NLA Discussion: What is the Right Program Size?

[Bickerton, Robert P]

Sherry, et al,

I believe there's more to David's question than simply an "industrial age
mentality."  Over the years I worked at both small and large literacy/ABE
programs.  There ARE issues related to size:  like whether the sponsoring
agency can hire full time staff (with benefits) or can only support part
time staff;  like whether someone can really be dedicated to important
related jobs like counseling, curriculum, etc.;  like whether there's enough
paid time to administer a program, including dealing with data entry,
reporting and other accountability issues -- or does the
coordinator/director have to spend unpaid evenings and weekends getting this
work done;  like whether the success of a program falls so heavily on one or
two very talented and committed persons that the program and the students
they serve suffer badly upon when they leave.  And I know there are more
issues like these that we should not accept as "intractable," but which we
have an obligation to resolve in the best interests of our students and our
field.

This is NOT to say that we should look at the size of programs today and
make assumptions about what they can and cannot do -- what they do and do
not have to offer.  There are countless examples of very small, very
committed and very skilled programs & staff accomplishing a great deal more
than some of their larger and better supported counterparts.  The question
for me is:  when we encounter a successful and vibrant, but under-resourced
program -- should our policy framework include providing the resources
needed for that small program to grow to a size where the above issues can
also be successfully addressed?  For example, in Massachusetts I have
watched some small CBOs grow quite large and evolve into comprehensive adult
literacy/education programs -- without losing touch with the values that
made them special in the first place.  I'm not suggesting this is easy --
but I do know it is possible.

I hope we can tackle the discussion David launched with some of these
challenges and possibilities in mind.  

take care,
bob bickerton, MA director of adult ed



-----Original Message-----
From: Sherry Royce [mailto:sjroyce at earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 1:28 PM
To: nla at world.std.com
Subject: NLA Discussion: What is the Right Program Size?



David:

How rigid are we getting?  I thought improvement in the quality of adult
education offerings and, as a result, the quality of learner's lives as
workers, parents and citizens (and incidentally lifelong learners) was what
adult literacy , ESOL, and basic skills was all about.

Let's get away from this industrial age mentality and into the information
era where very little is limited by size except in terms of our imagination.

Sherry Royce
1938 Crooked Oak Drive
Lancaster, PA 17601
Voice: 717.569.1663    Fax: 717.560.9903
sjroyce at earthlink.net


-----Original Message-----
From: nla-approval at world.std.com [mailto:nla-approval at world.std.com]On
Behalf Of David J Rosen
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 7:31 PM
To: nla at world.std.com
Subject: NLA Discussion: What is the Right Program Size?


NLA Colleagues,

What do you think is the right size for an adult literacy, basic
education, secondary education or ESOL program?  Can a program be too
small?  Can it be too big?  Should public and private funders also be
thinking about this, and should they only support programs of at least a
certain minimum size?  Should they refuse to fund a program which is too
big?  And as you think about this size question, do you think every
program should provide a certain minimum number of levels of education, or
all levels? (e.g. all six/twelve levels as defined by the NRS?)

Should every program provide certain basic support services?  What are
they?  Should every program.....what else?

Should we encourage programs to develop tight collaborative agreements to
provide minimum levels and kinds of services?  Are collaborative
arrangements as good as/better than/ not as good as/just different from
having one large program provide all levels and kinds of services?

Are there some good reasons why we should not set some minimum size or
maximum size?

Have any state, federal or private funders wrestled with these questions?
If so what is their thinking about this?

Let's hear everyone's perspectives -- what do *you* think?

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator