NLA Discussion: Implications of Legislators "Not Getting It."

[Catherine King]

To Alice Johnson, who wrote:

"I agree -- of course policymakers and funders *can* understand
 it" (the waiting list/bad program situation).  "The catch is someone
needs to *tell* them.  If we as a field don't, who do we possibly
think will? . . . One of the things I realized when I worked on Capitol
Hill is that it's not that legislators don't care about literacy, it's that
most don't really *get* what it's all about."

And David's idea of grassroots movements is about each state's
adult education programs, volunteers, etc., taking steps to assure
that their state's representatives "get it."  And this is good, of course.

However, . . .

Though I do think we cannot discount the probability that **some**
in positions of power are actually interested in our citizens **not**
becoming literate, or educated, or participating fully in our
republican order, I also think that if the full force of the real situation
in adult education in the United States were visited upon the
understanding of most of our legislators, we would indeed see some
massive short- and long-term changes.

Short-term changes would immediately address current program
needs; but long-term changes would address an entire
metamorphosis of the educational system--to change our
understanding of adult-community continuing education so that
ongoing community education is understood as a democratic
responsibility mandated by the very tenets of our Constitution
and surrounding documents, and in the light of an increasingly
complex world and the possibility of instant communications.

Alice Johnson, we have every reason to think you are right to
say that most of our legislators just don't "get it."   And their not
"getting it" at first glance seems rather benign to most of us, and
let's continue David's and others' grassroots efforts to educate
our legislators.

However, . . . I would also like to point to a body of literature here,
generated over the past 10-15 years, where a rather clear--and
less benign--picture of personal and, more importantly,
institutional, mind-sets is emerging.

For example, in Sonia Nieto's well-referenced work, "Affirming
Diversity, The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education,"
we find a discussion about how countless studies have revealed
time and again the still-ingrained existence in teachers--and in
the general culture-at-large--of various kinds of racism, sexism,
classism, "linguicism," stereotyping, etc. that continue to infect
and effect our schools and culture, and that continue to send
into adult life highly intelligent but thwarted people--into poverty,
intellectual and emotional malaise, and hopeless habits of
cultural and personal self-denigration.

("Linguicism" is two-pronged:  First, languages other than "ours"
are systematically de-valued, along with those who speak these
languages; second, we de facto require everyone to speak "our"
language in order to even participate in social, political, or cultural
activities--even for those who are full-fledged citizens.  But third,
President Bush, et al, are now trying to diminish our power to help
people learn English--the recent note from the Law Center:: "Please
sign onto the attached sign-on letter to President Bush opposing any
roll-back in efforts to improve access to limited English proficient
individuals."   This adds a third prong to linguicism--institutional
efforts to stem English language acquisition.)

Even though I and others advocate for a continuing education
mandate on the basis of (1) the basic tenets of a participatory
democracy and, (2) exponential, unprecedented change that
leaves illiterate and uneducated people basically outside of the
participatory political process, we still must acknowledge that
(3) many of those who come to our doors did not get the education
they were promised in explicitly stated federal and state mandates
in the first place.

>From the many and well-argued books and articles on the
subject of all forms of bias and their effect on who are
now the adults in our programs, there is reason to think this
"late-bloomer" problem will not go away any time soon.

Two things:

First, if Nieto's work is right, may we not assume that a good
portion of the adults that come to our doors are "graduates"
of the schools and teachers who were-are unaware of their own
complicity in this "problem."  (Many teacher-education programs
are just now beginning to address this problem, attempting to
help teachers raise these questions in themselves so that they
have "new eyes" when re-entering the classroom.  This will take
a long, long time, but once we realize the problem, the only
thing to do is to address it at the teacher-education level.)

And if our adults are indeed graduates of this systemic problem,
the "remedial" situation is much more complex and serious than
the naive idea that a bunch of recalcitrant adults are responsible
for their own lack of development--or even that families are generally
at fault--if this is indeed a part of the mental mind-set of many of
our legislators who--most of them?--were unknowing (and rightful)
recipients of a decent, long-term education.

Certainly  the "reasons" for illiteracy and lack of skills and
education may be shared by every faction that feeds into the
situation, including some students who are just recalcitrant,
period, and families who are "dysfunctional."   But the evidence
is growing that shows the much more powerful effect of
teacher bias--bias heretofore unknown by the teacher and
supported by the second point below: ***institutional bias,***
which effects everyone across the board.

Second, and much more serious, then, and directly related to Alice
Johnson's comments, is the situation that Nieto focuses on in
her chapter entitled "Racism, Discrimination, and Expectations
of Students' Achievement" where she addresses across-the-board
institutional bias.    I wanted to quote Nieto, but was stopped by
the electronic copy prohibition, so I will try to paraphrase.  But
I premise the points, for those who are interested, by this
comment about legislators not "getting it":

Having found it difficult to even teach experienced teachers, in an
amenable academic setting, to self-reflect about even the
**possibility** of their own ingrained biases that effect our students,
I can easily surmise that legislators' not "getting it"  (1) often (if not
always) has behind it a myriad of un-inspected biases, e.g.,
classism (number one on the list in this case), racism, sexism,
ethnicism, etc., etc.  and, if this is true,

(2) it will take concerted long-term efforts to secure a permanent
"waking-up" and the concrete effects of that "call."   In short,

****biases, if present, serve to block understanding (getting it),****

and institutional bias is going to be more, not less, difficult to uproot.

