[NLA] a proposal to "save" the NIFL

[hartman]

This message knits together ideas and concerns from a number of strands
on the nla in recent months: the future of the NIFL, the capacity of the
literacy field to get what it wants/needs in the policy process, and
whether the literacy field as a whole is going up, down, or treading
water.
 
My immediate interest and concern is the continuation of the National
Institute for Literacy as an important, valuable part of the national
literacy infrastructure.  By "literacy", I especially mean the adult and
family parts of that house.  Like many of you, I am concerned about the
future of the NIFL in this regard.
 
First (in case you won't read further) the proposal:  
 
GIVE THE FUDNING THAT THE NIFL RECEIVES TO DISSEMINATE RESEARCH
INFORMATION ON READING (PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON GRADES K-3) BACK TO THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.  THIS WOULD CONTINUE THE NIFL AS IT WAS
ORIGINALLY CONCEPTUALIZED IN THE NATIONAL LITERACY ACT AND PRESERVE THE
SERVICE AND LEADERSHIP IT CAN AND SHOULD PROVIDE THE ADULT AND FAMILY
LITERACY FIELD.  DO IT THIS YEAR.
 
Why do I say this?
 
I was the first Director of the NIFL and served in that capacity for
about eight years.  We went through a number of ups and downs over that
time period, but I felt that we were gradually building the kind of
capacity and earning the tag of "leader" that the field envisioned in
1992, when the National Literacy Act (NLA) created the organization.
The NIFL had and has very talented staff and was fortunate enough to get
the intellectual and moral support of many talented, dedicated people
around the country.
 
As dictated by the NLA, the NIFL focused almost exclusively on adult and
family literacy issues for its first six years.  About four years ago,
because of my previous life working in Congress, I helped Congressional
staff put together a series of briefings and hearings on what became the
Reading Excellence Act (REA - a federal program to help children learn
to read well by 3rd grade).  By being involved in that process, I was in
the conversation when folks started talking about the need for a
national dissemination arm to the REA.  I could see that literacy
development in children was the up-and-coming big thing in education,
and I had had a vision for the NIFL to be a "cradle to grave" literacy
shop for several years.
 
So, I made a play for the NIFL to be the place given the responsibility
and funding to carry out this national dissemination function.  There
were folks at ED and other places around town that wanted it elsewhere.
After some discussion, I was successful in bringing the work to NIFL.
 
My vision was that not only would the NIFL be able to expand its work
and look at the very real linkages (in research, services, people's
lives) in literacy across the lifespan, but it would get us "to the
table" in the important policy discussions going on at the time.  There
we could bring the adult and family literacy perspective into the mix.
 
For the first three years, I would say that this "balanced approach" at
NIFL was working well.  The new work did not squeeze the on-going work
or focus of NIFL to the sidelines.  We did find ourselves in discussions
and deliberations that we otherwise would not have been in.  We got
additional money, some of which funded additional work on adult and
adolescent reading.  There was more work to do, but I think we were a
stronger/better organization for it.
 
I left the NIFL last fall.  I now live in Colorado.  I must admit that,
as I was leaving, I was somewhat nervous about NIFL.  The Bush
administration people working on education are so focused on improving
reading in grades K-3 (which is a great thing to care about); I worried
that they would see the NIFL only as a potential piece of their efforts
to build an infrastructure for "Reading First" and all its associated
activities.  The adult and family piece would be diminished or lost.
With a new Director and Board in the offing, there was a lot of change
underway.  So, most of the conversations I had with the new Bush
appointees before I left town focused on maintaining this balance.
 
With the announcement of the nominees for the Board and other
information I have received about what is coming next, I now think that
the future of the NIFL as a place with a major focus on adult and family
literacy and a place that provides serious leadership in those areas is
in serious jeopardy.
 
I think that if we are not able to give the Reading First dissemination
work back to ED, then in a couple of years the vision many of you had
for the NIFL in 1992 will be gone.  How would this work?  The NIFL still
receives a little more than half of its money under the original
(revised) National Literacy Act language.  It then receives another $5
million from a completely different source, the Leave No Child Behind
Act for the dissemination activities.  That LNCB Act directs the
Secretary to give NIFL $5 million to carry out specified activities.
That funding and those responsibilities could be redirected to another
agency (most likely ED), while leaving the NIFL with the funding and
legal authorization it had prior to all this new activity.
 
How would this be done?  Technically, I think it could be done very
simply.  The Appropriations Committees would just need to say in this
year's bill that those funds should go to ED, not NIFL, for those
purposes.
 
Politically, it would take some doing (perhaps).  I am not sure if ED
would welcome or fight this, quite frankly.  But regardless, it would
put the issue of what is the NIFL on the table and take us out of the
position of being against appointees, etc.  (NOTE:  If the funding were
to go to ED, it would be interesting to see if a single nominee to the
Board would be interested in helping strengthen the adult and family
literacy field.as we have been assured they are.)  
 
I come to this conclusion reluctantly.  I still believe that in the
proper climate, an NIFL focusing on literacy across the lifespan was in
a better position to lead and grow.for adult, family, adolescent, and
children's literacy.  But for this to occur and work in the real world,
there needs to be respect and support for ALL the elements.otherwise the
balance is lost as is the work and leadership.
 
This brings me to the other thread of conversation on the nla.  Does our
field have the capacity to make something like this happen?  I don't
know.  We did about five or six years ago.  In my 16 years of experience
with the policy side of this field, that was a high water mark.  I think
we have lost a great deal of effectiveness at the national level since
that time.  
 
This is a pretty focused request ("give the money back"), we are not
asking for more money, and it would need to happen over a very short
period of time (this summer, early fall).  But it would take leadership
and organization for at least that period of time.  The National
Coalition for Literacy is the only group that has the ability to mount
this kind of effort.  
 
I would call on them to lead the charge!  
 
Andy Hartman
Director, Policy and Research
The Bell Policy Center
1801 Broadway, Suite 280
Denver, Colorado   80202
303-297-0456 (ph)
303-297-0460 (f)
hartman at thebell.org <mailto:hartman at thebell.com> 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020703/542c90eb/attachment.htm