From cb.king at verizon.net  Fri Mar  1 14:55:06 2002
From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine King)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:55:06 -0800
Subject: [NLA] NIFL Board/NCL Meeting
References: <001701c1a8f1$39d17ea0$eb026b83@nine>
Message-ID: <001901c1c15b$24a592a0$4aa83604@cbking>

Hello Marsha:

In response to your request to put forth the credentials of
candidate suggestions for the NIFL Board, I suggested
the author Jack Mezirow as an excellent candidate.

Dr. Mezirow has been involved with research specific
to adult education--having been an educator initially who
was drawn into the questions surrounding the
"consciousness raising" phenomenon in the sixties and
specifically Paulo Freire's and Ivan Ilich's work.

He is an award-winning author whose work is centered
around what calls Transformation Theory--specifically
addressing the qualitative changes adults go through in
the education process.

His two major works are "Transformative Dimensions of
Adult Learning" published in the early nineties, and lately
"Learning As Transformation, Critical Perspectives on a
Theory in Progress" by Jossey Bass where he teams up
with many noted researchers in the field of adult education
to develop and critique Transformation Theory.

Though I am sure there is more, Dr. Mezirow's long-term
interest and theoretical work, because it is directly aimed
at the questions surrounding adult education, makes him
uniquely qualified to balance a board that apparently
is, though unintentional, "stacked" on the side of childhood
and k-12 education.

Regards,

Catherine King
----- Original Message -----
From: Marsha Tait <mtait at literacyvolunteers.org>
To: NLA Listserv (E-mail) <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:17 AM
Subject: [NLA] NIFL Board/NCL Meeting


> I have been reading the discussion on the Listserv about the NIFL Board
with
> interest.  Jon Randall will be following up with the Coalition Public
Policy
> Committee early next week, and I anticipate that the Cte. will make a
> recommendation of some sort to the full Coalition during its report at our
> meeting on 2/7.
>
> I would find it helpful if NLA subscribers have specific candidate names
to
> put forth that the candidates' credentials be described as fully as
> possible.  This information will make the decision-making of the Cte. and
> the Coalition more effective.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ******************************************************
> Nothing great was ever accomplished without enthusiasm.  ~~Ralph Waldo
> Emerson
> ******************************************************
> Marsha L. Tait
> President, Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc.
> Chair, National Coalition For Literacy
>  635 James Street, Syracuse, NY 13203
> Effective Feb. 4, 2002:
> P.O. Box 6506, Syracuse, New York 13217
> Tel: (315) 472-0001   Fax: (315) 472-0002
> mailto:mtait at literacyvolunteers.org
> http://www.literacyvolunteers.org
> http://www.natcoalitionliteracy.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
>

_______________________________________________
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


From sgabb412 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar  1 02:06:35 2002
From: sgabb412 at hotmail.com (Sally Gabb)
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 02:06:35
Subject: [NLA] [Fwd: [NIFL-ESL:7324] COABE plantation tour]
Message-ID: <F137IbMRK7WQR0KIVKC0001ca5e@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020301/3f49990d/attachment.html>

From Carolyn.Staley at NIFL.gov  Fri Mar  1 09:47:39 2002
From: Carolyn.Staley at NIFL.gov (Staley, Carolyn)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:47:39 -0500
Subject: [NLA] (no subject)
Message-ID: <F3A3FDACE93FD511B0D00008C7079A2D02002386@wdcrobexc04.ed.gov>

Andy's note this morning says it all and I thank you, Andy, for putting
words to our grief.  We've been dumbstruck in a sense here at NIFL, which I
know you understand better than anyone, Andy.  No words can adequately
express the empty place in the life of each of us who loved Susan and whose
life she so deeply touched.  We've tried to put words to it, but maybe
that's the humor and ultimate irony:  at least in this articulation, it
requires writing. It's expressing thoughts using the artistry of words, and
Susan did that for us better than anyone. Words are sacred expressions and a
reminder of the strength and joy that literacy gives to life. 
 
We'll have a time to remember Susan's life and memorialize her properly in
the coming weeks. But for now, we just hug and weep quietly and walk past
her office and weep again. 
 
For my own part, I have felt a new strength through Susan's passing.  We're
thankful that her pain is over. But we miss her so. It's almost as if she's
here and still shining with us, and saying "It's good, but let me  look at
it and make some suggestions. I'll work on it with you and I'll get back
with you."    And everything's better because of her help. Andy called it
"Susanizing" his writing.  Her writing was a gift, yes, but she also had the
gift of helping make things better for all who knew her--encouraging people
to dream, to achieve their goals, to have lofty ideals.  To do justice, love
mercy, walk humbly with God.  That's a gift that will last forever--at
least, it will for me.  The literacy field has lost a champion and we at
NIFL have lost a true friend.
 
Carolyn 
-----Original Message-----
From: hartman [mailto:hartman at thebell.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:59 PM
To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
Subject: RE: [NLA] (no subject)


At first, when I heard the news of Susan's death the other night, I only
felt sadness.  
 
Then, I started thinking about all the ways that she was a wonderful, lovely
person.  Susan was a natural humorist, a healer and consoler, a person with
insight, a lover of all things Brazillian, and one of the most gifted
writers I have ever known.  She was a great friend.  Susan did not make you
prove you were a friend, she simply adopted you into her legion of friends
and then you could stay or leave.  Few left.  Her office at NIFL was a
magnet for people needing advice, consoling, friendship, or just a smile.  
 
Yesterday, I was thinking more about Susan's role in the national literacy
movement and at the NIFL.  Susan was very low key about her role and fended
off all attempts at recognition.  But she played a very important part in
the evolution of the field over the past fifteen years.  I first met Susan
when she was presented the Advancement of Literacy Award by the National
Coalition for Literacy.  She had played an important, if behind the scenes,
part in turning Mrs. Bush's interest in literacy into a series of events and
very public demonstrations of support that were turning points in the late
80's and early 90's.  It was not widely known, but Susan played an important
role in the creation of the National Literacy Act of 1991.  The NIFL would
not have provided the kind of support for Learning Disabilities without
Susan's leadership on the issue.  Hardly a writen word went out of the place
without having been edited, and improved, by her.  Susan, along with Lynn
Reddy, wrote "From the Margins to the Mainstream."  That document reflects
both her writing prowess and vision for the field.  If the field of adult
literacy had a Hall of Fame, Susan should be a charter member.
 
I am going to miss Susan.  She was truly a unique and special person.  If
you did not know Susan or the role she played in our field's development,
believe me, we will all miss her.
 