It is indeed understanding that we are trying to promote from all sides,
including the grassroots efforts we are talking about on this list.   But
that call to understand has its legitimate ground in the implied and
stated (in their oaths) legislative embrace of our Constitutional tenets.

With the state of adult education as it is, not only is there mounting
evidence that our schools and teachers are involved in biases of all
sorts, our Congress and state legislators are, in many ways, also
already deeply involved in a complex maze of not only personal, but
more importantly for us, institutional discrimination--manifest in the
evidence of what our "graduated" students were up against in our
schools (well-documented by Nieto and many others), and what our
students are still facing today, only in a more "graduated" form:
The institutional myopia (in this case Congressional and state
legislative bodies instead of schools and teachers) and reluctance to
fund programs for those who want to become literate and desire to
continue their education--to improve themselves--or to "pursue
happiness" in the most culturally acceptable of ways, but who are
not ready for, or who cannot afford to go to, college.

I love our Congresspeople and appreciate all the good they do,
and some changes have been made, but look at them--they are
basically still a white, male, myopic set of privileged-from-birth
very nice people.  (Of course there are exceptions.)

If it can be shown that our students had to wade through
institutional discrimination before they got to us, and I think
there is plenty of evidence to claim that a good many of them did,
then "legislators not getting it" can no longer be looked at as
benign, well-meaning fuddy duddies who just have a lot on their
plate--like corporate money and **their** funded projects?  These
people don't have a big lobby because they don't have the
money that the big-spender corporations do.  So what else
is new?

Alice, this myopia has become, in its subtle recalcitrance,
and according to my own view of it from having studied it for
many years, the greatest of going scandals, if it is not,
indeed, criminal.

Here are some paraphrases from Nieto's work:

Institutional discrimination is about how people who are
excluded or deprived of rights or opportunities are so treated
through the normal and ongoing bureaucratic operations of the
institution.  Even though many individuals who work within
the institution may not harbor prejudice or operate under racist
(or mainly classist in this case, I think) intentions  **or are even
aware** of how harm is being done to others, the result and
outcomes of the situations affected may be essentially racist
or classist nevertheless.  (p. 36)

Nieto refers to racism here, but has included all forms of
discrimination generally in her text.  I think the problem in our
situation is one mainly of classism based in economic divisions
as well as a long-term immersion in cover-all cultural, and often
white, privileges that many/most? legislators have been brought
up in.

Nieto says, paraphrased again, that definitions most of us apply
to "racism," classism, and other forms of discrimination often
serve to obscure oppression in its institutional form.  Though
the actions and beliefs of individual persons may be hurtful and
destructive, institutional discrimination causes far greater harm,
I.e., economic and political power systematically used in
institutions (such as schools and legislators) lead to destructive
and detrimental practices and policies that set in stone, and
make it very hard if not impossible to struggle against, the
negative effects of discrimination that have now been
systematized.

These practices and policies are harmful to groups that
share a particular identity (be it racial, ethnic, gender, or other).

Nieto says, the major difference--that is, between individual and
institutional discrimination--is "the wielding of power," precisely
on account of it being primarily wielded in the hands of the
persons who control institutions . . .that oppressive practices
and policies are legitimated and continue to be reinforced, and
even celebrated in some cases."  (p. 35)

Nieto's "Wielding of power"  **in this case**  is manifest in
by-default non-action--the power to just ignore the problem--like
we succeeded to ignore the problems of civil rights and
women's suffrage for oh, so many years--the subtlety
of pretended or real obtuseness about what this whole thing
of literacy and adult education is about, the construction of
untenable and unreasonable after-the-fact "results" barriers
based on natural, not human, science expectations, and
various forms of lip-service and pittance-throwing from the
power-wielders that be.

Nieto continues that teachers are not the only ones who expect
little from working-class, poor, and culturally dominated groups.
She brings up Garfield High School in East Los Angeles, made
famous, you remember, by the exceptional work of Jaime
Escalante (and other teachers) who propelled an unusual and
unprecedented number of students to college in the face of
poverty and discrimination.

It seems George Bush (Sr.) visited Garfield High when he
was running for U.S. president.  Rather than develop on the notion
and message that college was both possible and desirable for
Garfield students, Bush's focus instead was on the idea that
some do not need a college education for success.  His comments
were addressed to a largely Mexican American student body
and said, "we need people to build our buildings . . . people who
do the hard physical work of our society."

Nieto comments that it would be doubtful to think that Bush
would have even considered saying these words to the
students at Beverly Hills High School, located just a few miles
away.

