[NLA] Peparing America's Future

[Art LaChance]

David,

I think the issue that keeps coming back at me when I consider an answer to your
question is how do we get anywhere from where we're at ?  Reminds me of the joke
where somebody is asking for travel directions and the answer comes back that
"You can't get there from here, you got to go somewhere else to start".

Rationale:

TX has reduced their program size to only dealing effectively with 2.5 % of the
overall 'needs' population.  This is reduced from reporting 5% in years past.
What about the other 97.5% ?  "Oh they're not 'motivated' "??  TX is NOT the only
state where this is happening, and thank you David for your openness !!

NRS is basing management and program operative directives on field data that only
represents something less than 8-10% of the 'needs' population which I estimate
to be around a solid 4.5%.  And adult literacy 'research' that is being generated
to base future directions for the field is also based on this small
representation, additionally I think the research is also based on the upper
level students while minimal attention is directed at the NALS level one folks.
I think.

As indicated by David Joost, many states and programs (not just TX) now force
already anxiety laden potential students directly into a "TEST" mode to sort out
the "casual" student from the "motivated" students.  As a direct end or not,
that's what's happening.  We are in fact, de-motivating potential GED candidates,
and it looks like we're affecting almost half that population who have reached
the point of obvious "NEED" to change their lives.  Do we really think they'll
simply go away, think on it and come back ready to go ??

We now utilize almost equal funding for data collection as we do for
instructional purposes, with limited budgets and not enough manpower to do either
effectively.

And finally, according to Tom's synopsis of the OVAE plans, you ain't seen
nothin' yet folks !!

And all the while the other 95% holds the answers to our program development.

sheesh.

Art



Art LaChance
Gilmer Learning Center
Ellijay, Ga


PDRNRI at aol.com wrote:

> 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

_______________________________________________
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