[NLA] Peparing America's Future

[PDRNRI@aol.com]

In a sense, I think, Hal's example suggests that the issue is in fact funding 
-- just not funding in the way we may generally consider it.  

If (as in Hal's example) only a small percentage of a small percentage of 
overall funding is allocated toward teacher and program development, and if 
the rest of the funding is contingent upon successful grant writing and 
linked to fulfilling requirements which draw program leaders time and energy 
away from leadership (while not allowing for additional administrative staff 
to handle the workload), then the value of the funding is diminished.  The 
funding comes at the expense of a full-time leadership position, at the 
expense of program improvement, at the expense of teacher development.  
Directors whose expertise lies in learning and teaching must double as 
development directors, and triple as administrative assistants.  Perhaps, as 
Hal suggests, we should be attending to the issue of money which is being 
invested in such a way as to ensure that programs struggle to function in 
accordance with the strengths of its members and cannot improve.

Obviously, though, to argue for a redirection of funding rather than 
increased funding for these areas would result in fewer learners served.  
What is the feeling on this list for/against the argument that serving fewer 
learners in an effort to improve programs is an acceptable sacrifice? 

David Hayes
_______________________________________________
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