA.   At the request of Christy Gullion, I'd like to offer some ideas about 
problems in rural areas that affect literacy.  I do not know if these 
observations are limited to my location, so before suggesting that some of 
these ideas be incorporated into the Summit paper, perhaps listers will 
confirm, reject, or further develop these observations/generalizations.  I 
write from the perspective of an adult literacy instructor and program 
manager, and as a former principal of a rural high school (enrollment 420, 
grades 7-12) who commuted 50 miles from my suburban home to run my school:

1. The greatest problem is a lack of understanding of how much the world is 
changing,  caused by relative isolation.  This plays out as a profound 
resistance to almost any change, particularly change promulgated from outside 
the community.    I once had a parent argue with me that my school did not 
need to enforce Title IX (gender equity) because it is one of those "federal 
things", and "those people don't know and don't care what we do down here."  
When I required parent conferences before "allowing" a student to drop out, 
several were angry, along the lines of "I didn't finish school and I'm doing 
fine."  Although often I felt a need to encourage parents to enroll in adult 
education to improve their own skills, I never once did so, put off by what I 
perceived to be strong pride in achieving what I would call a bare bones 
living in spite of little education.  In short, there are many adults in this 
country, especially in rural areas, who do not value education or schooling, 
and who do not understand how their children's future will be drastically 
affected by their own lack of education.   Solution:  We need to develop ways 
to identify citizens who live in rural areas who do perceive the challenges 
of the new millenium and support them in efforts to encourage their neighbors 
to consider lifelong education.  We need leadership training for rural 
educators and others who are influential in rural communities.

2. Rural adult education programs have little or no local resources to add to 
the already meager mix of federal and state funding, especially in areas 
where the property tax is the prime mechanism for raising local education 
dollars.  Also, rural areas do not enjoy the concentration of philanthropic 
private donors more prevalent in suburban and urban areas.

3. Practitioners have fewer opportunities and must go to greater expense to 
participate in professional development, policy discussions and the 
dissemination of best practices. 

4. Rural areas are slower to achieve access to technology, primarily because 
of expense.

5.  Rural communities are not likely to have an adequate array of human 
services to address the many ancillary needs of adult learners, including 
child care, health care (especially mental health), recreation, emergency 
needs, or even libraries. 

6. Rural youth programs are few and far between, aggravating the risks 
teenagers face outside of school hours. 

7. Transportation is a critical problem everywhere, but especially in rural 
areas where there is usually no public transportation whatsoever of any kind. 
 Many areas still have mostly dirt roads.

8. In general, any system driven by accountability and cost effectiveness 
will have a harder time in rural areas, where inevitably practitioners must 
work with people individually and in small groups.

Deborah W. Yoho
Chief Executive Officer
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
921 Woodrow Street  
Columbia, SC  29205
803/765-2555   dwyoho at aol.com



From Christy_Gullion at ed.gov  Wed Dec 29 09:24:23 1999
From: Christy_Gullion at ed.gov (Gullion, Christy)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:24:23 -0500
Subject: NLA Discussion: Summit Vision
Message-ID: <199912292041.PAA10672@europe.std.com>


Thank you for the feedback Tom.  I will forward your comments to the Summit
Steering Committee members.  You make some good points about the tone of the
paper and I will work with the steering committee to make necessary changes.

I also agree that proper citations need to be included.  Since this draft
paper has been written, edited, and reviewed by the entire steering
committee the working draft includes all the citations but they are in the
form of endnotes, footnotes, and a bibliography.  We wanted to get the paper
out for review as soon as possible so we decided to exclude those citations
in this posting until we could clean them up into one format -- most likely
endnotes.  I hope this addresses your concerns.

Thanks again for your comments.

Christy Gullion 
<Christy_Gullion at ed.gov>


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Sticht [mailto:tsticht at aznet.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 1999 6:25 PM
To: cgullion at nifl.gov
Cc: elsa.auerbach at umb.edu; gdemetrion at juno.com;
Janet_Isserlis at Brown.edu; GSpan1 at aol.com; djrosen at world.std.com;
tsticht at aznet.net
Subject: Summit Vision


Feedback on the Summit Vision Paper

To: Christy Gullion

From: Tom Sticht, 12/26/99

This Summit vision paper  starts with a skills-based argument that in my
judgment immediately slants the paper toward the clich? of adult
literacy education (ALE) as a remedial, second chance learning
opportunity for adults who are deficient in the basic three R's of
reading, writing, and arithmetic. It repeats the decades old arguments
of the importance of education credentials and literacy skills for
successfully meeting the demands of life in contemporary society,
whether that was or is the society of the 1940s, 60s 80s or the 00s. 

Even when the paper produces caveats like basic skills are not enough,
or basic skills includes more than the three Rs, or literacy means a lot
more today, the basic impression that I take from the paper as a
document that deals with adult literacy is of the remedial, second
chance clich?.

In setting up this view of ALE as a skills-deficiency, remedial, crisis
oriented problem, the vision is propagated of the helpless adult in need
of some volunteer tutoring in phonics so he or she can get some sort of
entry level job and support a family. Since a little tutoring can't take
much time, if we really put a special effort into it, we can take all
those adults with literacy skills below the Level 3 of the National
Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) and in a decade long campaign, we can
remediate these 90 or so million illiterates and, in a watered down
version of Lake Wobegon, we can get at least 70 percent  above average
(Level 3 of the NALS)! This will help us compete against other great
economies, like Sweden where literacy rates are really high. 