Andy Hartman
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org
[mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org] On Behalf Of Johnson, Alice
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:42 PM
To: 'nla at lists.literacytent.org'
Subject: [NLA] (no subject)
 
It is with profound sadness that we announce the passing of Susan Green,
writer and editor at the Institute and long-time advocate for literacy, on
February 25th.  Susan's career included nearly a decade at the National
Institute for Literacy, 12 years with the Follow Through early literacy
program at the U.S. Department of Education, and several years on the White
House staff of First Lady Barbara Bush.  Mrs. Bush said of Susan: 
"Susan Green was one of my mentors in literacy.  She was there with me in
the beginning, when few people were really paying attention to literacy.
She was passionate about it, and would have personally taught every single
man, woman, and child in America how to read if she could have.  She was a
dear friend, a warm and loving person. She will be missed by me and all who
knew her."
A Susan Green Memorial Fund is being established to benefit at VALUE (Voice
of Adult Literacy United for Education).  Susan was a central and
irreplaceable part of the National Institute for Literacy, and is deeply
missed.  
-- Staff of the National Institute for Literacy 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020301/201b164e/attachment.html>

From Alice.Johnson at ed.gov  Fri Mar  1 10:00:17 2002
From: Alice.Johnson at ed.gov (Johnson, Alice)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:00:17 -0500
Subject: [NLA] March news from the National Institute for Literacy
Message-ID: <5DCA49BDD2B0D41186CE00508B6BEBD0077A1A7B@wdcrobexc01.ed.gov>

The March issue of e*literacy is now available online at: 

http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/eliteracy/02_03_01.html. The table of contents and
first few articles are posted below.

*************************************** 

Welcome to e*literacy, a monthly electronic newsletter with the latest news
from the National Institute for Literacy.

______________________________________________________________________

Tribute to Susan Green, 1944 - 2002

It is with profound sadness that we announce the passing of Susan Green,
writer and editor at the Institute and long-time advocate for literacy, on
February 25th. Susan's career included nearly a decade at the National
Institute for Literacy, 12 years with the Follow Through early literacy
program at the U.S. Department of Education, and four years at the White
House as First Lady Barbara Bush's literacy expert.  Mrs. Bush said of
Susan: 

"Susan Green was one of my mentors in literacy. She was there with me in the
beginning, when few people were really paying attention to literacy.  She
was passionate about it, and would have personally taught every single man,
woman, and child in America how to read if she could have. She was a dear
friend, a warm and loving person. She will be missed by me and all who knew
her."

A Susan Green Memorial Fund is being established to benefit at VALUE (Voice
of Adult Literacy United for Education). Susan was a central and
irreplaceable part of the National Institute for Literacy, and is deeply
missed. 

_______________________________________________________________________

HEADLINES


1. NAULC HOSTS ANNIVERSARY EVENT FOR THE INSTITUTE ON CAPITOL HILL

2. INSTITUTE LAUNCHES FIRST LIVE WEBCASTS

3. SEATTLE TRAINING TO FOCUS ON WELFARE RECIPIENTS WITH LEARNING
DISABILITIES 

4. LINCS FEATURES ANTARCTICA LEARNING ACTIVITIES

5. EQUIPPED FOR THE FUTURE (EFF) MOVES FORWARD WITH ASSESSMENT 

6. INSTITUTE STAFF ON THE ROAD

7. NEW PUBLICATIONS

8. LITERACY IN THE NEWS: FROM BUSINESS WEEK: "THE ILLITERACY TIME BOMB" 

9. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

10. CALENDAR

****************************************************************************

1. NAULC HOSTS ANNIVERSARY EVENT FOR THE INSTITUTE ON CAPITOL HILL

As part of its annual meeting in Washington DC, the National Alliance of
Urban Literacy Coalitions (NAULC) will host a 10-year anniversary
celebration - complete with cake and ice cream - for the National Institute
for Literacy on Capitol Hill on March 7th. Invited speakers include former
President George Bush, who signed the National Literacy Act into law,
Barbara Bush, and Congressional sponsors of the National Literacy Act,
including Senator Edward Kennedy, Rep. Tom Sawyer, former Senator Paul
Simon, and former Rep. Bill Goodling. NAULC is a coalition of about 40 urban
literacy programs from across the U.S. that work together to create literate
communities and enhance the quality of life and the vitality of cities. For
more information about NAULC or its annual meeting, go to:
http://www.naulc.org.

2. INSTITUTE LAUNCHES FIRST LIVE WEBCASTS

Beginning in March, the Institute will have the capacity to webcast events
on LINCS. This will include both live webcasts and archives that can be
accessed at any time. The first live webcast will take place on March 13th
from the Seattle Academy. (See next article for details.) It will feature a
presentation on guidelines for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) programs by Shirley Jackson of the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. 

On March 15th, the Institute will webcast a National Institutes of Health
(NIH)-National Institute for Literacy technical assistance workshop in
Houston, Texas for potential applicants for $3.8 million in funds for adult
and family literacy research. Featured speakers include Dr. Peggy McCardle
of the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD),
Dr. David Francis from the University of Houston, and Dr. Fred Erikson from
the University of California-Los Angeles. The workshops are designed to
assist those interested in responding to the recently published research
solicitation, "Research on Adult and Family Literacy," which is available
online at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-HD-02-004.html.
For information about the webcast, see LINCS
(http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/index.html) and for registration information,
contact Esther Roberts at NIH at: eroberts at hq.row.com.

3. SEATTLE TRAINING TO FOCUS ON WELFARE RECIPIENTS WITH LEARNING
DISABILITIES 

The second Bridges to Practice Seattle Academy will be held March 11th
-15th. The Academy will train trainers who can work with staff in their own
state's Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) welfare programs, and
in one-stop centers. The training will focus on how to screen TANF
recipients for learning disabilities (LD) and how caseworkers can help
clients improve their employability by using an LD diagnosis to obtain
accommodations and/or assistive technology. The Academy will also include an
overview of disability laws and federal TANF guidelines. The Academy will
launch an evaluation that will collect data in 12 states about TANF clients
and disabilities, which will be reported to the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) before Congress reauthorizes TANF later this year.
More information on Bridges to Practice is available at:
http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/ld/bridges/.