His, and countless others', message of low-or-no expectations to
students who would have benefited more from precisely the
opposite kind of speech, in this example and others,
is given to these students again and again, even by those at
our highest levels of a government--those who represent
a system that claims to be equitable to all people, and to its
students. (p. 46)

Alice, we can keep hammering on their understanding over the
long haul with the hopes of getting through to them (after all,
the Japanese finally changed American attitudes about their
products) or our adults can file a class-action suit to require a
better educational system to fulfill the promise of our Constitution.

I prefer the former, but many of us don't know how to approach
the situation in the political realm.  I am teaching teachers,
and hope to make a difference here.   Perhaps we need to
enlist Bill  Moyers, or get some grant funds to do a video
presentation so all program managers can show it to their
power brokers . . .again and again?

I do think that "not getting it," means these folks haven't
experienced it--ever--except perhaps when they pass a
homeless person on the street, etc., but certainly not to
understand what it means.   And if they haven't been
around it, then they are, by this fact, privileged.   I wouldn't take
that privilege away, but I would take away the obvious myopia
that goes with it.    How to do that?

But after all the efforts, and after seeing the evidence that
Nieto and others are bringing to the table after alot of hard-won
research, and in addition to the other arguments we have put
forth here and to David Rosen in a prior note, I think their
"not getting it" raises rightly the question of classist bias in our
legislators.

Sorry to be so long, but I think it is important, and quite germane
to the advocacy questions on the table.

Best to all,
Catherine King
(Nieto reference:  Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 2000)





----- Original Message -----
From: Johnson, Alice <Alice.Johnson at ed.gov>
To: <nla at world.std.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 12:07 PM
Subject: NLA Discussion: Smaller state strategies, waiting lists


>
> Catherine King wrote:
>
> >We end up spreading ourselves too thin and service suffers...It seems to
me
> if we can understand that, funders and policy makers can understand
> that...perhaps if **some** knew the whole story, we might begin to see
some
> real change instead of a continuous recapitulation to the status quo of
> obvious and gross ignorance of the real situation of adult education in
the
> United States...<
>
> Catherine and NLA colleagues:
>
> I agree -- of course policymakers and funders *can* understand it.  The
> catch is someone needs to *tell* them.  If we as a field don't, who do we
> possibly think will?
>
> One of the things I realized when I worked on Capitol Hill is that it's
not
> that legislators don't care about literacy, it's that most don't really
> *get* what it's all about.  Unlike the K-12 and higher education systems,
no
> members of Congress have been students in adult literacy programs, and
there
> is only one I know of (Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington
DC)
> who volunteers as a literacy tutor.  I wonder how many legislators have
ever
> even set foot in a literacy program?  Legislators are swamped with issues
> and bombarded with invitations from constituents and the fact of the
matter
> is few (if any) have the time or will make the effort to seek out
additional
> constituents or organizations.  It is up to *us* to seek them out.  But
if
> we do invite them, many will come, learn, and support our efforts.
>
> Let me give an example:  When I worked in the Senate, there was a very
> senior, very powerful education committee staffer who wasn't against
> literacy, but wasn't proactively for it either.  I tried for 5 years to
> persuade him to support various literacy amendments -- and I gave him
> reports and statistics galore to make the case.  Unfortunately, I didn't
get
> very far.  Finally, in the mid-1990's, a literacy program from his state
> (Rhode Island) invited him and the senator for whom he worked to visit.
The
> senator wasn't able to make it, but the staffer did -- and sat in on
> classes, talked with students, and returned to Capitol Hill completely
fired
> up to support adult literacy.  In fact, he helped behind the scenes in
> getting some of the significant increases in appropriations the very next
> year.  And then he retired.
>
> There are 535 legislators on Capitol Hill -- all with a key staff member
for
> education issues -- and many more at the state and local level.  They are
> *all* potential literacy champions, but in most cases they won't become
> literacy champions unless we invite them to learn more about our field,
our
> students, and the incredible difference literacy programs are making.
>
> If every adult education and literacy program in the country did just a
> little (say, "adopts" one legislator or staffer to educate about literacy
in
> the coming year -- and does so by inviting him/her to visit your program
and
> following up every 2-3 months with a letter, phone call, and/or copy of
your
> newsletter), the overall impact would be tremendous.
>
> Alice Johnson
> National Institute for Literacy
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> To UNSUBSCRIBE FROM the NLA list, send an e-mail message to
> majordomo at world.std.com
> Skip the header. In the body of the message type (only) unsubscribe nla
>
> To SUBSCRIBE TO the NLA list, send an e-mail to majordomo at world.std.com
> Skip the header. In the body of the message type (only) subscribe nla
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>





---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE FROM the NLA list, send an e-mail message to
majordomo at world.std.com
Skip the header. In the body of the message type (only) unsubscribe nla

To SUBSCRIBE TO the NLA list, send an e-mail to majordomo at world.std.com
Skip the header. In the body of the message type (only) subscribe nla
---------------------------------------------------------------------------