In short, for me, the tone of the document is deficiency oriented. It
reinforces the marginalized image of the field of ALE that exists today.
It makes economic arguments that, in today's climate of economic
prosperity and high rates of employment, are not particularly persuasive
for trying to bring about a revolution in adult education in the United
States of the 21st century. 

In my judgment, the paper should lead off with and be organized around a
more positive view of both the social and economic good sense of
providing for a system of continuing education that extends existing
educational opportunities for all adults. The paper should focus less on
the negative aspects of ALE and more on the positive outcomes of adult
education, such as the promotion of good citizenship to participate in
the democratic process that can lead to a better society with less crime
(with cost savings due to less money spent on adult imprisonment),
better health and health services over the lifetime (with cost savings
due to less money being spent on government provided health services) ,
greater effectiveness of the K-12 education system as a beneficiary of
adult's experiences with their children (with cost savings due to less
need for remedial and compensatory education programs),  and the many
social rewards that education opens up and stimulates in terms of the
participation in and  appreciation of cultural events and institutions
such as museums, theatre, art, literature, music, science and general
human spiritual awakening.

The paper should argue for an adult continuing education system that
provides opportunities for developing communication and creative
abilities for adults that can help them continuously develop their
intellectual, creative  and aesthetic talents. The program should be
funded at well beyond the present level of just over $300 per enrollee.
Indeed, such a system, instilled as a permanent educational system for
adults, should be funded at at least $3000 per enrollee, about half of
what we presently spend per child in the K-12 system. With some
5,000,000 enrollees per year, this would cost about $15,000,000,000 per
year. This is much less than the cost that the present chaotic system of
disparate programs such as the imprisonment of 500,000 undereducated
adults per year (at $20,000 per prisoner per year, it costs about
$10,000,000,000 to keep half a million adults in prison), unknown but no
doubt extensive medical care for undereducated adults, and compensatory
education for millions of the children of undereducated adults. Further,
not only can such an approach to ALE potentially  save billions of
dollars in cost-avoidance of negative expenditures, it has the potential
of helping adults increase their productivity in ways that can produce a
positive increase in the economic base of the nation. 

>From my point of view, the new vision of adult education should avoid
the old clich?s of remediation, second chance, and marginalized
education aimed at eradicating poverty and welfare. Instead, it  should
strike a positive tone and  build on the positive accomplishments of
adult education and argue strongly for the development of the adult
education system as a stable, well-funded, permanent continuing
education system for adults that can bridge theK-12 and college domains
of education , but also lead to various certificates and non-credit
education for a better society.  

I note that some of these ideas have found their way into the Summit
vision paper from earlier papers that I have written. But they are well
down in the Summit paper and in my judgment they are overridden by the
negative tone and clich? view of adult literacy education give in the
early parts of the Summit paper. 

On a more mundane note, let me say that I believe that in such an
important paper, whenever factual information or someone else's ideas
are presented there should be a clear attribution of whose work and
words is being presented, and there should be a complete bibliographic
citation so that others can look up the cited information. 

Thanks for your attention to these ideas. I hope they are of use as the
work on the Summit vision paper continues.



From DJRosen at world.std.com  Wed Dec 29 15:29:29 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 15:29:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Discussion: Taking Steps toward Coordinated Advocacy
Message-ID: <199912292046.PAA11323@europe.std.com>


Debbie and others,

I would very much like to see more sharing of the details of public policy
advocacy here on the NLA list.  I thank you for posting these questions,
and Jay and Sherry for their replies, too.  I hope that these kinds of
how-we-do-it discussions about public policy advocacy become part of our
regular discussion diet here. Do keep us posted on how you're doing,
Debbie. And let's hear from other states -- what is your experience doing
public policy advocacy?  What challenges do you face?  What have you been
able to accomplish? What can we learn from you?  What are your questions?

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator

On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 Dwyoho at aol.com wrote:

> I think you could be right and intend to test your faith in this by having a 
> go at it.  Thanks for the encouragement, and I would like to suggest that we 
> share on this list from time to time a few details of our efforts, and the 
> results, in order to inspire a continued fight.  Thanks, Debbie
> 
> Deborah W. Yoho
> Chief Executive Officer
> Greater Columbia Literacy Council
> 921 Woodrow Street  
> Columbia, SC  29205
> 803/765-2555   dwyoho at aol.com
> 
> 
> 




From Dwyoho at aol.com  Wed Dec 29 16:01:24 1999
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 16:01:24 EST
Subject: NLA Discussion: Taking Steps toward Coordinated Advocacy
Message-ID: <199912292150.QAA20579@europe.std.com>


I'm making a point of printing out and saving all the comments on this 
thread.  Who knows, we may end with a how-to manual of proven strategies.  I 
don't suppose there is already one out there specific to literacy and with 
practical examples, not just general techniques?

