[NLA] NIFL (long)

[George E. Demetrion]

Original posting: August 1, 2002.  This is being re-posted because the
original message did not get archived on the NIFL-NLA list.

G.D.
___________________________________________________________________

Long 

"If two persons can converse intelligently with each other, it is because
a common experience supplies the background of mutual understanding upon
which their respective remarks are projected....If, however, two persons
find themselves at cross-purposes, it is necessary to dig up and compare
the presuppositions, the implied context, on the basis of which each is
speaking."

John Dewey
How We Think (p. 342)

Colleagues:

Like the field itself, the National Coalition for Literacy (NCL) is
between a rock and a hard place.  It would be less than charitable not to
appreciate the poignancy of the struggle among those within the field
closest to the policy sector.  Regardless of where one stands the
tensions are sharp.  On the one hand, the gap between the field's own
best practices and already existing research base, and that of current or
anticipated near term policy directives, is wide, indeed.  On the other
hand, the field is policy disenfranchised and has limited political or
grass roots clout to effectively challenge the reigning ideologies
reflected in the Bush administration.  Whether that inherently precluded
a well-focused, well-coordinated challenge to the current Board nominees
is another matter, though we will never know, as that prospect now has
been taken off the table.  Under these circumstances, the only logical
course of action, short of pure critique, is to support the NCL decision
that includes:

1)  A  recommendation  that the next NIFL Director "has knowledge of
adult literacy efforts;" 
2) Bi-passing of any direct challenge of the nominated board, and 
3) Keeping the Reading Partnership funding in NIFL in support of a
life-span approach to literacy.

Up to this point, my self-identified role in this discussion has been to
draw out the logic of an alternative perspective to what has seemed all
along, the more conservative inclinations of those in our field closest
to the policy sector. I believed the options needed to be explored rather
than assumed that the course of action that the NCL ultimately selected
was to be assumed as self-evident from the get-go.

 My focus now shifts to one of support of the strategy, which does not
preclude public and (as warranted) sharp analysis of on-going directions,
both of the policy directions of the field and of the Bush
administration.  The support is unqualified in terms of accepting the
given strategy as the only way possible, at this stage, of working
coherently for constructive change.  At the same time I think it's
important to consider how conservativeis  the NCL decision.

The main focal point is the recommendation that the next director "has
knowledge of adult literacy efforts."  Perhaps more than half of the
current Board nominees" have knowledge of adult literacy efforts," at
least in a general sense.  Such knowledge of a general sort would not be
hard to gain, which I'm sure the next Director will possess.  The
question is, will the focus on adult literacy drive the NIFL ship?  If
so, in what manner?  These are the outstanding issues.

Thus, the issue is not simply knowledge of adult literacy, but the focus
of NIFL. The issue is not even that NIFL continue to focus on adult
literacy, unless what is meant by that is that adult literacy is to be
the *dominant* focus of NIFL. Otherwise, surely, NIFL can still *focus*
on adult literacy as one of the three or four areas of its attention,
without it necessarily being the most important or significant aspect. 
If that primary direction becomes blunted, then the field indeed, will
only be further marginalized at least in terms of national policy. 
Perhaps Jon or others can clarify what is intended by the statement
"insuring the Institute's focus on adult literacy."  Is that to be
primary or simply included as part of the mix? 

Also, not clarified is the role of EFF in NIFL and in the field.  Unless
I am reading things wrong, as I have understood it, EFF was to be NIFL's
flagship program by which to bring consensus to the field.  Is that still
to be the case in the current climate or is EFF, now, to be simply one of
NIFL's various programs?   Very much related; is NIFL, in general, via
the directive of the Literacy Summit of 2000, to play this leadership
role with and for adult literacy or is NIFL now to be basically a
pipeline to information?  These are crucial distinctions that point to
important questions not clarified in Jon's postings.

A related concern is that in keeping the Reading Partnership money in
NIFL is the likelihood that the influence  of the National Institute for
Health and Human Child Development (NIHHCD) in shaping reading theory as
applied to adults will be expanded.  This is no minor or technical matter
as their strong focus on phonemic awareness as the foundation (as opposed
to simply being an important) factor in the promotion of reading may well
define the parameters of legitimate, scientifically-based" research on
adult literacy. 

 As stated in previous messages, the balanced theory of reading as
proposed by P. David Pearson (K-12), Victoria Purcell-Gates (adult
literacy) and others has provided another perspective that questions the
operative assumptions of NICHHD-based research.  Will the influence of
the NICHHD effectively override the research of the balanced theory of
reading?  Will the NICHHD research agenda set the parameter upon which
the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL)
will need to frame its research?  Or will NCSALL have independent status
as one of the two (National Center for Adult Literacy, also) think tanks
at the national level for adult literacy education, which, logically,
should serve as the premier research institute for NIFL. 

 Will the focus of childhood literacy supported through the research of
the NICHHD blunt the independent status of NIFL in regard to national
policy on adult literacy?  Will it have undue influence on NCSALL in
defining the basis of legitimate research not only on adult reading, but
on the definition of literacy, which includes, but is broader than
reading and writing, as a metaphor for knowledge, as described in the
various literature going back to Paulo Freire's (1970) Pedagogy of the
Oppressed?  

