[NLA] Discussion: AELS and Higher Ed

Tue Dec 10 19:17:44 EST 2002

Jon, Deb, Catherine and others: 
Thank you, Jon, for expressing so well the points, which needed to be made regarding this issue. The problem I <have> with the suggestion we change the system to be a part of community colleges is the following sentence that you wrote:
<< It is very, very difficult to craft a single national
distribution/accountability system appropriate for all adult learners and
literacy programs, given the wide variation of circumstances that each group
must deal with. >
I agree.  The worst part is:  When an attempt is made to "craft a single distribution/accountability system" the powers-that-be come up with accountability systems like the NRS which don't meet the "circumstances" of those of us serving the adult with zero level reading skills enrolled in programs wanting to fulfill quality of life goals.  Costly and fruitless and a self-esteem destroyer.
You wrote:
<<  In meeting the needs of the majority - be they adult learners or programs,
nationally or within a state - the needs of the minority are often given
short shrift. >>  Add to that, on 9 Dec 2002 10:26, Deb Yoho wrote she was interested in "seeing the passionate defense of the status quo". 

My comment is:
My passionate defense of "what we have" is because - as a minority - we *have* been "short shrift" without a voice to speak out against the cuts.  It's not that we like/admire/agree with the current "status quo", it's because we lost so much when our program, funding, student rights were not recognized as important enough in previous discussions as the AELS became A System.  They would explain it away as "They *are* 'The Minority'.  We do not have a say."

Regarding:
<< The challenge we all face is how to do the best job we can
for both the majority and the minority given our limited resources. Some
policy-makers and practitioners rise to this challenge, some find it
difficult to do, and others are oblivious to it. Our job is to help those in
the latter two camps move into the first camp as we make policy
recommendations for reauthorization of the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act in the coming months.>>

For smaller programs whose staff, time and money resources are stretched to the absolute limits, it's nigh unto impossible to "move into the first camp" -- unless, that is, there's money behind the "policy recommendations for reauthorization" to accomplish the goals of the Coalition.  We can rise up and *shout* for all we are *worth*, but if we are expected to Do It For Free, the last two camps will balk.  Promise.  But don't take me wrong.  I'm trying to stay positive here.  I *do* look forward to hearing more about what is being updated by the Nat'l Coalition for Literacy, where input has been gathered for those changes, what's the projected revision release dates and how will "our friends in the House and Senate" be called upon for the purpose of "craft(ing) a bill".

It's time to tell the truth.  You wrote in a paragraph above this one:  "An enormous investment of resources is needed to fully address everyone's needs."  

If the decision-makers are not willing to hear the proverbial battlecry: "Show me the money", they won't find much cooperation from the direct service providers.  The short shrift group has met their challenges over and over and over with bare minimum funding and MUCH criticism aboutf what they provide or don't provide their students.  There are those who say none of us are accountable.  And I respond to that - I will be accountable to those whom I serve.  When the adult learners in this program tell me they aren't seeing their needs met, THEN that is when I will 'fess up to not doing my job and being *un*accountable and changes will occur in program development.

Catherine wrote that "a balance is not static but dynamic".  I agree.  Conversation and compromise must be an ongoing effort for all of us, I feel.  As long as the stage is open for input.

My view is that our students still are not "in the mainstream" as referred to in your 8 Dec 2002 18:45 post, Catherine.  I couldn't agree with you more that there's a sense our gov't is undergoing a basic restructuring from the bottom up. I was opposed to the track that gov't took before (the switch from dept to dept) and really resent the thought you wrote in your post, if I interpreted it correctly:  Your view is our elected officials do not support an educated culture and community base of people but instead looks upon any help given our educational programs and the population we serve as "letting them pull themselves up by their bootstraps" or "sink or swim".  If this is true?  They are wrong.  Our men and women learners have been "sinking" all their *lives* by the time they get to our programs.  They view literacy instruction as a lifesaver that has been thrown overboard to bring them to safety.  And we are going to give them a lifesaver with a hole leaking air now?  Is that the new scenerio do you think?  

I appreciate your "thoughtful response as well".  Thanks to all for joining in on the conversation.

Nancy Hansen
Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council

 Jon Randall <jrandall at fedstrategics.com> wrote: In the dialogue between Nancy, Dixie, Eileen, and others re: which agency
should administer adult education, I was moved to contribute when I read
these sentences from Nancy on Saturday:

"But I ask that you remember that the whole idea is that whatever
distribution system used meets the needs of *the majority* of folks in need
of federal funds. Not all states are as fortunate as yours, Eileen, where
the 'universal answer' fits every single one of your literacy programs -- no
matter *where* they are hosted - CBO, library, ESL, ABE etc."

This is at the heart of the dilemma faced by policy-makers, practitioners
and adult learners. It is very, very difficult to craft a single national
distribution/accountability system appropriate for all adult learners and
literacy programs, given the wide variation of circumstances that each group
must deal with. There is a dichotomy between a manageable set of data AND
the ability to take into account such variation.

In meeting the needs of the majority - be they adult learners or programs,
nationally or within a state - the needs of the minority are often given
short shrift. An enormous investment of resources is needed to fully address
everyone's needs. The challenge we all face is how to do the best job we can
for both the majority and the minority given our limited resources. Some
policy-makers and practitioners rise to this challenge, some find it
difficult to do, and others are oblivious to it. Our job is to help those in
the latter two camps move into the first camp as we make policy
recommendations for reauthorization of the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act in the coming months.

To that end, in early January the National Coalition for Literacy will have
completed work the revision of its Omnibus Literacy Legislation Concept
Paper. At that time, we'll make it available for your review and comment.
We'll also ask our friends in the House and Senate to craft a bill from it
that our field can use to educate policy-makers as they begin considering
reauthorization issues.

Jon Randall
Public Policy Committee Chair
National Coalition for Literacy
www.natcoalitionliteracy.org

NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy
Worldwide

FedStrategics, LLC
strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting
to charitable organizations
www.FedStrategics.com

8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353
jrandall at FedStrategics.com

_______________________________________________
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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20021210/57943067/attachment.htm