NLA Discussion: The Powers that Be

[PDRNRI at aol.com]

Let me begin this post by saying that as a relative newcomer to the field, 
especially to administrative work and policy issues, this listserv has done a 
wonderful job of educating me to the issues, needs, and directions in adult 
ed policy-making.  I'm looking forward especially to the exchange with Ron 
Pugsley, and have particularly enjoyed reading and reflecting upon Catherine 
King's series of posts concerning facilitation of participation in the 
democratic process.  I think as the time for this sharing of questions and 
views with Mr. Pugsley approaches, it is especially important to be thinking 
in this context.   

I'd like to comment briefly on a couple of recent posts by Sally Gabb, 
address the issue of providing a historical context for our struggle for 
adequate support for an adult education which serves to strengthen the 
democratic process, add an anecdote from my own class' experience, and close 
with some questions I'd like help with.
  
Sally pointed out in her post last week that class size was an issue of 
resource distribution.  She asked if, in our opinions, the "powers that be" 
were ready for the people we serve to become full participants in the 
"democratic" (her quotes) process.  I submitted that it was my opinion
that they are not, no more than they have ever been.   I've often
wondered if my perspective is too naive, too cynical, perhaps less
informed than it should be.   Maybe some of you could  help me in
reflecting further.

I should start by making certain my interpretation of the term "powers that 
be" is understood.  It's a vague term, obviously.  I welcome the input of 
anyone who wants to develop or refute this definition.  I define "powers that 
be" not as government or government officials, but as the small minority of 
Americans in whose hands a great percentage of our overall wealth lies - 
those who exert, through their contributions, hefty tax submissions, and 
other persuasive powers, a tremendous deal of influence over policy 
development at the federal level.  

I submit that the rights struggles Sally mentions (emancipation from slavery, 
women's suffrage, civil rights), as well as others (unionization) won by the 
people and (equal rights, draft resistance, etc.)  not won by the people, 
have come often at the end of decades of struggle and considerable bloodshed 
- in large part because of the resistance to such infringements on the status 
quo by the "powers that be".   

Yes, it is certainly true that such struggles might not have been waged had 
it not been for the flexibility of the Constitution (in particular the Bill 
of Rights, which as I remember was vigorously resisted by many framers of the 
original document) which specifically protects the right to petition the 
government).  I would argue, however that it is also reasonable to think that 
such drawn out, painful, violent struggles would not have been necessary in a 
truly inclusive democratic republic in which recognition of the dignity and 
worth of all humans was  an operative concept, not a noble pursuit. 

I think it's critical that we frame our struggle for adequate funding and 
public support of adult education as a pursuit of human empowerment (not 
merely workforce enhancement) in this historical context.  The original 
framers of the Constitution brilliantly created a document which allows for 
amendment.  Much can be found, however, in the original text and context 
which suggests that their view of a democratic republic was not as inclusive 
as it might have been.  Untaxed Native Americans were not counted as people, 
slaves were counted as three-fourths of a person, the voting public was 
limited to white, property-owning men, neither the Senate nor the Presidency 
were to be chosen by popular vote, and so on.  Much was written in to secure 
the powers of property owners (as a means, I would assume, of courting their 
support of the document). 

>From that time forward, with few notable exceptions, the struggle for 
democratic recognition on the part of the economically disenfranchised has 
met with active resistance or  inaction from the "powers that be" and the 
political establishment.   When emancipation threatened the economic 
stability of southern plantations, blood was shed.  When native nations stood 
in the way of the seizure of land and raw materials for agriculture and 
industry therein, blood was shed.  When industrial-age workers - men, women 
and children - struggled to secure their safety in factories, where death and 
debilitating injury went unregulated and generally unpunished, blood was 
shed.  When African Americans rose to assert their rights as equal citizens 
desiring equal economic opportunity, blood was shed.  

I would argue that this republic has long supported the interests of its most 
economically advantaged citizens over the disadvantaged.   Yes, much progress 
toward a just society has been made.  Yes, the most fundamental rights of the 
greater part of our citizenry has been secured as the power of the vote has 
been more widely granted. But none of these rights have come without
struggle.  None have come simply by virtue of the fact that they were
just, or that they favored equality over oppression and exploitation.  

