[NLA] a proposal to "save" the NIFL

[Alice Cain]

I think Andy is exactly right.  The bottom line is that NIFL is the ONLY 
organization in the country that can do for ADULT literacy what it used to 
do.

My biggest concern about NIFL is that it no longer has any semblance of 
independence from the Department of Education, which is more focused on 
children's literacy than adult or family literacy.  Children's literacy is 
incredibly important and the Administration is doing some innovative things 
in this area, particularly around research, but I do not see NIFL as 
*uniquely* qualified to lead this work.  I think the Department of Education 
could do it and do it very well, and there are numerous other organizations 
devoted to children's literacy that can help.  There are far fewer 
organizations devoted to ADULT literacy and, among them, NIFL *is* unique. 
If its adult focus goes away or continues to be diluted, I don't know of any 
other organization that can pick it up.

Part NIFL's value -- and part of the reason it was created in the first 
place -- was because a smaller, less bureaucratic agency is better able to 
LEAD through the creation of initiatives like EFF, LINCS, fellowships, 
policy updates, etc.  It has been terribly disheartening to see NIFL's 
independence and willingness to lead slip away over the past couple of 
years.

If Andy's proposal is implemented, which would not be all that difficult 
legislatively, NIFL could return to its ADULT focus, which would require an 
ADULT-focused Board, and I am hopeful that NIFL could start leading again.  
I am ready to help make this happen however I can, and will stay tuned to 
this list for ideas.  Will the Coalition be discussing this at its next 
meeting?

Alice Johnson
former NIFL policy analyst







>From: "hartman" <hartman at thebell.org>
>Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>To: <NLA at lists.literacytent.org>
>Subject: [NLA] a proposal to "save" the NIFL
>Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:44:14 -0600
>
>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>
>




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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