Deborah W. Yoho
Chief Executive Officer
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
921 Woodrow Street  
Columbia, SC  29205
803/765-2555   dwyoho at aol.com



From PDWall at aol.com  Wed Dec 29 19:04:28 1999
From: PDWall at aol.com (PDWall at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 19:04:28 EST
Subject: NLA Discussion: Taking Steps toward Coordinated Advocacy
Message-ID: <199912300231.VAA26397@europe.std.com>

Working for a state education agency affords the opportunity to have 
data-driven concepts of exactly what is happening (or not); yet adult 
education is so low on the list for the agencies that oversee K-12 systems 
that this knowledge is rarely put to good use to make learner-centered 
policy.  As a state employee, I cannot contact a state board member, a 
legislator, the Governor's education advisors, members of the Workforce 
Commission, or the Secretaries of state agencies.....not anyone with any 
power to make substantial change.  It can be discouraging when one is 
passionate about public service but has no power to have impact on the big 
issues.

But we know there are other strategies.  Written policy has for a long time 
contained words like "coordination," "collaboration," and "integrated 
services."  But what is really necessary are RELATIONSHIPS with others who 
provide similar services, serve the same clients, or have to implement the 
same trends in human resource development policy.  Relationships between 
those of us working in state agencies and those who do good work with our 
mutual clients are often every bit as important as the policy on paper. This 
concept of mutuality means that I can share the data, help analyze the data, 
and make suggestions for advocates to think about.  

In the long run, we all need to do better in helping our clients become 
self-advocates.  Then we will have accomplished something far greater than 
influencing a politician.

Pam Wall, Director
LA State Literacy Resource Center  



From DJRosen at world.std.com  Wed Dec 29 21:47:22 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:47:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Discussion: Taking Steps toward Coordinated Advocacy
Message-ID: <199912300312.WAA01339@europe.std.com>

Debbie and others,

Debbie Yoho wrote:
 
> I'm making a point of printing out and saving all the comments on this 
> thread.  Who knows, we may end with a how-to manual of proven strategies.  I 
> don't suppose there is already one out there specific to literacy and with 
> practical examples, not just general techniques?

There are a few Web pages that might be helpful, with some strategies and 
how-to's from Massachusetts and Rhode Island.  One place to find these
Webpage addresses is to start at:

	http://www2.wgbh.org/mbcweis/ltc/alri/advocacy.html

I wonder if others also have written about how they have done advocacy for
adult literacy.  If so, please e-mail me the text (or URL) to add to these
Web pages.

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator




From DJRosen at world.std.com  Thu Dec 30 09:48:33 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:48:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Discussion: Do we serve too many students?
Message-ID: <199912301712.MAA28037@europe.std.com>

NLA Colleagues, 

I have been mulling over Tom Sticht's post of December 15 (see below) and
have arranged, and (I hope correctly )calculated the data he presented as
follows:

		Federal adult education program expenditures:

			1970  	$40 million for
				535,613 adults
				$74.68/student
				($309 in 1997 dollars)

			1980	$100 million for
				2,000,000 adults
				$50/student
				($95 in 1997 dollars)

			1990	$192 million for
				3,500,000 adults
				$54.85/student
				($66 in 1997 dollars)

			2000	$450 million
				4,500,000 adults
				$100/student
				($92 in 1997 dollars)

In twenty years, from 1980 to 2000, the federal expenditure has increased
4 1/2 times and the number of students served has increased by 2 1/4
times. The federal expenditure per student has therefore doubled, not
quadrupled. Also a 100% increase of a small number, $50, is still a small
number, $100, and over a twenty year period, doesn't even cover cost of
living increases.

There are different ways of looking at these data, of course.  One, which
Tom points out, is that what may appear to be an increase in federal funds
is actually a decline: we need significantly more federal (and state)
dollars for adult literacy education.  But I would like to make another
observation -- practitioners contribute to this problem by continuing to
use new dollars to enroll more and more students.  If we want to see the
cost per student go up to a reasonable level -- if we want to improve
quality -- we have to hold the line, create waiting lists for services,
choose quality over quantity. 

Is your state prepared to hold the line?  Are you willing if necessary, in
order to meet higher standards, to serve fewer students?

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

===================================================================
To: nla at world.std.com
Subject: NLA Info: Adult Education Funds Decline
From: Thomas Sticht <tsticht at aznet.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:25:17 -0800


David: The following Research Note may be of interest to NLA list
members.

Tom Sticht

Research Note 12/15/99                                          

Federal Adult Education Funds Per Enrollee For 2000 Down 70 Percent From
1970
Thomas G. Sticht
Applied Behavioral & Cognitive Sciences, Inc. 
2062 Valley View Blvd. El Cajon, CA 92019-2059
(619) 444-9595

In 1970 the federal adult education program received federal funds of
some $40,000,000 and enrolled 535,613 adults. By 1980 federal funds for
state grants had increased to over $99 million and enrollments rose to
over 2 million. In 1990, federal funds stood above $192 million with
enrollments of over 3.5 million adults. Now Congress has passed and the
President has signed legislation providing for some $450,000,000 for
state grants to adult education. So in thirty years there has been a 
ten fold increase in the federal funding of state grants for adult
education. 
 