4. LINCS FEATURES ANTARCTICA LEARNING ACTIVITIES

A new literacy learning activity accessible through LINCS is a website by a
team of scientists from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) who
visited Palmer Station on the Antarctic Peninsula in January and February.
They were accompanied by Susan Cowles, an Oregon adult basic skills
instructor, former Institute Literacy Leader Fellowship recipient, and
coordinator of LINCS' Science and Numeracy Special Collection
(http://literacynet.org/sciencelincs/). Susan traveled with the team to
study the presence of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the Antarctic
and posted daily reports about her experience online at:
http://literacynet.org/polar/pop/html/journal.html.

5. EQUIPPED FOR THE FUTURE (EFF) MOVES FORWARD WITH ASSESSMENT 

The EFF Assessment Consortium (a partnership between SRI International and
the Center for Literacy Studies at the University of Tennessee) recently
conducted the first round of technical review panels for performance
continua for three EFF Standards: Convey Ideas in Writing, Speak So Others
Can Understand and Listen Actively. Panels were composed of experts in the
content of the standard, Adult Basic Education (ABE), English for Speakers
of Other Languages (ESOL), policy, and assessment. A second round of panels
will be held later this spring. For more information, contact Brenda Bell
(bsbell at utk.edu or Regie Stites (regie.stites at sri.com).

6. INSTITUTE STAFF ON THE ROAD

Upcoming presentations by Institute staff are listed below.

MARCH

Put Reading First! and Policy Panel Discussion 
March 3 and 4, 2002
Christy Gullion
National Center for Family Literacy annual conference, Albuquerque, NM

Evidence-Based Principles and Practice for Adult Reading Instruction
March 4, 2002
Sandra Baxter
National Center for Family Literacy, Albuquerque, NM

Tools for Working with Adult New Readers: A Closer Look at Evidence-Based
Principles and Practices for Adult Reading Instruction
March 5, 2002
Sandra Baxter
National Center for Family Literacy annual conference, Albuquerque, NM

Bridges to Practice and Increased Awareness about Learning Disabilities in
the Adult Basic Education Program
March 8, 2002
June Crawford
National Alliance of Urban Literacy Coalitions Annual Meeting, Washington,
DC

Update on NIFL's State Policy Activities
March 8, 2002
Alice Johnson 
National Alliance of Urban Literacy Coalitions Annual Meeting, Washington,
DC

Public Policy Trends: What You Should Know and What You Can Do
March 14, 2002
Christy Gullion and Alice Johnson
Washington State Workplace Basic Skills Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA

Overview of the Research Funding Partnership and RFA HD-02-004-Research on
Adult and Family Literacy
March 15, 2002
Alice Johnson
Adult and Family Literacy Technical Assistance Workshop, Houston, TX

Beyond Bridges to Practice: A Two-Part Training Session 
March 18, 2002
June Crawford 
Correctional Education Association Leadership Institute, Baltimore, MD

Policy Panel Discussion
March 18, 2002
Christy Gullion
Correctional Educational Association, Baltimore, MD

TO CONTINUE READING E*LITERACY, INCLUDING INFORMATION ON NEW INSTITUTE
PUBLICATIONS, LITERACY IN THE MEDIA, THE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE AND THE CALENDAR
OF UPCOMING EVENTS, PLEASE GO TO :
http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/eliteracy/02_03_01.html 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020301/9e799fb7/attachment.html>

From office at naulc.org  Fri Mar  1 09:58:41 2002
From: office at naulc.org (Edith Gower)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:58:41 -0600
Subject: [NLA] NIFL's 10th Anniversary
In-Reply-To: <002c01c1c0ab$88413540$0500000a@andy>
Message-ID: <NFBBJOKIJBNGJLBFIEMJIELNCDAA.office@naulc.org>


The National Alliance of Urban Literacy Coalitions is privileged to host a
Day of Celebration of the 10th Anniversary of the National Institute for
Literacy, Thursday, March 7th


1) Ice cream, cake, and information for Congressional staffers in the
Russell Senate Office Building, Room 188, from 3:30 to 5:30, sponsored by
Scholastic Inc.

2) Reception for Members of Congress and the public in the Hart Senate
Office Building, Room 216, 6:00 to 8:00, sponsored by AOL Time Warner.  The
public must call 1-888-269-4902 with names and SSNs by 3/5/02.
You can help make a difference by contacting your Congressional
representatives with this information, reiterating our invitation and asking
them to please attend, and by joining us for the reception if you are in the
area.



Andy has just written about what a writer Susan Green was.  Susan took the
lead writing the first Literacy*AmeriCorps grant in 1994.  NIFL ran the
program for the first couple of years and now, with over one million hours
of service to the community, NAULC manages the program.  In that grant Susan
wrote the following words, which I've used ever since, and which are in all
the invitations to Congress for this celebration of NIFL, which of course
wouldn't be complete without a celebration of Susan as well.



She wrote, "Literacy is not a cure all, but none of the social or economic
ills our nation faces today will be overcome
unless attention to the basic skills of everyone in our communities is part
of the solution."


  Edith Gower, Executive Director
  National Alliance of Urban Literacy Coalitions
  5433 Westheimer Road, Suite 1001
  Houston, TX 77056
  713-961-3922
  FAX: 713-961-4775
  office at naulc.org
  www.naulc.org
  www.buildliteracy.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020301/41c1b045/attachment.html>

From claibornes at ten-nash.ten.k12.tn.us  Fri Mar  1 11:21:22 2002
From: claibornes at ten-nash.ten.k12.tn.us (Sherry Claiborne)
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:21:22 -0500
Subject: [NLA] [Fwd: [NIFL-ESL:7324] COABE plantation tour]
Message-ID: <002201c1c13d$2077ea20$b116170a@SHERRY>

Thanks to all that have participated in the Plantation Tour discussion for the COABE conference.  The list serv is the perfect place to raise consciousness and have   a discussion to stregthen our field. As President of the Commission on Adult Basic Educaton and after having a discussion with the SC conference  planners,  we would like to apologize for appearing insensitive.  This was not our intent.  We regret that the narrative has caused any ill  feelings and have made the decision to cancel this optional tour.  We are also working to have an open discussion at the conference .  We will let you know as soon as to the place and time. . We look forward to seeing you at the conference in Charleston and please know that we are always open for discussion that will strengthen and unite our profession.            Sherrie Claiborne, COABE President
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020301/4e377446/attachment.html>

From prevedel at hotmail.com  Fri Mar  1 18:40:56 2002
From: prevedel at hotmail.com (Amy Prevedel)
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:40:56
Subject: [NLA] NIFL board nominees (pretty long posting)
Message-ID: <F19meYIzmAXBd9w8TPu000142b8@hotmail.com>

I wanted to send along a copy of the letter I wrote on 2/27 to Sen. Boxer's 
education person, Tanya Clay.  She contacted me yesterday and asked me how 
quickly the timeline was moving on this.  I told her I didn't know myself, 
and then I gave her names and contact information of people who might know 
more about this:  David Rosen, Gail Spangenberg and Andy Hartman.  I gave 
out these names simply because I had copies of letters they had posted to 
the listserv right in front of me.  I also gave her info on how to get to 
the NLA archives.