The struggle for which we as educators all work, the struggle for an open, 
more democratic process in which all people engage as enlightened 
participants, must continue in the face of the resistance of these "powers 
that be" whose aim appears to be (and to have been) the maintenance of a 
status quo which fosters the economic growth for a prosperous few at the 
expense of the health and well being of an increasingly economically unstable 
many.   Most recently, in my own experience, I have watched the economic 
stability of the workers I serve and countless others like them erode at the 
hands of new initiatives in business which serve to weaken the labor market 
at its lowest wage levels. 

In our dislocated worker program here in RI, people whose factories have been 
bought and closed down by companies interested in securing tax write-offs at 
the expense of the emotional and economic well being of tens and hundreds of
workers struggle to improve language and literacy skills in an effort to 
market themselves.  They study alongside those whose jobs have been stripped 
by companies who seek to increase profit by contracting work to other nations 
where labor is cheaper and more readily exploited.   Too often, a return to 
the workforce for my students means an agreement with a temporary employment 
agency - no security, no benefits.  Usually, a return to work means a similar 
type of position as previously held, with reduced pay, with reduced benefits 
and plenty of overtime.   Those who successfully go on to training programs 
often meet the same fate, as the jobs they train for do not exist in 
sufficient numbers to support large influxes of inexperienced workers.  

Recently, one of our classes (an English GED class for advanced ESOL 
learners) raised an angry voice against the emerging temporary worker market 
in Rhode Island.  When I mentioned the existence of the United Workers' 
Committee, an organization run through Progreso Latino here in RI which has 
been working on pushing regulation at the legislative level, they impressed 
me with their forceful response - yes, they were very interested in being 
visited by a committee member, and yes, they would be quite ready to call 
and write their legislators in support of the committee's initiatives.   Are 
the "powers that be" - those profiting at both ends of this rapidly growing 
business in which full-time, long term human labor is actually rented - ready 
for this?  Moreover, are they ready for the checks and regulations against 
contracting work to overseas slave camps at the expense of our own working 
class which are bound to follow any successful effort to empower those 
workers as citizens? 

Catherine King was right, by the way - if  I remember correctly, she long ago 
posted something along the lines of saying that we must struggle at all times 
against indoctrination of our students to our own socio-political concepts, 
even as we judge those concepts to represent the noble pursuit of democracy.  
The power to analyze and participate democratically must come from within.  
When I'm teaching, I struggle against this all the time!  When students 
assert that they have no voice, when they admit that they are afraid to try 
to vote because they feel uninformed and lacking in the reading skills 
necessary to inform themselves, when they articulate the belief that their 
voice is powerless against the moneyed interests who dominate politics, I 
struggle with this.  I don't think it counts as serving my own agenda to 
suggest that we as a class or as a program can work to develop our own 
political voice, or that we have a civic responsibility to do so, but I'm not 
sure.  Perhaps someone would care to comment on this.  

Last, I grow increasingly concerned with what I hear from the field (not 
necessarily on this listserv, but when I'm engaged in my own work around 
standards/accountability, etc. here in RI) around the growing trend toward 
identifying adult education more and more exclusively with workforce development
.  i agree with many who've posted here that education should aim to do 
much, much more than develop one's potential as a worker.  Yet, more and 
more, it seems the discussion is being framed in these terms and 
practitioners don't seem to be rushing in to fight against this narrowing 
trend.   several of you have posted that there are certainly examples of 
enlightened business people who understand and buy into the idea that 
education's applications go beyond the workplace, which would suggest, 
obviously, that many more are out there who see this or might be made to see 
it.  Naturally, I accept the business perspective that for them to buy into 
education they must be able to see returns on their investment.  As 
Merrifield suggests, we  can work within a mutual accountability system, in 
which all of our needs and goals are recognized and respected.  But why does 
it seem that government policy insists that practice set the Workforce goals 
and standards as a higher priority, with more clearly defined standards for 
accountability and much more rigidly defined requirements?  Why does it seem 
to me that these interests get placed far above all others?  Even the 
well-meaning EFF, with its aim of getting learner input into the development 
of standards, drew its original questions from an external source and defines 
(as far as I've seen, feel free to correct me) the learner solely in terms of 
social roles with clear economic implications (where is the 
"learner-as-artist/writer/philosopher/spiritual entity?).

This post is getting unmanagably long and less focused, so I'll end it here...

David Hayes