Funds Per Enrollee. While  a ten fold increase in funding may seem
large, when expressed in constant 1997 dollars and calculated as dollars
per enrollments, the picture changes dramatically. In 1970, the per
enrollee funding was $309 in constant 1997 dollars. In 1980 this dropped
to $95 and in 1990 it fell further to $66. 

Assumning an enrollment of some 4,500,000 adults in 2000 (extrapolated
estimate from data for 1996, 1997, &  1998) , the per enrollee dollars
rise back  to around $92 in 1997 dollars, a figure very near that of  20
years ago in 1980, and 70 percent below the  per enrollee funding of
thirty years ago in 1970.   If enrollments increase to 5 million, then 
federal per enrollee funds are closer to $83 in constant 1997 dollars. 

Over the years the federal share of adult education funds has declined
while the share of matching funds by states and local education has
increased. In 1966, federal funding for adult education was around $20
million for some 377,660 enrollees while state and local funding was
around $10 million. By FY 1998, federal funds for adult education were
about $345 million for some 4.2 million while around $958 million were
available for adult education from state matching funds. 

In constant 1997 dollars, funding per enrollee from combined federal and
state sources for adult education was around $394 in 1966. Assuming
combined federal and state funds of $1,500,000,000 in 2000 and
enrollments of 4.5 million, then funding per enrollee in 2000 in
constant 1997 dollars will be  $308, a 20 percent decrease in funding
per enrollee in the last  third of the 20th century!


Sources: National Institute for Literacy Policy Update for November 19,
1999; Sticht,  T.  (1998, September). Beyond 2000: Future Directions for
Adult Education. El Cajon, CA: Applied Behavioral & Cognitive Sciences,
Inc.




From JCretella at aol.com  Thu Dec 30 10:20:20 1999
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:20:20 EST
Subject: NLA Discussion: Taking Steps toward Coordinated Advocacy
Message-ID: <199912301715.MAA28524@europe.std.com>


Pam...One of the saddest "policies" in state government (in any state) are 
the prohibitions against 'advocacy" by state employees...lest it look like 
you are playing politician...State Directors are always encouraging the
field to talk to each other,,,collaborate, communicate, etc...but in most
states (not all) these same people don't talk to each other...yet it is
the state agencies that are given the task of implementing legislation by
writing the "regs"....Most legislators  I talk to rely on agency people
for information and want more contact.. I don't know what the answer is
but the system in place in many states is counterproductive to good
public policy.

Jay Cretella



From JCretella at aol.com  Thu Dec 30 10:30:19 1999
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:30:19 EST
Subject: NLA Discussion: Taking Steps toward Coordinated Advocacy
Message-ID: <199912301715.MAA28580@europe.std.com>


Debbie et al...I am in the process of putting together a "how to" advocacy 
manual...and it is based on so many bits and pieces of writing, 
notes,etc. which others have used...there is a common core of factors for 
effective advocacy and then there is another set of things which apply in 
certain places because the political structure may be different...I save 
almost everything..and periodically pass it on to mambers in my 
organization...COABE>>>so that we work from the same basic information...One 
of the problems which occurs in our field is the difference of "focus" based 
on a philosophy or mission of an organization...It is a problem because 
policy makers often interpret this as a field which really doesn't have its 
own house in order...Thats why an organization such as the national
Coalition of Literacy is so important. It allows organizations to
understand each others concerns and expectations...

Jay Cretella



From cbking2 at flash.net  Thu Dec 30 15:34:40 1999
From: cbking2 at flash.net (cbking2)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:34:40 -0600
Subject: NLA Discussion: Taking Steps toward Coordinated Advocacy
Message-ID: <199912302018.PAA24623@europe.std.com>


A note about Jay Cretella's post excerpted below:

"One of the problems which occurs in our field is the difference of "focus"
based on a philosophy or mission of an organization...It is a problem
because policy makers often interpret this as a field which really doesn't
have its own house in order..."

Jay has the nail hitting the head here.  Two things:

First, any view of education, educators, students, and policy MUST hold
within it a place for the yet unknown.  That's what it means to be creative,
and that's why I love living in a democracy--the structure is set up to
allow for the creative unknown through the extreme generalization of the
laws, and the vehicle of dialogue.

So what do we mean by having our "house in order"?  Does that mean our
systems and orders aim at the paradigm (in our heads)of ONE, monolithic set
of controls, rules, guidelines, that everyone SHOULD fit if we are to be
good little funded programs?  Doesn't it sap our strength as teachers and
program administrators (which is what Jay is talking about?) to continually
bump up against that kind of thinking?  Who needs to "get it" here?

As an empirical venture, Jay is dealing with the questions in an extremely
creative way--a partial disorder is part of the RIGHT order--a dynamic,
creative one, dependent on those involved, raising questions, looking for
new insights, and working within a collaborative system that invites them.
It's a moving viewpoint.   But, as one of our gang of emasculated,
disemboweled educators, Jay shrinks away from the power invested in the
bureaucrat with our checkbook.

