[NLA] a proposal to "save" the NIFL

[George E. Demetrion]

(Long, complex, though focused).

Thanks Chrisy for this informative background information.

I speak as a somewhat informed outsider among those who are (or were) at
the cutting edge of policy formulation and implementation, but believe
that the point of view presented represents one important angle of vision
in the broader discourse in which we are engaged.  Hopefully, there will
be a range of substantive responses to your message.   I'll focus my
remarks on your query to the field, the perceived problem that is
stimulating the request to turn the $5 million Reading Excellence Act
over to the USDoE.  As you put it:

 "Can people please explain why they feel the Institute has lost or
ignored it's focus on adult literacy? What exactly has the Institute
done/not done that precipitates these
feelings?  Or, does this concern stem from the Administration's board
nominees and/or the field's impression that this Administration doesn't
care about adult literacy?  In other words, what problem are we trying to
solve with Andy's proposal?"

I can't stress enough here how important it is to hear from those who are
closer to the policy scene than I who have these concerns to fully share
what they are, though that would require, I believe, an openness to
discussion without threat (implicit or explicit) of repercussions,
whether related to funding or careers.  Thanks very much to Alice Johnson
for her extensive commentary.

Okay, as I see it.

A.  Surely, the Board nominees are a major concern on the lack of
expertise on adult literacy as a primary field of specialization among
the nominees.  Simply put, that does raise alarm bells about the
anticipated direction of the Bush administration for NIFL  In my view,
the surest way to alleviate that concern is for the administration to go
back to the drawing boards and identify at least five strong individuals
with an ABE/adult literacy/ESOL focus.  In my view, this should include
one individual who comes from the volunteer, community-based
literacy/ESOL sector, one individual who has a strong appreciation for
EFF, one with a strong background specifically in ESOL, and one nominee
recommended by VALUE.  That doesn't mean that they need to be educators, 
researchers, or students necessarily, but that they have a substantial
grasp of the needs and interests of these sectors, are able to represent
them at Board meetings well, and are responsive to their primary
constituency.  An accord on this would resolve a multitude of problems.

B. The role of the National Institute for Child Health and Human
Development.

There are many within K-12 as well as adult literacy that view the
research focus of the NICHHD as problematic on its primary emphasis of
phonemic awareness as the *foundational* source of reading problems and
therefore the key in their resolution.  Both David Peasron, focusing on
K-12 and Victoria Purcell-Gates, focusing on adult literacy dispute
hierarchies in attributing causation to specific factors in the argument
for a balanced approach between bottom up (basic skills) and top down
(more broadly-based contextual and meaning-making processes) the
specifics of which would vary with each individual.  Pearson has written
voluminously in his call for a "radical middle" in transforming the
culture wars over reading theory into viable practice and there are many
other reading specialists as well such as John Sabitini (if I'm correct
on that, John) at the National center for the Study of Literacy. 

None of this is meant to dispute the relevance of the NICHHD research as
offering important angles of vision.  However, this agency's critical
role in winning the political war in instituting the phonemic revival as
the foundation of federal policy and the large-scale trashing of whole
language reading center largely on rhetorical rather than substantive
intellectual grounds, makes its central role in NIFL, particularly in
application of adult literacy, more than a little problematic.  At least
as far as adult reading theory is concerned, on substantive intellectual
grounds, NIFL would be a lot better off building on the scholarship of
Pearson, Purcell-Gates, and Sabitini among others.

Beyond that, adult literacy is not just about reading or English speaking
for the ESOL community, but about life-long learning within the context
social domains as articulated in the research of Juliet Merrifield, Hanna
Fingeret, Tom Sticht, Allan Quigley, Susan Lytle, Elsa Auerbach,
Cassandra Drennon, Hal Beder, Tom Valentine and others as well as
embedded in the EFF project.  While reading or basic English speaking
ability are critical components here, domain-driven life-long learning is
the more substantive accomplishment.  Thus, even those who remain at a
beginning level reading level even after several years of participation
in a program, often gain a great deal related to linking learning to
their lives.  A substantial review of the ethnographic literature on
adult literacy at this point, would be illuminating.  Too bad there
aren't NIFL fellowships to take that project on.  