So...I'm apologizing in advance if I should have given her other people's 
names--it really was completely random whose info I had at my fingertips.  
And also--David, Gail and Andy--I'm belatedly asking your permission to 
possibly be contacted by Tanya Clay, and I hope that's okay.

Also...I talked with Jane Oates (202-224-5501) in Sen. Kennedy's office on 
2/27 about the NIFL board and about the importance of the EFF initiative.  
She is the person knowledgeable about this issue for Kennedy's work on the 
HELP committee.  Jane echoed what someone else had posted to the list here:  
basically, she thinks that adult ed. has larger battles to face right now 
that involve lots more money and long-term consequences, and she doesn't see 
this as a winnable battle to choose.  The silver lining in all of this is 
that 3 board positions are 1-year appointments.  She recommends our field be 
ready to lobby for our own choices next year.  She said we should think of 
republicans to suggest who are active in adult literacy.

Also, I asked if she'd be interested in being on the NLA list.  She said yes 
(I'm sure she doesn't get enough e-mail as it is) and I will mail her the 
address.


Here's the letter to Boxer's office:

tanya_clay at boxer.senate.gov
Hello Tanya--

Thank you for your time yesterday talking about the nominees for the 
National Institute for Literacy advisory board.  I am asking that Senator 
Boxer's office contact HELP committee members, Rod Paige, Rob Muller, Carol 
D'Amico, Elaine Chao and Thomas Thompson, to emphasize the importance of 
including adult literacy professionals on the NIFL's advisory board.

As you requested, I am sending along the names of Bush's nominations to the 
NIFL advisory board.  If you like, I can get their resumes from Rod Paige's 
office for you as well.  Although the following people are solid 
professionals in their own fields, none of them brings background and 
expertise in the areas of adult or family literacy--the statuatory and 
historic focus of the National Institute for Literacy.

Last year California's library-based adult literacy programs served over 
25,000 adult literacy learners.  Our programs serve adults at the lowest 
skill levels who are not yet ready to access other parts of the adult 
education system, which makes the NIFL's adult literacy-focused initiatives 
all the more critical to programs like ours.

Presently, the NIFL maintains its focus on adult learning needs.  These 
needs include reading skills as well as other skills and knowledge areas 
critical to supporting adults in achieving their potential as family 
members, workers and community members.  A shift to an exclusive focus on 
reading would be a disservice to adult learners whose real-life learning 
needs demand skill development that supports them in their adult roles.

The NIFL Board needs to reflect the importance of adult literacy education 
specifically, by giving adult education researchers, practicioners and 
students a voice in the future of the NIFL.  Only this kind of inclusion 
will preseve NIFL's unique mission of supporting access to quality literacy 
education across the lifespan.

Bush Nominates to the NIFL Advisory Board:

Carmel Borders of Kentucky
Douglas Carnine of Oregon
Blanca Enriquez of Texas
Carol Gambill of Tennessee
William Hiller of Ohio
Phyllis Hunter of Texas
Robin Morris of Georgia
Juan Olivarez of Michigan (president of Gran Rapids Community College)
Jean Osborn of Illinois
Mark Yudof of Minnesota (president of the University of Minnesota).


Thank you for your work on this!

Amy Prevedel
Library Literacy Program Coordinator

Berkeley Public Library
1125 University Avenue
Berkeley, California  94702

510/981-6274







_________________________________________________________________
Prova MSN Messenger per conversare in linea con i tuoi amici: 
http://messenger.msn.it

_______________________________________________
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


From rstclair at coe.tamu.edu  Fri Mar  1 15:10:12 2002
From: rstclair at coe.tamu.edu (Ralf St.Clair)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:10:12 -0600
Subject: [NLA] [Fwd: [NIFL-ESL:7324] COABE plantation tour]
In-Reply-To: <002201c1c13d$2077ea20$b116170a@SHERRY>
References: <002201c1c13d$2077ea20$b116170a@SHERRY>
Message-ID: <f05100300b8a590523130@[165.91.233.215]>

Thank you Sherry, your open-ness is very much appreciated.

Ralf
-- 
_________________________________________________________________________
Ralf St.Clair	Texas Center for Adult Literacy and Learning
979.458.3586	Educational Administration & Human Resource Development
		Texas A&M University
_______________________________________________
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


From Dwyoho at aol.com  Fri Mar  1 16:15:08 2002
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:15:08 EST
Subject: [NLA] COABE Plantation Tour (long)
Message-ID: <3d.1a1d8894.29b1495c@aol.com>

You might not notice until the very end, so I'll draw attention at the top to 
the fact that my address is in South Carolina.  A friend of mine in NY, who 
is on this list, called me this morning to alert me to the "firestorm" 
brewing on the NLA list about the plantation tour.  I searched the archives 
to catch up on the discussion, and now I'd like to add my two cents.  I shall 
do my best to relate my remarks to policy and advocacy for the AELS system.

Our state is without a doubt a textbook case of the world's worse public 
relations and national/international image.  Repeatedly we draw negative 
headlines (an understatement.), and we do it to ourselves.   I'll refrain 
from making a list, beginning with Susan Smith and ending with the 
Confederate flag.  Enough said.

The fiasco of the COABE brochure is the latest.  If I were a reporter, I'd 
pick up on this story too.  In fact, it would be easy to call our local tv 
station and speak with a few I know on a first-name basis.  Actually, I might 
do just that, but first I'd appreciate feedback from this list.

COABE is right to cancel the tour.  Those who raised the issue on this list 
are right.  I have visited Boone Hall more than once, as well as many other 
plantations.  I am not African-American, but the specter of slavery surely 
haunts every square inch.  I'm glad these places are maintained as testimony, 
in the same way that I"m glad there is a Holocaust museum in Washington.  