There is nothing wrong with a system, per se.  With the size of the thing
(the USA) a system is needed--that's a given.  However, systems tend to get
lopsided and too comfortable when people working in them aren't thinking,
and, ahem, don't know their place. This is the greatest of ironies for an
education department, need I say why.  That leads us to:

Second, Jay says programs often have a different focus and foundational
philosophy based on different missions.  This state of affairs is perfect
evidence of the diverse, creative disorder "side" of the tension that
creative consciousness (WE)lives in.  These programs serve vastly different
geographical areas, problems and people through vastly different teachers,
program planners, and volunteers.  The open area between disorder and
developing order manifests a diversity ordered for the moment IN ITS OWN
PARTICULAR WAY.

The dynamic structure is this:  Problems emerge from a field of order and
are met with new insights, which in turn, change the substance of the field
itself, which in its dynamism, creates new fields.  In a person, problems
emerge from the substance of human living, are met with new insights, which
in turn change the substance--ME.  If this is true, a monolithic,
singular-order idea works to shut down the creative process--and THAT's
where the problem lies--not in the "problematic" messiness of the creative
process itself and its manifesting of different "philosophies."

Human consciousness and its Education is not a factory. The structure of the
system as a "writ large" picture, should model itself on the "writ small"
picture of creative consciousness, which has this open area of questions and
change intrinsic to it.

For instance, when you ask a learner what are his/her goals, we should
always recognize what is always TRUE:  that what we learn is NEVER exactly,
or limited to, what we set out to learn, and diverse directions OFTEN come
from the as yet unknown--as well they should.  Without this understanding
embedded in all of our ideas of education (and accountability), we go right
off the track of what education really IS, and the "result" is to squelch
the very thing we are charged with supporting.

Jay's note shows the power of creative thought and motivated
teaching--procedures of accumulating bits and pieces of people's insights.
I applaud him.  Take a photograph of that and stick it on the walls of
Congress and the Department of Education as a reminder of what we are are
supposed to be supporting (funding) both in our teachers and in our
students.

There is debilitating closure, however, at both ends.  A recent post (Debbie
Yoho's?) spoke of the underserved rural areas and the closure of mind that
would say, "I never got educated and I'm doing okay," and what that does to
the children of this kind of thinking.  Plato talks about this state of mind
as a "double ignorance."  We don't know that we don't know, and a third that
slams the bolt in place:  we THINK we DO know.  Dogmatism is a human
condition, however, and doesn't reserve itself exclusively for the
"undereducated."  Which says that there is more to education than merely
information gathering.

When we look at the idea behind "continuing adult education" there is no
clear mark, or standard stopping point, between "us and them."  And if we
locate one, before we know it, it changes--(see the structure above).
Ignorance is a shared concern, and openness to new understanding creates an
overlapping, self-perpetuating order, especially in adults--not through the
incorporation of obtuse and monolithic laws and rules, but through the
activity of dialogue and self-motivated interest.

To Nancy Hansen, thank you for your supportive note.  To your question
below:

"I fear also that the round peg/square hole is what is happening.  And the
adult
learner with the Literacy Level 1 skills is going to be the one who loses!
Agreed?"

and in light of the above...of course I agree.  Archie has helped all of us
understand the complexities of this loosely formed group of people, not to
mention--by his powerful presence--the creativity that can emerge from it.
But also, and depending on your underlying political position, when "they"
lose, we all lose?

Best to Everyone in the New Year,
Catherine King

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nla-approval at world.std.com [mailto:nla-approval at world.std.com]On
> Behalf Of JCretella at aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 9:30 AM
> To: nla at world.std.com
> Subject: NLA Discussion: Taking Steps toward Coordinated Advocacy
>
>
>
> Debbie et al...I am in the process of putting together a "how to"
> advocacy
> manual...and it is based on so many bits and pieces of writing,
> notes,etc. which others have used...there is a common core of factors for
> effective advocacy and then there is another set of things which apply in
> certain places because the political structure may be different...I save
> almost everything..and periodically pass it on to mambers in my
> organization...COABE>>>so that we work from the same basic
> information...One
> of the problems which occurs in our field is the difference of
> "focus" based
> on a philosophy or mission of an organization...It is a problem because
> policy makers often interpret this as a field which really
> doesn't have its
> own house in order...Thats why an organization such as the national
> Coalition of Literacy is so important. It allows organizations to
> understand each others concerns and expectations...
>
> Jay Cretella
>
>




From Dwyoho at aol.com  Thu Dec 30 15:38:53 1999
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:38:53 EST
Subject: NLA Discussion: Taking Steps toward Coordinated Advocacy
Message-ID: <199912302230.RAA12011@europe.std.com>


Jay:  Tell us more about the National Coalition.  And when do you plan to 
turn loose of what you're working on, or maybe it will end up on a web site 
somewhere?

Deborah W. Yoho
Chief Executive Officer
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
921 Woodrow Street  
Columbia, SC  29205
803/765-2555   dwyoho at aol.com



From Dwyoho at aol.com  Thu Dec 30 15:41:46 1999
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:41:46 EST
Subject: NLA Discussion: Taking Steps toward Coordinated Advocacy
Message-ID: <199912302236.RAA12614@europe.std.com>

Pam, can state people call a meeting of providers for the purpose of 
discussing advocacy strategies?  Could they fund refreshments?  Use their 
postal services to send out notices, or their email system?  What are the 
boundaries?