I also want to emphasize that many adult literacy students do make
progress in reading ability in a manner that can be documented through
the various standardized tests as well as through alternative assessment
designs, though the surer test of efficacy is application in real life
(however defined) contexts and its significance for the individual as
well as for her or his significant others and the greater social polity. 
An undue emphasis on phonemic awareness can blunt the needed focus on
contextual literacy.  The balanced approach advocated by Pearson,
Sabitinii, and Purcell-Gates pays respect to basic skill development
while honoring also the importance of broader contextual factors and
meaning making.  At least in application to adult literacy, one of the
concerns of the field is the need for NIFL research to embrace the
contextual focus of the balanced perspective.  More than a few would view
the situation if NCSALL rather than the NIHHD were the primary research
institute that NIFL drew upon when dealing with adult literacy.

C.  The trashing of educational scholarship in the Strategic Plan.

I can't reiterate enough those inflammatory statements in the USDoE's
current Strategic Plan.  They were in the draft and were carried over
into the following document.  Let us recall those sentences:

"Unlike medicine, agriculture and industrial production, the field of
education operates largely on the basis of ideology and professional
consensus.  As such, it is subject to fads and is incapable of the
cumulative progress that follows from the application of the scientific
method and from the systematic collection and use of objective
information in policy making.  We will change education to make it an
evidence-based field. "

Others and I have discussed the substance of this message on this list
elsewhere and I will not rehash that discussion now except to make two
quick points that:

1)  a great deal of educational research ( which relies on evidence)
would be suspect according to the methodological restrictions imposed by
this definition.

2)  The methodological and epistemological, to say nothing of the
political restrictions this definition is imposing on what qualifies as
legitimate research and scholarship flies in the face of a considerable
body of professional literature on education extending back to John
Dewey's curriculum and the Child of 1900.  What a great neglect and a
disservice to scholarship to roundly dismiss this rich body of research
which doesn't conform to the rigid interpretation of evidence- or
scientific-based research being imposed by the Department.

What's interesting here, in particular, is the wholesale (and unfounded
and unsubstantiated) slashing of even the apparent professional consensus
of educational research  based on scholarship stemming from blind-peer
review scholarly journals.  That's not good enough.  Rather, the litmus
test is scientific control of educational scholarship based on criteria
outside the educational establishment which, apparently, is enmeshed in
faddism, ideology, and guruism.  This sounds more like the rhetorical
attack by the right against "political correctness"  than any substantive
analysis of the history of educational research.  Any self-respecting
educational scholar would reject such slander on its face. 

 Whether or not EFF is at risk in such a conservatively ideologically
climate, I don't know.  The project may have sufficient durability within
NIFL to whether this storm.  What is clear is that the constructivist
principles upon which EFF is premised is clearly under attack at least
based on the intellectual premises that grounds the Department's
Strategic Plan.

D.  The focus of NIFL

Alice Johnson hits on this in her message.  The question still bears
repeating.  What is the focus of NIFL at this time and what are the
relationships of the various parts to the direction as a whole.  This is
definitely not a rhetorical question.  Certainly one issue that requires
clarification is the relationship in terms of time, resources, and focus,
of K-12 and adult literacy.  A very much related question is the vision
of NIFL with regard to adult literacy. Is it that of leader or is it
simply that of pipeline to information--a clearinghouse for useful
resources?

Why is information about the Literacy Summit of 2000 no longer linked to
the NIFL web page?  More fundamentally, where is the Literacy Summit?  My
understanding was that this was to be the vehicle through which the field
was going to define and implement a coherent and empowering vision
leading to the Mecca of 2010 when the state of adult literacy would be
substantially revitalized.  I had raised a slew of substantial issues in
regard to the Summit in 2001.  Virtually none of my queries had ever been
answered.  Check out the NLA archives and you'll see.

Questions

1)  Why was The Summit info pulled off the NIFL web page?
2)  What role, if any, does NIFL have in overseeing or nurturing the
Summit?
3)  Where is the Summit vision with regard to NIFL strategic vision?
4) (related)  What is the vision of NIFL for adult literacy, say for the
next three years?

E.  Role of EFF.

This is very much related.  My understanding of EFF during the 1990s was
that this was NIFL's flagship project and not simply one of its several
projects.  Assuming the focus of NIFL were adult literacy, then one might
be able to assume that EFF retains this high priority within the agency
as a whole.  Assume that NIFL takes a broader K-12 outlook, then EFF
loses some of its illustrious status; that is, unless the EFF were to
provide the broad frame for a K-12 curriculum as well such as was desired
by SCANS supporters at the beginning of the 1990s. 