One of our local celebrities, Dr. Walter Edgar, a distinguished historian at 
the University of South Carolina, published a definitive history of the state 
a few years ago.  In his book "South Carolina: A History", he documents the 
careful campaign in the South following Reconstruction to romanticize the 
ante-bellum period.  Margaret Mitchell's tome, publised in the late 30's, was 
the evitable expression of a sucessful movement that eventually deified 
Robert E Lee, placed monuments on the town square of every small southern 
town, and raised the Confederate Naval Jack over the SC statehouse, and into 
the design of other state flags as well.  Meanwhile, among bonafide 
historians, country "rednecks", the still-in-existence Old South gentry, and 
politically-aware citizens of every stripe,  the debate continues to rage 
about every issue related to the South's history, from the Three Fifths 
Compromise in the US Constitution to Jim Crow laws to naming streets and 
holidays after Martin Luther King. SC still does not observe Memorial Day in 
its public schools because it was originally created to honor the North's 
Civil War dead, nor is President's Day a state holiday because it relates to 
Honest Abe.

But enough from the history teacher.  Nor will I add the pages I could write 
about why I love it here, and adopted SC as my home state after traveling the 
world as an Air Force brat.  What does this have to do with literacy and 
adult ed?

Plenty.  We all know that the need for adult literacy and lifelong learning 
is greatest in the South, which continues to crucify itself with a school 
system that is also the product of a painful history.  Like Alabama, we have 
counties where more than 50% of all adult residents haven't finished hifgh 
school.

We also have a political climate where all human service needs, from 
education to mental health, get short shrift.  After living here 30 years, I 
suspect what is needed is more of the cold light of scrutiny from the 
outside.  That has happened on this list.  The promotion of a national 
conference focused the attention of some movers and shakers on a situation 
that is representative of the problem.  I hope, hope, hope, that COABE will 
take the next step beyond cancelling the tour to make the Charleston 
Visitor's Bureau, the Boone Hall folks, the SC Chamber of Commerce, and my 
colleagues here who serve on the local conference committee fully aware of 
the pain caused by this kind of promotionable crap, portraying planatation 
life as having a "charm all  its own".   If I can help, I just need some 
encouragement.  Everybody here knows that I'm "not from around here" anyway, 
even after 30 years.

Believe me, Rhett Butler's post-Reconstruction Public Relations Firm is still 
hard at work,  keeping the "memory" of Tara alive and well in a million 
insidious ways. COABE can strike a real blow to raise the state's collective 
consciousness if it so chooses. 
 

 









Deborah W. Yoho
Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
Co-Moderator, NIFL-Health Discussion Group
921 Woodrow Street
Columbia, SC  29205
803-765-2555  Fax:  803-799-8417  dwyoho at aol.com
Agency email:  litcola at mail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020301/2a12a448/attachment.html>

From JCretella at aol.com  Fri Mar  1 16:15:20 2002
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:15:20 EST
Subject: [NLA] (no subject)
Message-ID: <122.d1e6726.29b14968@aol.com>

I first met Susan during the Barbara Bush days. Another wonderful Adult 
educator, Bill Langner (who passed a few years ago), introduced us. Bill 
arranged a meeting with Susan and Mrs. Bush at the White House to discuss the 
 area of special needs adults...I was so excited to be going to this meeting. 
When the day came, I arrived at the White House on time and had to go through 
the checkpoint at one of those little guardhouses at the side entrance. At 
the time I was wearing  hearing aids which were activated with a small remote 
control. Well the Hearing aids set off the detectors and I was told I would 
have to be searched further...Finally, I asked the agent to contact Susan 
Greene and he did. She came outside and rescued me from the cops...saying 
"he's ok, he's with us..." The meeting was exciting but my friendship with 
Susan became more important during the next years. She was a good mentor and 
I too will miss her. But we can all take comfort in all of the writing she 
did for us...Thank you Susan. 
p.s. on another day Susan told me that the secret service thought my remote 
to the hearing aids was a detonator!!! Jay Cretella
_______________________________________________
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


From JCretella at aol.com  Fri Mar  1 16:27:51 2002
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:27:51 EST
Subject: [NLA] NIFL board nominees (pretty long posting)
Message-ID: <cf.13534fa0.29b14c57@aol.com>

I want to apologize to Jose in CA and others who ahve been talking to Senator 
Boxer's Office. I should have welcomed her interest rather than characterize 
it as political. But I have been doing this advocacy thing for so long that 
sometimes I too react to thjings before I have thought them out. And the 
field of Adult Education/Literacy needs all the supports it can get in 
addition to those (?) we already have. My reaction came after I was thinking 
if this senator form California where one the largest literacy population 
(esl) doesn't even know about the issus, then shame on her. But that was the 
wrong logic. Literacy may not be at the top of her list right now but as a 
result of the contact it may be moving up on the list. That's a good thing. 
But as Jane Oats has reminded us we have a bigger battle in the funding issue 
than in the nominee. As a Republican ( and there are't many of us in the 
field) I sometimes react from that point of view. I happen to think this 
President is right for the time and usually want to defend his actions. Sorry 
Jose, and thanks for listening. Jay Cretella, Coabe Legislative Liaison.
_______________________________________________
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


From Freemannola at aol.com  Fri Mar  1 17:21:16 2002
From: Freemannola at aol.com (Freemannola at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 17:21:16 EST
Subject: [NLA] [Fwd: [NIFL-ESL:7324] COABE plantation tour]
Message-ID: <3e.1a25d386.29b158dc@aol.com>

Dear Sherrie Claiborne:
     I hope I speak for many people in the adult education and literacy field 
when I thank you for your gracious response to our concerns about the 
scheduled plantation tour during the COABE meeting.  
     I suggest that you write an "open letter" to the Charleston tourism 
commission about COABE's decision to cancel the tour -- and why -- and 
publish it in the local newspaper as well as on the literacy lists.  (Take 
advantage of this "teachable moment!")
     Best wishes in your upcoming conference - and especially in the 
roundtable discussion you will be having about institutionalized racism!  
Margery Freeman 
P.S.  I work with a national organization, the People's Institute for 
Survival and Beyond, that sponsors "undoing racism/community organizing" 
workshops across the country.  We have done a great deal of training with the 
literacy community and would be happy to work with COABE members.  Feel free 
to call/email me or visit the Institute's website:  
www.thepeoplesinstitute.org.