Deborah W. Yoho
Chief Executive Officer
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
921 Woodrow Street  
Columbia, SC  29205
803/765-2555   dwyoho at aol.com



From Dwyoho at aol.com  Thu Dec 30 16:00:25 1999
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:00:25 EST
Subject: NLA Discussion: Do we serve too many students?
Message-ID: <199912302241.RAA13384@europe.std.com>


I do indeed plunge every dollar we get into serving more and more students.  
Why?  Because I am funded based on serving more and more students, not on 
quality.  Until incentives (not just pressures) are built into a system to 
encourage quality, we won't get it on any wiespread basis.   But one stream 
in the accountability movement is "lowest cost per unit", a business idea 
that immediately puts pressure to serve more because the more you serve 
(sell?) the less the per unit cost becomes (at least, thereotically, and 
often in practice).  Hence workshops and short courses instead of long term 
work, larger groupings instead of smaller ones, "cookbook" approaches instead 
of an individualized, tailored approach.  By the way, the same forces are at 
work here in k-12.  State funding is allocated based on the school's 
enrollment at the 135 day mark.  Serve more, get more.  What is important to 
realize is there are also a host of pressures that push us to NEED more just 
to stay in the same place quality-wise.  As we have increased the number 
served and the budget with it, almost every dime has gone into increased 
costs, including the cost of developing the use of technology, which is no 
longer optional. The current system, David, is so entrenched, and the pain of 
moving to a different funding formula is so great (Unemployment?  Turning 
away people in need?  Deciding you are ahead in the line and you must go to 
the end?) that I seriously doubt this will ever change unless imposed by an 
entity with clout, i.e. the feds.  As it is, the 20 year trend of "power to 
the states and locals" and away from Washington leaves the fox in charge of 
the henhouse.  In short, fund us based on keeping learners for as long as it 
takes (hours service) instead of learners served, as well as the extent and 
frequency learners meet THEIR OWN goals, and we will have utopia.  But I do 
not expect such decisions on the local or state level.  At least not here.  
Thanks for the opportunity to pop off about this.  
Deborah W. Yoho
Chief Executive Officer
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
921 Woodrow Street  
Columbia, SC  29205
803/765-2555   dwyoho at aol.com



From JCretella at aol.com  Thu Dec 30 17:29:55 1999
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 17:29:55 EST
Subject: NLA Discussion: Do we serve too many students?
Message-ID: <199912302255.RAA15174@europe.std.com>


David..you make some very good points in your analusis of $$$...federal 
dollars, that is. I am curious about how many state dollars are also included 
when we calculate per student costs....Also how many enter and leave the 
system in any given time having accomplished their goal, i.e.  getting a
diploma or improving skills etc...These increase and decrease statements
make me uncomfortable as an advocate....There must be a better way to "package'
this information so that it can be used more positively with funders...A 
legislator will tell you....I voted for increases every year in Literacy and 
adult education....Ron may have some thoughts about how departmental 
information which is supplied from the states can be put together with 
$$ spent...Also...It is my experience that the different diploma programs
have different costs, as well as esl, citizenship, etc...I think that 
generalizing per student expenditures takes us down the wrong path in advocacy.
..???

Jay Cretella



From DJRosen at world.std.com  Thu Dec 30 18:10:14 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:10:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Discussion: Do we serve too many students?
Message-ID: <199912310251.VAA16227@europe.std.com>


Debbie and others,

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 Debbie wrote:

> I do indeed plunge every dollar we get into serving more and more students.  
> Why?  Because I am funded based on serving more and more students, not on 
> quality.  Until incentives (not just pressures) are built into a system to 
> encourage quality, we won't get it on any wiespread basis.   But one stream 
> in the accountability movement is "lowest cost per unit", a business idea 
> that immediately puts pressure to serve more because the more you serve 
> (sell?) the less the per unit cost becomes (at least, thereotically, and 
> often in practice).  Hence workshops and short courses instead of long term 
> work, larger groupings instead of smaller ones, "cookbook" approaches instead 
> of an individualized, tailored approach.  

In Massachusetts, in the early 1980's, some state department of education
bureaucrats, when invited to testify to the legislature, would brag about 
what a bargain the state was getting -- educating adults at a cost of $44
per student per year.  Soon after, as we began serious literacy advocacy
work, some legislators told me that they would _not_ invest in adult
literacy if it meant the money would go to the department of education,
that they had no confidence that it would be spent well there. They said,
quite sensibly, how could one have confidence in an outfit that says they
could educate someone well for $44 dollars per year, especially when the
public schools had failed with a budget of thousands of dollars per student 
per year. To my knowledge, we have not ever had a legislator raise an
eyebrow about $2,000 per student per year. They do, of course, want to
know what they are getting for this investment, and we need to be able to
show them the outcomes.

Debbie, why not engage some South Carolina legislators in a discussion,
ask them to commission a legislative task force to look at need (and
demand), supply, and reasonable costs for adult literacy services.  Also
look at what other states are spending.  I think California, Oregon, and
Massachusetts might be good case studies. Perhaps also Ohio and
Pennsylvania.  NLA members, What other states have a cost per student,
above $1,000 per year?