 Then when you factor in the various ideologies, epistemologies (theories
of learning) and methodologies which infuse you Reading Excellence focus
based on NIHHD scholarship, your LD focus--though let me drop back here. 
As I understand it (and I very well could be wrong), the sharp polarity
between NIFL's vision of LD and such areas as learning difficulties,
learning differences, and multiple intelligences which characterized the
agency's focus around 1997 (remember the extensive discussions on this
list between Glenn and i), has been attenuated by a more wholistic
approach, which considers more, shades of differences and doesn't depend
on a phonics-dominated approach for LD students.  If that is an accurate
characterization of NIFL's current position with LD, then viable links
with the agency's interpretation in this area can be linked to EFF.  If
not, if the agency is, in fact, embracing a phonics dominated approach to
LD, then you've got substantial epistemological problems within the
context of your organizational vision on adult learning disabilities and
practice.  we need clarity here and NIFL leadership.  More fundamentally,
I'm going to argue, we need linkage between LD pedagogy and the EFF
focus.

So that leads us back to the role of EFF both within NIFL and within the
field.  This is what I think, that EFF represnts the most viable middle
ground and highly developed framework to ground consensus to establish a
national policy consensus on adult literacy educations.  Does NIFL as an
agency agree?

I think it would be hard pressed to say that EFF is not thorough and
comprehensive in scope.  Particularly its integration of the critical
social roles and its emphasis on lifelong learning speaks to the needs,
interests, and passions of a great many adult literacy students.  While
needing considerable refinement and adaptation, including a strong focus
on stimulating instructional materials, the EFF project, extending back
to 1994, represents the kind of continuity of development that the field
of adult literacy requires.  Let us build on what we have and not assume
as a field or as a USDoE that we have to start again from scratch.  Let's
look critically on our past and particularly the past decade and the
important work the EFF developers have taken on in the effort to build a
comprehensive consensus-driven national vision that speaks to policy (an
enlightened policy that still requires to be created) as well as to the
more specific issues of pedagogy and assessment.

Also, as I have argued previously on these airwaves, there is a potent
public philosophy looming within EFF of the critical citizen
reconstructing self and mediating institutions and structures through
life-long learning in application to important social roles.  For policy
to be established on an EFF frame, NIFL, through EFF will have to provide
inspiring leadership in bringing its (admittedly latent) public
philosophy to bear to the policy sector.  One might argue that a NIFL, 
tightly focused on adult literacy via EFF as its flagship, would be in a
better position to bring this to fruition than an agency focused on
literacy from cradle-to-grave with various programs legitimized more as a
result of political and funding bargaining rather than based on the
internal coherency of the vision that an EFF-inspired agency could usher
in. I believe the resources for such a vision exist within the field,
though one might need to walk through the eye of a needle to bring it to
fruition.

In short,  I think it makes a great deal of difference on whether EFF is
NIL's flag ship or simply one of a number of its programs where adult
literacy is viewed as a subset of literacy and far from the most
important component.

I also wanted to comment on David Hayes's important point on the need for
strong grassroots activism in coordination with the efficacy of our major
top-down agencies in order to bring any comprehensive vision to bear, but
will pass given the excessive length of this message.

Let me close with this.  

I submit that a sharply focused NIFL, NSCALL, NCAL (National center for
the Study of Adult Literacy), and ProLiteracy Worldwide combined with
strong grassroots activism from the field within the context of a
coordinated agenda could go a long way toward realizing the Summit vision
for adult literacy as proposed in the 2000.  But at this stage, it is
*vision* that is needed and not merely action steps in order to
substantially resolve the fundamental issues that divide and to provide a
sense of clarity and coherency which speaks to pedagogy, policy, national
purpose, and inclusivism.

If NIFL is not to lead this ship, and I would argue, through EFF as a
broad-based framework in need of refinement and perhaps some revision,
then who or what will?  Whether that would require NIFL to be separate
from K-12 or linked to it, unless NIFL is able to play this leadership
role for and with adult literacy, then there will be something
fundamentally wrong with its focus.

Time to stop.

George Demetrion
sophocles5 at juno.com




________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
_______________________________________________
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