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

[George E. Demetrion]

Colleagues:

I'm not sure the comparison between the founding era of NIFL and the
current era works that well.

Consider the following:

a)  NIFL was the result of the National Literacy Act of 1991, which in
turn, was influenced by Forrest Chisman's report, Jump Start (1989) with
an intentional adult literacy /ABE focus

b)  Barbara Bush was also influential in this period in promoting both
family and adult literacy.

c)  As a result of the NLA Act and the impact of NIFL, the state literacy
resource centers (focusing on adult literacy) were established

d)  National educational Goal # 6 focusing on citizenship and the global
economy was geared to the adult population.  EFF, NIFL's flagship project
in the mid-1990s, was a response to Goal 6 and is obviously focused on
adult literacy and lifelong learning, including a strong family literacy
component.

In short, in the early 90s, as NIFL was getting off ground, adult
literacy was generally accepted as the primary focus of the new agency
regardless of the specific background of the new staff as they  came on
board.  That is, there was no question as to the general mission of NIFL,
though, of course, a specific course of direction, which is always
subject to contestability, needed to be worked out. 

 Also, I don't know what the composition of the advisory board was during
the 1990s, but if I had to make a wager, I would bet that it was
predominantly comprised of those with a strong background in ABE/ adult,
family, or workplace literacy and administrators and policymakers who
supported the adult literacy focus.

The climate of 2002 is considerably different particularly in that adult
literacy does not have a strong independent focus clearly linked to a set
of policy (potential or actual) directives on the contribution of adult
literacy education to the public good as that may be variously defined.

This trend toward de-legitimization has been going on since 1995 with
Newt Gingrich's Contract With America and President Clinton's
conservative turn in the 1996 presidential election that culminated in
the Workforce Development Act and accompanying National Reporting System
of 1998.  The ABE policy sector did what it could to salvage something
for adult literacy in the Adult and Family Education Act (Title II) and
the "direct and equitable" access clause,  both of which have been
extensively discussed on these airwaves.  In this difficult political
climate NIFL, the state directors, and the NCL  did the best it could to
work through this marginalization, the direction of which aroused
sustained criticism from the field.  Notwithstanding the criticism, the
focus at least remained on adults.

Now we're in another climate which has been detailed in posts  by Andy
and Alice.  No need to restate what they've said, but just to pick up on
a few of the threads and perhaps add a bit..

a)  One key point is that Andy's apprehensions have emerged as a result
of directly being in DC and talking to members of the Department of
Education who apparently told him (that's what I'm inferring) of the
direction they intend to take NIFL.

b)  The related point is the feedback and encouragement he received from
trusted colleagues (I'm presuming some of them DC based, and to go out on
a limb,perhaps including current and/or former NIFL staffers) to publicly
articulate his concerns.

c)  What the facts actually are, who knows for sure, but much could be
cleared up by direct and unequivocal statements from key members of the
Department.  At the least,  points a and b represent grounded empirical
evidence about the intended direction the Administration has for NIFL,
though the specifics, at this time, are unavailable to public scrutiny.

And then there's the proposed new board and the to be proposed new
director, with everything moving toward childhood literacy.  Many
concerns have been raised about whether, or at least, the extent to which
the new personnel will represent the needs of adult literacy.

Also, I think it's important to keep in mind WHO is leading this effort
to challenge current directions, namely, two seasoned former NIFL  staff
members of senior rank status, both of whom had been in the midst complex
and pragmatically-driven policy issues for over five years.  These are
far from starry-eyed or quixotic idealists even though their position on
this issue may seem radical (others say simply bold) to others.

In addition,  what also concerns me is the ideological direction of the
Department of Education, especially,  their reductionist interpretation
of scientific-based research.  Recall those anti-intellectual,
unsubstantiated statements on research in the USDoE Strategic Plan
trashing educational research on its face that I've quoted on several
occasions and the key assertion  that the educational scholarly community
is not equipped to frame its own standards of research.  Rather,
educational scholars requires supervision from the scientists
representing highly specific and, arguably,  narrow views of research and
restrictive intellectual traditions.  When one reads the neo-conservative
policy intellectuals who seem to have laid the framework for this
interpretation, then it's reasonable to draw the conclusion that on its
face, the current USDoE is not inclined to accept the validity of a great
deal of scholarship on adult literacy that has been published since the
1980s and before.

 I don't maintain that the USDoE is uniform in its thinking.  Obviously
there are the neo-conservatives reflecting the views of BV Manno, ED
Hirsch, and Lynne Cheney who are having more than a little influence in
setting the direction of the Department.  Then there is a more pragmatic
sector, perhaps moderately conservative, but more flexible in its
orientation.  Here I refer to a set of research questions posed by OVAE
under the direction of Hans Meder.  (Reference to this document has been
posted recently on the NLA).  and  also the NIFL and NCSALL document
titled, "A National Plan for research and Development in Adult Education
and Literacy.  

In both the OVAE and NIFL documents, in general. the research focus is
relatively comprehensive and reasonably balanced, although even in these
two documents, the issue of legitimate research is going to turn on what
set of intellectual presuppositions are viewed as foundational or at
least, primary.  This is a technical matter that I won't pursue further
here, except to point to the importance of how knowledge is constructed
as well as who gets to do it, which has everything in the world to do
with how power is to be distributed within the context of educational
studies. and policy formation.  That is, as several have argued, the
issue of ideology is unavoidable and adds complexity to the merely K-12
and adult literacy argument.

Consequently, however much the major adult literacy agencies need to
work, *in part,* with any administration (and let's acknowledge that they
do have this obligation), it is also critical that they retain a viable
independent sector that includes an independent research  focus stemming
from the academic literature that has given shape to adult literacy
studies for the past quarter century and beyond.

To what extent will NIFL contribute to this independent sector for adult
literacy education, in no small measure will be determined by the board
and new director.  The issue, in my view, never was simply the matter of
returning the Reading Excellence Act, but of the direction of NIFL over
the next several years.  This is the overriding issue that is giving
shape to this current discussion.

A final point.   While what is going to happen is going to happen, to
assume we know what that is in advance or that it is pre-determined is to
engage in a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the worst case scenario, a K-12
dominated board and a similar-minded Director comes to be,  the field can
still do what others are suggesting in any event.  Strong advocacy for
alternative positions does not preclude cooperation  with the then given
personnel should current trajectories prevail.

In the meantime, advocating for our own cause, including the appointment
of board members that many of us feel is more appropriate to NIFL's
historical mission, including identifying senators who will raise
critical issues with Senator Kennedy,  is perfectly valid. It is also
valid, in my estimation,. for the field to put a full court press on
Senator Kennedy to raise the concern in the Committee himself on the
nominees.issues of the nominees.  The worst case scenario is that the
effort fails.  That does not preclude the field from coming together
afterward or engaging in pragmatic politics in working with the realities
that are in front of us.  Ceding those "realities" in advance is anything
but pragmatic.

But these are my views.  Let's hear what others say and continue a
vigorous pursuit of this issue at the least until the NCL makes its
collective mind up.  I agree with Eileen on the importance of this
discussion which may be more important than the ultimate path that is
chosen.

George Demetrion
sophocles5 at juno.com

p.s.  For what it's worth, I put a lot of thought into this message.





________________________________________________________________
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