NLA Discussion: Marginalization of the AELS

[gdemetrion]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Comings" <John_Comings at harvard.edu>
To: <nla at world.std.com>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 10:59 AM
Subject: NLA Discussion: Marginalization of the AELS


> The student goals that are most difficult both to serve and to
> measure progress on are those of students who have NALS level 1
> skills who want to raise them to NALS level 2 or who have NALS level
> 2 skills and want to raise them to NALS level 3.

John and others:

These represent our entire student body.  In any movement from the margins
to the mainstream it is essential that adult literacy does not become viewed
as "ABE Light," which, I am afraid is the case in the current reporting and
policy focus.  Any long term initiative requires a *restructuring* of policy
and assessment processes.  This will never take place through costs-benefits
utilitarian mind-set.  It will not take place through a governmental or
corporate vision as things now stand.  Any long term reform effort needs to
embrace a national vision, grounded on the ethos of democracy--the
establishment of a healthier public good, to which adult literacy can
contribute.  Without a changed ethos, getting to the table is besides the
point.  If we as a field are going to focus on the long road, why not work
diligently to change the policy discourse about adult literacy education?

This is particularly important for "An Action Agenda for Literacy"--a more
inclusive pluralism through which to define our work, for, and if possible,
with, Washington D.C., but clearly, not to be defined by Washington, D.C. as
it currently is.  Creating such a consensus that truly takes into concern
the spectrum of perspectives that comprise our field, is, I believe,
essential for any long term efforts.

One final point.  I caution the leadership of "An Action Agenda for
Literacy" not to depend exclusively on institutional legitimization.  There
are plenty of us, practitioners, students, scholars, whose primary
identification is not with the institution with which we work (though I like
mine), but with the actual work that we do.  Particularly for Priority III
(Quality); Outcome E ( "A strong research capacity, focused on teaching and
learning, develops knowledge and tools that are responsive to the needs of
the field"), I would suggest not simply to depend on the major literacy and
ABE thinktanks, but to draw on the repository of knowledge that the field
provides and build substantial ways for anyone who would like, to contribute
to the process of constructing the vision.  Institutions can be constraining
as well as liberating, and "group think" is all too pervasive.  What we need
is a healthy plurality of perspectives and an inclusive process of
participation.

Let all who would like to have voice be heard.

Can we have more discussion on what is involved in moving forward the
process of building the consensus needed to establish An Action Agenda for
Literacy before the leadership gets too far into the work?

George Demetrion
Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford
Gdemetrion at msn.com



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