[NLA] Discussion: WIA Reauthorization, Leave WIA as it is?

[David J. Rosen]

Debbie and others,

In a session I attended today at the  National Workforce Alliance 
conference in Washington, D.C. a participant asked if it would be better 
to leave WIA as it is, that in changing WIA now Congress might make 
things worse (including, if Congress were to follow the Administration's 
lead, by cutting funding.)   Having only four legitimate outcomes which 
are all employment-related, for example, would be very much worse for 
adult education and family literacy.  If these four outcomes were to 
apply across WIA, and became the only legitimate outcomes, as the White 
House Office of Management and the Budget has recommended, we could say 
goodbye to the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (WIA Title II.) 
It could then only fund employment-related adult education.

David J. Rosen
DJRosen at theworld.com

Debbie Yoho wrote:

>>From Eileen:  "Does the AELS have to be a winner-take-all system, a
>top-down, "here's how 
>the majority says it will be done" set of mandates?"
>
>I did not feel the "system" was operating from the top down at all until
>the NRS was mandated.  I think a lot of local frustration stems not from
>how we are funded, (except that it isn't enough!) but more from the NRS.  I
>have predicted on this list several times that the NRS will eventually
>collaspe of its own weight.
>
>I'm wondering if the AELS as it is  (minus the NRS) doesn't actually
>represent a balance of national-state-local as well as
>public-private-non-profit and school district-higher
>ed-library-workforce-community organizations already?  Could it be that we
>already have a system that represents the state of the art (of balance)in
>terms of who provides adult education programs?  Could it be that the
>current legislation already allows providers to work for a new balance
>locally if they are unhappy with the status quo?  
>
>More and more, I'm seeing the need for advocacy (at all levels) to boil
>down to basically   four issues:  1.  more money  2.  accountability
>measures  3.  legitimacy 4. quality program delivery (instruction, and the
>associated research implications).  I'm wondering if changes can occur, as
>it has in Massachusetts (and I would add NYC) without tampering with the
>basic legislation (The WIA) as it is.  
>
>This discussion is helping me to focus.  Does anyone else have the same
>feeling?     
>
>
>
>Deborah W. Yoho
>Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv
>President, SC Adult Literacy Educators
>Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
>2728 Devine Street,  Columbia, SC  29205
>803-765-2555   Fax  803-779-8417   dwyoho at earthlink.net
>
>
>>[Original Message]
>>From: Eileen Eckert <eileeneckert at hotmail.com>
>>To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
>>Date: 12/9/2002 5:38:31 PM
>>Subject: [NLA] AELS as its own system
>>
>>Debbie and others:
>>I, too, have wondered at the seeming defense of the status quo--even as I 
>>contribute to it! Is that it, really? I know I don't think having the
>>
>AELS 
>
>>administered through the community colleges is perfect, and I don't want
>>
>to 
>
>>impose it throughout the country, I just wanted to point out that the 
>>positives and negatives are not the same everywhere. But maybe, more than 
>>defending the status quo, we are defending our local knowledge of needs
>>
>and 
>
>>priorities, our local expertise in responding to those needs, and the 
>>inappropriateness of an outsider dictating the what and the how of needs
>>
>and 
>
>>responses. Maybe this has something to do with the majority rule model of 
>>power.
>>
>>If we see the role of any AELS administration system as imposing a model 
>>that fits the majority, then we each <have to> explain, defend, and
>>
>justify 
>
>>our own way of doing things as best for the majority, or risk being left
>>
>out 
>
>>in the cold. The correlate to that is that we have to put people who do
>>
>or 
>
>>see things differently in the minority. It sets up an adversarial, 
>>competitive way of thinking, talking, and acting. I guess I just "got"
>>
>what 
>
>>Nancy was trying to tell me about the whole idea being to set up a system 
>>that works for the majority. I hadn't seen it that way; I had not seen my 
>>different perspective as a threat to Nancy's or Dixie's or anyone else's 
>>being able to meet local learners' needs. I still don't think it <has> to
>>
>be 
>
>>that way, but yes, I guess too often that's the way it is, or maybe it's 
>>just the way it's becoming (since Newt Gingrich, or did it start with 
>>Reagan, or even before then?).
>>
>>Does the AELS have to be a winner-take-all system, a top-down, "here's
>>
>how 
>
>>the majority says it will be done" set of mandates?
>>
>>
>>Jon and/or David inferred that there is another way, saying something
>>
>like, 
>
>>how do we set up a system (or reform the one we've got) that is
>>
>responsive 
>
>>to diverse local needs? Sorry if I'm misrepresenting that message. Can 
>>others speak to this issue--majority-rule or otherwise?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
>>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20021210/cc7936b4/attachment.htm