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




From DJRosen at world.std.com  Thu Dec 30 18:16:37 1999
From: DJRosen at world.std.com (David J Rosen)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:16:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NLA Discussion: Do we serve too many students?
Message-ID: <199912310307.WAA18256@europe.std.com>


Jay and others,

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 Jay wrote:

> A legislator will tell you....I voted for increases every year in
> Literacy and adult education....

Yes, Jay, we need to help legislators by costing out what quality means.
How much per student (on average -- taking into account a wide range of
kinds and levels of services) does it cost for instruction by adequately
paid teachers and volunteer tutors, for counseling, daycare, computer
hardware and software, paid staff development, and other aspects of quality.  
We need to have a clear breakdown to show legislators what quality costs,
then develop a multi-year plan to get to that level of spending.  

I like the idea that John Comings proposed a few months ago.  As a field
and a community we should set a serious goal (not like the current
national education Goal 6, but one which we could actually measure and in
a reasonable time, reach, ) cost it out, and work toward that level of
investment.  I believe this is what the Summit should be about. I believe
we can persuade Congress and state legislatures if we do our homework on
this, and if we vow to reach them all, every state and federal legislator,
one-by-one.

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





From sbarton at i-plus.net  Fri Dec 31 08:02:11 1999
From: sbarton at i-plus.net (Sue Barton)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 08:02:11 -0500
Subject: NLA Discussion: System structure
Message-ID: <199912311320.IAA15369@europe.std.com>

Dear Group

I am responding to the statements Catherine made about adult ed and the 
program structure. Second, Jay says programs often have a different focus
and foundational philosophy based on different missions.  This state of
affairs is perfect evidence of the diverse, creative disorder "side" of
the tension that creative consciousness (WE) lives in.  These programs
serve vastly different geographical areas, problems and people through
vastly different teachers, program planners, and volunteers.  The open
area between disorder and developing order manifests a diversity ordered
for the moment IN ITS OWN PARTICULAR WAY.


In Virginia adult education programs are supported in a variety of ways.
In some areas the local k-12 school system supports the program, in 
other areas the community college supports the program, and across the 
state there are non-profit centers.  Programs that are supported by the 
school system fall under the school system's mission and vision which 
are not the same vision that adult ed can adhere to.  So when one goes 
to the superintendent and requests ANYTHING it is met with disdain and 
reluctance because adult ed is at the bottom of their priority list.  I 
am not bashing school systems here because without some of them we 
wouldn't have a program at all.. I am saying adult ed  is ham strung by 
our position under the thumb of such a system.

Community colleges, although supporting in appearance, send up road 
blocks and are not all inclusive of the adult ed program located on 
their physical plant.  When adult ed programs come up with creative ways 
to teach our students how to navigate the internet, community colleges 
view that as competition to their own programming.  Adult ed programs 
end up having to step on egg shells when setting up even as much as a 
graduation ceremony.

I say states should look at funding adult ed as its own entity.  We have 
unique goals and a unique mission.  Our clients have many problems that 
we are equipped to handle.  In Virginia we have a terrific system of 
communication, both with the rural and urban areas.  Why can't we use 
the structure that we have in place and be able to promote ourselves in 
the style that we need for both recruitment and retention.

Sue C. Barton
AflE8D
sbarton at i-plus.net
Radford, VA 24141



From JCretella at aol.com  Fri Dec 31 10:39:57 1999
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 10:39:57 EST
Subject: NLA Discussion: System structure
Message-ID: <200001011437.JAA20519@europe.std.com>


Sue and others....One of the ways to establish some equity between the k-12  
"people" and adult educators and literacy providers,especially where adult 
education is provided through the k-12 system, is to use k-adult instead of 
just k-12.It seems like a small thing but in our public school  system that 
is how our superintendent refers to education in our community...It took 
about 10 years to get this far but it works..Family Literacy is one way to 
promote k-adult.Actually, it is more of a political issue when you consider  
"our adults" as taxpayers, parents, school volunteers, coaches, fund raisers 
and whatever other role adults play in the community...Adult education can 
become an effective marketing tool...support for adult programs becomes a 
little easier in this context...sounds a little devious, but doesn't it make 
more sense to become part of the structure and work for change internally 
than to expend so much energy in the "them " and "us" contests...We currently 
spend about  $700 per student...not including special grants from other  of 
funding other than public funds...

Jay Cretella



From gdemetrion at juno.com  Wed Dec 22 09:49:16 1999
From: gdemetrion at juno.com (gdemetrion at juno.com)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:49:16 -0500
Subject: NLA Info: Online Peace Forum
Message-ID: <200001211725.MAA06903@europe.std.com>


Perhaps this forum on peace will be of interest to some.

George

---------------------------------------------------
Subject: Online Peace Forum
From: AEDNET List Owner <aedmod at fcae.acast.nova.edu>
To: AEDNET at list.acast.nova.edu
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:47:00 -0500

Thanks...