Margery Freeman
4635 Banks Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
(504) 482-0334
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020301/ac0c3926/attachment.html>

From LitNetJose at aol.com  Fri Mar  1 17:34:41 2002
From: LitNetJose at aol.com (LitNetJose at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:34:41 EST
Subject: [NLA] NIFL board nominees (pretty long posting)
Message-ID: <b9.1c7b5893.29b15c01@aol.com>

Hi, Jay (and other NLA friends):

You're apologizing to me?  I reacted, too!  Your point was very well taken...and your experience in advocacy is much valued.  We do need to be cautious about being pawns in the political game, while, at the same time, helping our representatives serve our cause in ways that are productive and sensitive to the political interests of similar agents of influence.  We have to be cautious at both ends.  Yikes!

And, besides, my political preferences were also exposed!

Jose Cruz
President, National Alliance or Urban Literacy Coalitions
Network Director, California Literacy

_______________________________________________
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


From sgabb412 at hotmail.com  Sat Mar  2 00:51:03 2002
From: sgabb412 at hotmail.com (Sally Gabb)
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 00:51:03
Subject: [NLA] [Fwd: [NIFL-ESL:7324] COABE plantation tour]
Message-ID: <F69EgJXOxJagXTi8M19000031a5@hotmail.com>

Thank you Sherrie Claiborne for your response welcoming a dialogue about 
these important issues at the COABE conference in Charleston.  As I have 
indicated on this list, I am prepared to lead a discussion around these 
issues, and hope to discuss with you when/where/how.  As I have indicated, I 
was preparing a letter to the COABE conference committee, to ask for just 
such an opportunity.  Today I spoke with Gail Lawson, president elect of 
COABE, and indicated to her that I look forward to leading a dialogue around 
issues of racial sensitivity, bias, and tolerance, and how we as adult 
educators can continue to raise our own consiousness about these issues.

As I indicated in my first e mail to this list, I recognize as a white woman 
raised in the South, and one who was privileged to be active in Civil Rights 
activities, that our culture of racism, although improved from those harsh 
days of the 1950's and before, continues to lull us into unintended lack of 
sensitivity.  I have made many errors, and learn daily from  my learners, 
friends, and colleagues.

I hope to focus the discussion on resources and strategies for racial and 
cultural awareness, for ourselves as adult education professionals, and for 
our classrooms.  I welcome any suggestions to this end. As director of one 
of five centers for ABE professional development in Massachusetts, we 
constantly seek both resources and strategies to confront these difficult 
issues.  While it can be uncomfortable, without confronting the issues, we 
will never be able to achieve progress in areas of racial and cultural 
understanding, tolerance and social justice.   I hope to have direct 
communication with you and others in the COABE leadeship and conference 
committee during the next week.

Once again, I welcome this opportunity to raise my own awareness and 
sensitivity, as we work towards mitigating bias, increasing awareness, and 
creating a society with true social justice.

Sally Gabb
Director, SABES SE


>From: Sherry Claiborne <claibornes at ten-nash.ten.k12.tn.us>
>Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>Subject: Re: [NLA] [Fwd: [NIFL-ESL:7324] COABE plantation tour]
>Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:21:22 -0500
>
>Thanks to all that have participated in the Plantation Tour discussion for 
>the COABE conference.  The list serv is the perfect place to raise 
>consciousness and have   a discussion to stregthen our field. As President 
>of the Commission on Adult Basic Educaton and after having a discussion 
>with the SC conference  planners,  we would like to apologize for appearing 
>insensitive.  This was not our intent.  We regret that the narrative has 
>caused any ill  feelings and have made the decision to cancel this optional 
>tour.  We are also working to have an open discussion at the conference .  
>We will let you know as soon as to the place and time. . We look forward to 
>seeing you at the conference in Charleston and please know that we are 
>always open for discussion that will strengthen and unite our profession.   
>          Sherrie Claiborne, COABE President




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

_______________________________________________
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


From sgabb412 at hotmail.com  Sat Mar  2 01:04:09 2002
From: sgabb412 at hotmail.com (Sally Gabb)
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 01:04:09
Subject: [NLA] COABE Plantation Tour (long)
Message-ID: <F39olnNctilIMb3XLVm00002069@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020302/3c124dd3/attachment.html>

From sgabb412 at hotmail.com  Sat Mar  2 01:06:16 2002
From: sgabb412 at hotmail.com (Sally Gabb)
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 01:06:16
Subject: [NLA] [Fwd: [NIFL-ESL:7324] COABE plantation tour]
Message-ID: <F27WUXHOQGZaoojYn5V0000205d@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020302/81b7bbd5/attachment.html>

From Freemannola at aol.com  Sat Mar  2 09:57:56 2002
From: Freemannola at aol.com (Freemannola at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 09:57:56 EST
Subject: [NLA] [Fwd: [NIFL-ESL:7324] COABE plantation tour]
Message-ID: <40.1a08dc07.29b24274@aol.com>

Dear Sally Gabb,
     I would dearly love to participate in the COABE roundtable on racism at 
your upcoming conference, but I am not able to do so.  If you see Peter 
Waite, Mark Cass or Jane Hugo of Laubach Literacy (now ProLiteracy), please 
ask them to tell you about how they (and we) have been raising issues of race 
and racism within the literacy community.  It's quite a journey!
     We will be holding a 1-1/2 day preconference on "literacy and racism" in 
May/June at the LLA/LVA national conference.  If you could spread the word 
among COABE members, that would be great!  Preconference is May 28/29. Thank 
you!
     Margery
Margery Freeman
4635 Banks Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
(504) 482-0334

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020302/ce110186/attachment.html>

From sophocles5 at juno.com  Sat Mar  2 15:52:06 2002
From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion)
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:52:06 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Adult Literacy &n the American Dream:  A Brief Review
Message-ID: <20020302.125207.14534.0.sophocles5@juno.com>

Colleagues:

What follows is a brief review of Forrest Chisman's new essay.  What I
find notable are two things:

a) That Chisman has considerably broadened what he views as the valued
purposes of adult literacy education to include much more than the
workplace focus that he had emphasized over a decade ago in his
influential report Jump Start.  This shift in itself makes the article
notable, particularly given Chisman's influence on policy.  As many of us
know, Jump Start played an important role in laying the groundwork for
the National Literacy Act of 1991 and NIFL.

b)  Also of note is Chisman's linkage of the value of adult literacy to
the ethos of U.S. democracy.  As he puts it at the end of his essay, the
cause of adult literacy should be "driven by the inalienable right of all
Americans to be free and equal" (p. 13).  This is quite a shift given
Jump Start's rationale of grounding the primary purpose of adult literacy
to the role of meeting the human capital needs of the post-industrial
economy. Chisman doesn't discount the importance of economic reasons, but
provides a more inclusive rationale linked to those identified in EFF and
in the document An Action Agenda for Literacy.

