[NLA] follow-up to a proposal to "save" the NIFL

[hartman]

I was on vacation with my family last week, so I am sorry for not
responding sooner to some of the questions directed to me.
 
I just spent about two hours reading all the nla postings from the last
nine days.  I appreciate the serious, careful reading many of you made
of my original posting/proposal and the thoughtful responses to it.
 
I can see that some of you are thinking that the thin air here in the
"mile high city" must be taking its toll.  "Who gives back money?"  I
take your point.  It is an unusual step to take.  I fought (with lots of
help) every year for the money the NIFL received, including the $5
million from the Reading First program.  I came to the conclusion that
my proposal was a strategy that had to be considered only after much
thought and consideration of other options/scenarios.
 
Daphne and others raised good questions and posed an alternative
scenario.  Will, in fact, the Reading First money "float" the NIFL
through a difficult time and allow the leadership and focus on adults to
emerge at some later time when conditions are better?  (I hope this is
an accurate paraphrase of this point-of-view.)  Yes, that could be the
case.  Of course, you can not predict the future, and I have no
illusions about being infallible on this.  But, based on my own
experience of working on these kinds of issues over 18 years, I came to
the conclusion that by letting things simply "play out" the way they
were headed, there would not be enough of a focus on adult literacy to
re-emerge at some later date.
 
Christy Gullion of the NIFL asked, "What is the problem we are trying to
solve?"  First of all, let me say that my proposal is not based on the
people currently working at the NIFL or the work currently underway.  I
hired or retained (when I came aboard the NIFL) all the current staff of
the NIFL.  They are a dedicated, talented, hard working group.  And,
because of the delay in getting funding and then turning this around
into actual work activity, I would guess that most of the work currently
underway was at least planned while I was still there.  I think Sondra
Baxter has been doing a great job as the leader of the organization.
 
I am really concerned about the future.  
 
We all know about the Board.  Maybe I am taking this more seriously than
others, but I have to assume it was done consciously given the
conversations I had with folks at ED before leaving the NIFL last fall.
Andrea asked about the Board and their functions.  I can tell you as the
former Director, the Board can have (if they choose) a significant
impact on the work of the NIFL.  As an Advisory Board, they can not
dictate the work, but as appointees of the President-each one having a
"reason" for being there-they are a group with influence.
 
Once confirmed, perhaps their greatest influence will be in recommending
a new Director for the NIFL.  I think there is a good chance that the
next Director of the NIFL will be someone who has a lifelong interest in
children's reading, but no experience or expressed interest in adult
literacy.  So, at that point (perhaps by December or January) you will
have a Board and a Director that have similar professional backgrounds,
interests, and policy goals (none of which involve adult literacy).
 
Playing this out further, you will see less and less of the kind of work
that has characterized the NIFL with regards to adult literacy.  It is
no accident that EFF, LINCS, and Bridges to Practice enjoyed such
significant and sustained attention at the NIFL.  When we got together
as a staff, had a Board meeting, or were preparing (yet another!) work
plan.adult literacy was on the front of the agenda.  It was what we
thought about, talked about, and schemed about.  This kind of thinking,
planning and openness lead to many activities that often went unnoticed
by our larger constituency-such as NIFL's support for adult learners and
VALUE mentioned by Archie in his email and our behind the scenes policy
work-but were nonetheless important.        
 
Even the Reading First funding was primarily seen as a way to enhance
our work on adult literacy and get involved in the larger discussion of
education in this country.  Of course, the NIFL is doing an excellent
job on the children's portion of that work, but it was clear to everyone
at the NIFL that the tail was not going to wag the dog.
 
(Following my scenario.)  As this kind of work diminishes and word gets
out that adult literacy is not the real focus of the NIFL, it will be
more difficult to get adult literacy people of the caliber currently at
NIFL to join the staff.  Some of the current staff will leave.
 
As you can see, there won't be any one big "event" (although the Board
and Director appointments will be the writing on the wall) where you can
say that the NIFL turned the corner, it will happen gradually and over
time.  
 
This is where I think things are headed.  
 
It pains me to write this, and I thought about whether I should send
forward my "proposal" only after several months of thought and talking
to several people who I admire very much for their experience and
strategic thinking.  And, if we are not successful in "giving the money
back," then I hope I am wrong.
 
A few messages suggested we could take this scenario and bend it to our
advantage by working "inside" the process to negotiate and leverage for
balanced leadership and work at each step along the way.  This is
another possible approach.  However, it would require a sustained,
engaged, and knowledgeable interaction with the Board, Interagency
Group, and Director over several years.  This goes back to the parallel
thread currently on the nla.does the literacy field have the capacity to
pull this off?
 
I appreciate the thoughtful responses to my original posting.  I realize
I am suggesting something both unusual (giving money back) and
potentially far reaching.  At the very least, I am glad that it has
re-engaged a discussion about the NIFL.  No matter what we do or do not
do.we should not let it quietly slide off our screen.  Too many adult
literacy advocates worked too hard between 1988 and 1991 to create this
resource to let that happen.    
 
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/20020717/1c3037d0/attachment.htm