        Cheri Harris
        aednet moderator
        email:  aedmod at fcae.acast.nova.edu


From: Cheri Harris <harrisc at fcae.acast.nova.edu>
To: aednet at list.acast.nova.edu
Subject: PROJ> Request your participation in on-line Peace Prize Forum
(fwd)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:41:24 -0600
From: Gleason Sackmann <gleason at rrnet.com>
Reply-To: Net-Happenings <NET-HAPPENINGS at hypatia.cs.wisc.edu>
To: NET-HAPPENINGS at hypatia.cs.wisc.edu
Subject: PROJ> Request your participation in on-line Peace Prize Forum

From: Bruce Roberts [mailto:roberts at stolaf.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 2:53 PM
To: iecc-projects at stolaf.edu
Subject: Request your participation in on-line Peace Prize Forum

Teachers,

You and your class are invited to participate in a special on-line "Peace
Technology: Connecting Locally, Linking Globally" seminar
(http://www.peaceprizeforum.org/peacetech/) within the broader Peace
Prize
Forum (http://www.peaceprizeforum.org).

This invitation is for teachers and students who are interested in issues
of war and peace, violence and healing.  We encourage you to post your
thoughts and experiences and read what others have to say.

The on-line conference will run from now through February 19, 2000 when
the
face-to-face conference will be held at St. Olaf College in Northfield,
Minnesota, USA.

The overarching Peace Prize Forum 2000 is titled, "Striving for Peace:
Risk
and Reconciliation". It is held in cooperation with the Norwegian Nobel
Institute in Oslo.  This forum was created to offer the opportunity for
Nobel Peace Prize laureates, diplomats, scholars, and the general public
to
share in a dialogue on the underlying causes of conflict and war in
modern
society and on the dynamics of peacemaking.

The theme of the Peace Prize Forum 2000, honors the work of John Hume and
David Trimble. They were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998 for
undertaking the exhausting and politically risky process that culminated
in
the Belfast Agreement enacted on Good Friday in 1998.

        We encourage your participation. in this special pre-conference
conversation:
        http://www.peaceprizeforum.org/peacetech/

        There is nothing special to prepare, just log on, read, and
write.
Open doors of understanding and care.

Bruce Roberts
Professor of Psychology
St. Olaf College, and
Co-director of IECC
(Intercultural Email Classroom Connection)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
---
--
IECC-PROJECTS is intended for teachers seeking classroom partners for an
intercultural e-mail project.  To subscribe or unsubscribe from this
list,
please send an e-mail message to: "iecc-projects-request at stolaf.edu"
More information is available at URL:   http://www.iecc.org


+---------------------------------------------------------+
|   The Net-Happenings mailing list is a service of the   |
|   Internet Scout Project -- http://scout.cs.wisc.edu/   |
|                                                         |
|      Archives for Net-Happenings can be found at        |
|   http://scout.cs.wisc.edu/scout/caservices/net-hap/    |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
--------- End forwarded message ----------

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.



From gdemetrion at juno.com  Sun Dec 26 13:06:16 1999
From: gdemetrion at juno.com (gdemetrion at juno.com)
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 13:06:16 -0500
Subject: NLA Info: President Unveils FY 2001 Funding for Literacy
Message-ID: <200002092135.QAA12888@europe.std.com>


Jay, Jon or anyone else:

Can you post some key e-mail addresses of key legslators we can directly
contact?  Now is the time not only to advocate for additional funding,
but to present a comprehensive vision of adult literacy education.  That
is what has been under discussion here for the past 6 months, which in
their different ways, Nancy Hansen's and Linda Hoover's recent messages
have captured.  Drawing on Fingeret and Drennon's title, I am advocating
for the concept of "Literacy for Life."  The following was written by
Susan L. Lytle in a 1991 essay.  I believe it is as comprehensive and
succinct as anything we've seen.  I would get behind any advocacy effort
that promotes such a comprehensive vision of adult literacy as
articulated by Lytle.

Even more than the additional bucks is the need to get our story right
and to take the ball to the court of Congress and that of public opinion.

At work, so I won't steal any more time.

George Demetrion
LVA-Connecticut River East
GDemetrion at juno.com

A Comprehensive, Empowering Vision of Adult Literacy Education

"Some [students] come with a desire to learn more about a particular
subject, for example, African-American history, parenting, or health. 
Many seek ways to deal with their own children's literacy and schooling,
whereas others wish to participate or assume new roles and
responsibilities in their families, workplaces, or communities.  Some are
looking for community in the literacy program itself.  Some seek economic
improvements in their lives through new jobs or promotions, or by dealing
more competently with personal finances and/or their encounter with 'the
bureaucracy.'  For many, the program offers the possibility of taking
more control and ownership of their own learning.  For most adult
learners who come to the programs, the desire for enhanced self-esteem is
implicit in many of their stated and unstated goals."  

Then this too, I believe,  by Fingeret and Drennon

"Students do not necessarily have a concrete goal in mind, an
instrumental view of literacy tied to some specific task or aspiration
[though they *may*-GD].  More than anything, they want to feel there are
possibilities for the future, that there are choices and potrntial for
change."

_________________________________________________________________
(snipit)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 10:28:17 EST JCretella at aol.com writes:
.What we need is an election year advocacy strategy so 
>that our issues don't get lost in the budget fireworks which are sure to

>explode...This is where all of our advocacy skills will be tested..in
the 
>political arena...the coming summit and coalition meeting and other 
>meeting opportunities should lay the foundation for this kind of
election year 
>strategy... I would defer to someone like Jon Randall to guide this 
>discussion, etc.  any thoughts
>

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.