NLA Discussion: NRS

[gdemetrion]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bickerton, Robert P" <RBickerton at doe.mass.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 10:15 PM


> 3.  The recent position taken by the U.S. Department of Education regarding
> WIA Title II excluding under-educated high school graduates from enrollment
> in our programs IS JUST FLAT OUT WRONG.  Neither the language of the law
> supports this position ("or" still means "or" -- NOT "and") and no-one in
> Congress that I met with -- and I met extensively with every one of the key
> players and their staff who were involved in writing WIA -- ever suggested
> anything but support for this construction because they supported our need
> to serve this population.  We all make mistakes from time to time -- I know
> I make my fair share.  So rather than delaying admitting this was a mistake,
> it would serve USDOE and all of us best if a rapid retraction is
> proffered.


Bob and others:

Was that a Clinton, or is that a Bush thing?  Just curious.

In terms of just a mistake, yes, we all certainly do make them.  But without
knowing anything about what went into this, perhaps there is a certain logic
at work?  Say a cost-benefits utilitarian logic that would go like, "Since
attainment of GED or a another secondary equivalent is one of the goals of
policy, it is illogical to provide scarce resources to those who have a
diploma."  If I remember correctly, programs were not going to be able to
count those over 61 or was it 65? for funding purposes (though they could
still serve them--gee, thanks guys--and I bet it was primarily guys),
because since such folks were either near or at retirement, they were not in
sync with the employment goal of the legislation.  I believe that portion of
the legislation was rescinded (or was it?), but nonetheless, its initial
presence was not so much a "mistake," but based on a certain premise working
out its logic.

It's the premises as a whole with the WIA/NRS that are problematic.  While
it may be academic to bring that up now, I presume that the thinking is
beginning to get formulated as to what the next generation of NRS will look
like.  On that front, there is discussion between OVAE and NIFL to consider
possible ways that EFF Standards might interface with this next generation.
Perhaps these matters and anything else related to the construction of the
next generation can be brought out publicly through these airwaves and other
formats before a fait accompli is placed on the field.

It never ceases to mystify me why state-mandated ABE programs should be
based on the same standards as volunteer adult literacy community-based
programs?  What do levels have to do with anything much of what is being
learned in so many of the diverse programs that characterize the field, and
what is it that is really being "compared" through the fabricated levels
based on a range of assessment procedures, mostly standardized tests.  And
what do TABE and CASAS, for example, have so much in common, that validity
and reliability can be compared through the aggregate collection of such
"objective, measurable, and uniform" data?  Beyond that, what do TABE and
CASAS have to do with what is being learned and taught in the classroom?
Perhaps something, perhaps less, depending on the program focus.  But as a
uniform  and objective measurement of learning across the span of our
program in the holy grail quest for "comparability," that is another matter.
So is the so much time, money and human resources being allocated to chase
the holy grail?  So while mistakes may abound, the more fundamental matters
are:

* methodology
* epistemology
* the politics of literacy

Policy does not exist in a vacuum, but is an expression of the political
culture.  The challenge for the field is to help shift the political culture
(which extends beyond Democrat and Republican squabbles) in a manner that
will place our field as defined and understood by our own students,
practitioners and scholars (scholars include both researchers and
theorists--not that there's a great divide, but let's keep in mind the logic
and politics behind the current phrase of "research-based" studies), that
then have the political capacity and collective will to bring their insights
to Washington D.C. in the form of new policy. While that's a long term
strategy, bringing another logic to the next generation of NRS would be a
shorter range focus.


George Demetrion



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