[NLA] Gut response for Art

[Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council]

>From Tom Sticht:
> Recently Marsha Tait said,
>
> Quote" For a long time I have been convinced that one of the problems with
> Tom Stitch's [sic] definition of the AELS as those programs that receive
> state and federal funding is that the definition excludes all those other
providers who don't." End quote

Tom Sticht quoted part of LVA's Marsha Tait's post, leaving out the sentence
which followed:  "The Dept. of Ed numbers give us a skewed picture of this
field."  He then went on to write, and I quote:  "I do not understand why
this is a problem."

My comment is this:  Therein the *problem* is.  You see, those of us who are
excluded "from the Count" and from being defined as viable, instructional
programs which provide life skill learning experiences are treated as though
we aren't.  ("Aren't" viable Adult Education and Literacy System's programs
with missions addressing the needs of adults with a low level of literacy
skills - that we don't exist in the statistical data.)  I feel that those
adults (numbers) are as important in the whole view of the State of Literacy
in America as any other.

"The Law" (Tom's verbage, not mine) requiring testing and NRS that are
meaningless to most adults with low level literacy skills doesn't make these
providers' programs any less worthy of being included in the Big Picture.
If the AELS is "a sub-set", how dare their figures be reported as the total
for the Big Literacy Picture in America!  Because they *aren't* then the
whole. Are they?

The following sentence troubled me:
<< ...But as I said in an earlier note, it is more than my
> plate can hold to just try to understand the AELS and to advocate for more
> access to it and greater funding for it. >>

And this is the word.  This Authoritative Word that is being looked upon by
those in D.C. as the 'absolute truth' of the Big Picture, if I'm
understanding how the system works.  If the researcher doesn't understand
the AELS, nor is the researcher willing to draw conclusions from data about
independent CBO's in America outside the federal funding "umbrella" so that
more accurate statistics can be provided, there's a communications problem
of far greater proportions than originally thought with our elected
officials who impact our educational funding.

Nancy Hansen
Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council
sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Sticht" <tsticht at znet.com>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:54 AM
Subject: [NLA] Gut response for Art


> Recently Marsha Tait said,
>
> Quote" For a long time I have been convinced that one of the problems with
> Tom Stitch's [sic] definition of the AELS as those programs that receive
> state and federal funding is that the definition excludes all those
otherproviders who don't." End quote
>
> I do not understand why this is a problem. Marsha has headed Literacy
> Volunteers of America, an organization consisting of a set of affiliated
> programs systematized by the rules, regulations, mission, and goals of the
> parent organization, LVA. But note that defining a system of volunteer
> literacy educators as LVA members leaves out Laubach and other volunteer
> literacy educators. But that is OK, because Laubach has its own system of
> programs united by its organization's rules, regs, etc. In short, both LVA
> and Laubach are names for different adult literacy education systems.
> [This is undergoing change I understand, and the two orgs. are merging
> into a new, larger system of volunteer adult literacy education].
> When I refer to the AELS I am referring to a subset of all the adult
> education and literacy providers in the nation, just as LVA and Laubach
> are two subsets and will soon be one subset. The subset I am referring to
> as the AELS is that subset which receives some or all of its funding from
> the state grants progrm of the WIA/Title 2: AEFLA and agree to abide by
> the rules, regs., etc of that law. Yes, this leaves out those providers
> who do not work under this law. But this is no different than saying that
> LVA leaves out providers who do not work under LVA affiliate rules, regs.
> etc.
> Also, I note that in my message for Art and the NLA list on speculations
> about the loss of enrollments in the AELS, I made the point that I thought
> some CBO programs left the AELS and took their students with them. So I
> did not say that all the students who were lost from the AELS did not
> receive any instruction. Instead I said that they did not receive
> instruction in programs that were still members of the AELS.
> I agree with  all those, including Marsha, who think that it would be
> useful to have a better understanding of the entire set of adult literacy
> providers in the nation, although I am not certain what would be done with
> such information. But as I said in an earlier note, it is more than my
> plate can hold to just try to understand the AELS and to advocate for more
> access to it and greater funding for it. The National Literacy Act of 1991
> tried to open up the AELS to a greater number of CBOs, and I find it very
> disappointing that just 7 years later, the accountability requirements of
> the 1998 WIA/Title 2: AEFLA would be implemented in such a way as to drive
> hundreds of CBOs and hundreds of thousands of their students out of the
> AELS. That does not seem like a very good way to increase access to the
> AELS to me.
> Tom Sticht
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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