The capacity of the field of adult literacy education to act as an
independent sector in defining the legitimacy of its own research is no
small or merely technical matter.  Rather, it goes to the core of what
gets publicly and policy defined as literacy itself.  While there may be
good, tactical reasons to keep the Reading Partnership funds in NIFL,
there may also be a large cost.  What is the cost of not having the
NCSALL as the premier research agency for OVAE, DAEL, and NIFL?  How are
politics shaping what becomes defined as legitimate knowledge?  Whose
politics are they?  These questions are still very much on the table
notwithstanding the NCL's decisions.  They merit further analysis and
dialogue.

Also, I'm not overly assured with the statement by the Committee chaired
by Senator Kennedy, "urging" the Administration to honor  the adult
literacy focus of NIFL, in pointing to the Institute's work on LD and EFF
as the two *programs* that have this adult focus. From the point of view
of the NCL this may be the best deal that the field can obtain in the
current climate, so however tenuous in impact, it is the straw upon which
the field needs to cling in order to maintain its public legitimacy.  
Even as the LD and EFF focus are likely to remain intact, the issue is
how they are played out via the ideology of compassionate conservatism. 
A conservative board geared to childhood issues and a phonemic-dominated
interpretation of reading is likely to lend some interesting twists to
adult LD and the constructivist-premised EFF project.  I'll be looking
closely at the ideological implications of these emerging
interpretations.

 The reality is that once the institutional makeup of NIFL reflects the
wishes of Administration, it will have the political power to shape NIFL
as it sees fit, which will likely include *some* focus on adult literacy.
 The issue is, how much and what type?  Thus, it might have not been"
practical" nor "wise" to formally challenge the NIFL board nominees, as
stated.  Yet, those are assumptions, only (as grounded in certain facts
as they may be), that merits the closest scrutiny as reflective of the
operative beliefs of the field's policy leadership and of their
understanding of political culture.  I would not want to take them at
face value as "self-evident."  Rather, they are based on certain
paradigmatic assumptions that may not be self-evident nor viewed as
"wise" to others. 

For a variety of reasons, the field's top leadership has chosen not to
directly challenge the Board nominees.  When looked at closely, the
proposed recommendation for the next Director is not that strong.  There
has been a collective timiditynot to more forcefully challenge the status
quo, even a status quo that does not well reflect the interests of the
field.  The apprehension is based on the assumption that any direct
challenge would result in a further erosion of the field's marginalized
status.

The issue for the major institutions is whether they will increasingly
define themselves through a DC prism, where the money, such as it is
flows, or whether this particular accomodation is viewed as one strategy
in a still to-be-developed comprehensive vision that can garner and
inspire a broad-based consensus.  For this latter aspiration to reach
fruition, the integrity of the field's already existing and growing
research base, theoretical constructs, and literacy practices would need
to be honored and expanded upon.  There is a comparable need to engage in
long-term policy reconstruction that would require a combination of
sustained grass roots mobilization and broad-based institutional support
and direction stemming from the field's major organizations. 

 This reform impetus would need to stem from (and perhaps grow
simultaneously with) a profound vision that speaks compellingly to the
field and to the nation.  I believe resources for this latter effort
exists. However, they are latent and require vigorous implementation,
which could emerge by linking adult literacy to the triple imagery of
double-duty investment (Sticht), inalienable rights (Chisman), and the
concept of the public good through the ethos of voluntarism (ProLiteracy
Worldwide) and the strengthening of mediating institutions (EFF).  The
issue is whether long-term adult literacy social policy is going to be
based on some version of a cost-benefits utilitarian rationale (the
operative assumptions of capitalism in the narrow sense) or a
commonwealth vision (Catherine King) where adult literacy is embraced as
a valuable means to establish the good society (Robert Bellah) and the
viability of constitutional democracy based on the nation's most enduring
political values.

The challenge is whether the field can even begin to think and work
through a comprehensive vision that stems from what is actually
accomplished through adult literacy education on its own terms in a
sustained articulation of its public values.  Will adult literacy come
into its own?  Will the current NCL decision be viewed  as a temporary
strategy that ultimately will require the field to take the issue to the
nation and its core ideals of equality, opportunity, liberty, and social
justice, or will interest politics alone, continue to govern the field's
policy orientation in perpetuity?.

Any long-term revitalization of adult literacy education will have to
move well beyond the interest politics of Washington, D.C, even though
that may be the strategy that needs to be place at this time. Yet, even
in these times, there's more to build upon than that. Drawing upon the
ethical ideals of the Bush administration as a framework, the field can
begin to develop this broader vision by fleshing out the relationship of
adult literacy to such notions as corporate responsibility, compassionate
conservatism, social inclusiveness, and patriotism. 

If these are, in fact, the professed values of the Bush Administration,
rather than empty rhetoric, they provide important means through which
the field can establish the public value of adult literacy, which is the
basis of any social policy. They become the basis as well by which the
field holds the Administration accountable.  These conservative values
can be linked to more progressive ones over time.  This would provide a
framework for an emerging middle ground consensus that includes moderate
conservative and moderate progressive ideas.  Those at the more radical
poles of the political culture (of the Right and of the Left) would have
influence, but of a more indirect nature, which would be an inevitable
limitation of any broad-based national consensus that by definition
requires a crossing of ideological and political boundaries

 I lend my support to the NCL decision and recommend that others who are
critical of the decision, also support the decision in order to move
forward and work on the more substantial matters.  Let us hope that the
subtlety of what I am advocating is not lost in the need to respond to
immediate expedience.

George Demetrion





________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org