[NLA] a proposal to "save" the NIFL

[Lloyd David]

I agree with Andy Hartman's suggestion to give the funds back from the Reading Excellence Act since it seems this money has some how distorted the original mission of NIFL. It sound to me like a gutsy move. I have never heard of any agency giving money back and $5 million is not small change, although in the realm of big government it may well be. If nothing more it could certainly spotloight our argument about what is happening to NIFL. I think this might be something which might interest the national media.
Lloyd David,EdD.
President /Executive Director
Continuing Education Institute/CEI
108 Water Street
Watertown, MA 02472
ph -617-926-1864
fax- 617-926-1865
email - ldavid @ceilearn.com  
    -----Original Message-----
    From: hartman <hartman at thebell.org>
    To: NLA at lists.literacytent.org <NLA at lists.literacytent.org>
    Date: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:50 AM
    Subject: [NLA] a proposal to "save" the NIFL
    
    
    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

     

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020708/80241604/attachment.htm