The other preliminary point is that Chisman's emphasis on "American
principles and the American experience" (p. 1) doesn't denote a single
mind-set or narrow focus, as the role of dissent (as we have just
witnessed on this listserv) and certainly that of pluralism are part and
parcel of American principles and experience. With Chisman, I think what
is important is that a political culture be established for the politics
of literacy in the United States that is indigenous to this nation's
experiences and founding (1776, 1787, 1791) political principles.  The
perpetual quest for "the more perfect union" is far from an embrace of
the status quo.  Rather, it helps shape the framework through which
viable politics is plausible within the context of this nation's
political culture.  This view is shared by Jessie Jackson Jr., who
co-authored a book that has as part of its title "A More Perfect Union"
where he has eloquently linked the ideals of US democracy to that of
racial equality, a point of view worthy of our most thoughtful
considerations.

One final comment. I believe it is imperative not to cede the imperfect
US constitutional and democratic tradition to the neo-conservatives, but
with Jackson and others, to contest with and against them on the meaning
of this "more perfect union" and how it becomes enacted in the life of
this nation.  With Chisman, I believe it is this tradition that leads to
the pathway of an articulate politics of literacy indigenous to the
political culture of the United States of America.

If I write any more, I might as well re-write the review that follows.

George Demetrion
Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford
sophocles5 at juno.com
________________________________________________________

Adult Literacy and the American Dream:  A Brief Review
(Chisman's article available at http://www.caalusa.org occasional papers
at CAAL)

Thanks to Forrest Chisman for this for this highly accessible and
significant essay.  I concur with him on the importance of linking the
rationale for adult literacy education "squarely on mainstream American
principles and the American experience" (p. 1) through which to establish
a viable bi-partisan, broad-based consensus-driven middle ground.
 
Passing over the historical analysis to keep this message short, the
multplicity of reasons that Chisman describes in support of adult
literacy linked to "economic prospects, social standing, civic
participation, personal safety, and self-esteem" (p. 11) reflects an
inclusive pluralism upon which such a national consensus could be
established.  In a more formal academic sense, John Rawls (2000) refers
to these rationales as "primary goods, which are "basic things
needed...in the light of the political  conception as persons, as
citizens who are fully cooperating members of society."  As Rawls further
describes "primary goods," these "are things citizens need as free and
equal persons living a complete life; they are not things it is simply
rational to want or desire, or to prefer or even to crave" (p. 58).
 
For Rawls, primary goods are essential to establish what he refers to as 
"a well ordered society" upon which the vitality of a civic
constitutional democracy depends, for its own vitality and legitimacy. 
Thus, when Chisman identifies "adult education and literacy [as] a very
high  priority for the United States--one of the dozen or so 'must do's'
on the national agenda for the foreseeable future" (p. 1), he is making
an argument quite analogous to that of the political philosopher John
Rawls in his under-
appreciated works, "Political Liberalism" (1993) and Justice as 
Fairness:  A Restatement" (2000).  The principle that both Rawls and
Chisman are upholding is the integrity of constitutional and civic
democracy, the most cherished political value of the United States of
America, the very basis for which the nation stands.  To put it in
Rawlsean terms, "Justice as Fairness" is the American Way.
 
Chisman's final point in engaging in "empirical investigations of how
self-interest and principle intersect" (p. 13) also represents a major
potential galvanizing force that could lead to the broad-based national
consensus as to the purposes and values of adult literacy education,
which Juliet Merrifield as well as many others have sought amidst the
contested ground.  This draws simultaneously on both the pragmatic and
idealistic traditions of the "American experience" and a way of mediating
the tensions between democracy and capitalism where images of
"investment" in literacy can imperceptibly merge with broader rationales
linked to the strengthening of the public good.  With Chisman, I believe
that such space represents the nexus through which the field can both
define itself and explain its rationale in a broad public/policy context.
 The challenge for the field is to walk through the eye of this needle.
 
In drawing out this clear framework in linking adult literacy to the
ethos of U.S. constitutional democracy and identifying a spectrum of
important areas where literacy intersects with critical life goals of
work, family, community, life-long learning, and self-development,
Chisman provides a broad road map of a way out of the morass in which the
field is current
ly enmeshed.
 
In broad strokes, Chisman's pluralistic understanding of the profound
impact of adult literacy education within the lives of individuals and on
the public sector intersects in substantial ways with the fundamental
values of the Equipped for the Future project, An Action Agenda, and much
of the research stemming from NCSALL and other major adult literacy
research 
centers.  
 
In linking such pluralism to the ethos of American constitutional and
civic democracy, Chisman adds something else, the basis for establishing
a public philosophy to undergird adult literacy education within the
context of the political culture of the United States of America.  When
Chisman 
states that the rationale for adult literacy "must be based squarely on
mainstream American principles and the American experience" (p. 1), I
believe it is to this tradition to which he speaks.
 
Let us listen to the better angels of our calling.  In the words of John 
Dewey, Creative Democracy--The Task Before Us.

George Demetrion
Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford
30 Arbor Street
Hartford, CT  06106

--------- End forwarded 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


From Dwyoho at aol.com  Sat Mar  2 13:14:44 2002
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:14:44 EST
Subject: [NLA] [Fwd: [NIFL-ESL:7324] COABE plantation tour]
Message-ID: <12e.d597a25.29b27094@aol.com>

Sally, do you know exactly when the Forum will be--and is it in the printed 
program or is this a recent decision by COABE to include this discussion?  
Debbie

Deborah W.Yoho
Executive Director
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
Co-Moderator, NIFL Health Literacy Discussion Group
921 Woodrow Street
Columbia, SC  29205   803-765-2555
Fax 799-8417   dwyoho at aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020302/13646e1e/attachment.html>

From tsticht at aznet.net  Sun Mar  3 12:12:56 2002
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 10:12:56 -0700
Subject: [NLA] Where do reading problems go?
Message-ID: <3C825997.119@aznet.net>

Research Note       March 2, 2002
Tom Sticht

Where does the reading problem go when children grow up?

If America?s public schools aren?t doing a good job of teaching reading,
you wouldn?t know it by asking adults how well they read. That?s because
the overwhelming majority of  our nation?s adults 16-59 years of age
think they read Well or Very Well. 

Reading President Bush?s strategic plan for education in the United
States, one might get the impression that we need to spend billions of
dollars more on teaching children to read better because the United
States faces a serious reading problem with millions of children who
will grow up to become adults with poor reading abilities.  

This impression is constantly being reinforced by various national and
international surveys in which the reading skills of youth and adults
are assessed using standardized tests. Based on a set of more or less
arbitrary rules, test developers typically  create reading or literacy
"levels" on these standardized tests and then end up declaring millions
of adults as of "low literacy" or just "mediocre" compared to those in
other industrialized nations. Such data are then used by education
advocates, or by policy makers such as the President of the United
States,  to call for increases in educational funding to increase the
reading skills of America?s children so that when they grow up the
nation will have an adult population with better reading abilities. 

Adult?s Perceptions of Their Reading Skills

But it is one thing to use standardized tests to judge the reading
skills of adults and still another to ask those same adults how well
they read the English language. The question is, do the nation?s adults
think they have a reading problem? 

The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) asked adults to rate
their own reading skills as they perceived them. In a report on the
Literacy of Older Adults in America, from the National Center for
Education Statistics in Washington, DC, November 1996, the authors
reported (p. 43) that  adults aged 16 to 59 rated themselves as reading
Very Well-72%, Well-22% and Not Well/Not At All-7%. Overall, then, some
93% of adults in this age range rated themselves as reading Well or Very
Well. 

When broken out by ethnic groups, ratings were found of

Whites: Very Well-77%, Well-21%, or Not Well/Not At All-3%. 
Blacks:  Very Well-67%, Well-27% and Not Well/Not At All-6%. 
Hispanics: Very Well-46%, Well-22% and Not Well/Not At All-32%
 
In this analysis, only Hispanics reported a high percentage, 32 percent,
or 5.3 million adults,  who thought they could not read English Well or
Very Well, no doubt reflecting the large immigrant population in this
category with less education and poorer English language skills than U.
S. born adults. Among both Blacks and Whites, poor reading appears to be
a perceived problem for only 3 to 6 percent of these populations, about
4.5 million adults in the age range 16-59. 

International Comparisons

Another way that has been tired to find out if the U.S. has an adult
reading problem that needs to be addressed is to take 20 of the highest
income, richest nations on earth, give the adults a literacy test,  and
then find out how well the U.S. does. If the average for adults in the
U.S. falls well below the average for these nations then this might
indicate a significant degree of reading problems. If the U.S. is as
good as or better than the average of these developed, high income
nations, then that might suggest that the U.S. does not have a reading
problem of crisis proportions.  

In an Educational Testing Service report entitled "The Twin Challenges
of Mediocrity and Inequality. Literacy in the U.S. from an International
Perspective", released February 2002, the authors used data from the
International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) and did the comparisons
listed above. They reported that, for a composite score made up of the
IALS Prose, Document, and Quantitative literacy scales combined, the U.
S. scored 2 points above the average composite score for 20 of the
richest nations on earth and ranked number 12 out of 20 on the composite
score. Comparing U. S. men and women separately to  17 high income
nations the men were not different from the 17 nation average and ranked
12 out of 17,  while the U.S. women scored 5 points above the 17 nation
average and ranked 9th in average literacy among these high income,
industrialized nations. 

Even more telling is the finding that on the Prose literacy scale, at
the 50th  percentile the 
average U. S. adult literacy score ranked number 8 out of 21 high income
nations, while at the 70th and 80th percentiles it ranked number 4 and
at the 85th and 90th  percentiles it  ranked number 3. Similar shifts
toward the higher rankings at the higher percentiles were found with the
Document and Quantitative literacy scales, though not so dramatic. 

At the lower percentile levels, the U.S. adults tended to score somewhat
below the average scores of the 21 nations on the three literacy scales,
though typically the U. S. scores were not statistically significantly
different from the average scores for other nations at points below the
50th percentile on the three scales. The U. S. rankings below the 50th
percentile ranged from 12th to 19th out of 21 at the low end of the
percentile distribution. 

Further, as measured by a composite of the Prose, Document, and
Quantitative literacy scales on the IALS, at the higher levels of
literacy, that is the 80th, 85th, and 90th  percentiles the U. S. is in
the top 3 to 5 ranks of 17 industrialized nations in terms of adult
literacy proficiency.  So while we?re not winning any gold medals, we
get a few bronze medals for third place in the Olympics of adult
literacy among the most highly developed, wealthiest nations on earth. 

Cultural niches for literacy 

As indicated above, using their own judgments of their reading
abilities, over 93 percent of America?s adults do not think they have a
reading problem. Using comparisons of average scores on the standardized
tests of the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), the 
U. S. is on par with most of the industrialized, knowledge-based, 
highest income nations on earth. This is like being an average or
"mediocre" athlete in the small pool of world athletes who qualify for
the Olympics. Further, if the "gold" is power and wealth that these
nations are vying for,  the U. S. already ranks as the most powerful and
richest nation on earth. It would seem to be a hard sell to use these
data to plea for more money for teaching adults to read better. 

Perhaps when children grow up and get out in the post-K-12 world they
adapt to the ambient literacy demands of a cultural niche that they find
possible to occupy. They find jobs they can qualify for, they get
information from sources they have access to and feel comfortable in
using, and as they slip ever more firmly into their literacy niche, they
feel more and more satisfaction with their literacy skills.  Perhaps
this is why so many U.S. adults think they read Well or Very Well. 

In turn, this may be one reason so few adults show up in adult literacy
programs and why such programs have come to serve more and more those
adults who are not native English speakers and did not progress through
the U. S. schools as poor readers. As indicated above, more Hispanics
perceive themselves to be lacking in reading English, and so it is not
too surprising that Hispanics and other non-English speaking immigrants
show up in larger  numbers for adult English language and literacy
programs.  It seems likely that many immigrants are actively seeking to
find a cultural niche in the U. S. in which they feel they can meet some
of their most pressing needs.

The concept of the cultural niche can be expanded into the idea of
broader sub-cultures with differing perceptions of their literacy
abilities. For instance, when the average proficiencies of Whites and
Blacks on the NALS Prose scale were compared, it was found that for
Whites who rated themselves as reading Very Well, their average Prose
proficiency was 308, well into Literacy Level 3, whereas for Blacks
rating themselves as reading Very Well, their Prose average proficiency
was 259, in the middle of NALS Literacy Level 2. On the Quantitative
scale, Whites rating themselves as reading Well scored 278 on the NALS ,
placing them just inside Level 3, while Blacks who rated themselves as
reading Well scored 221, at the high end of Level 1, the lowest literacy
level on the NALS.

This indicates that two sub-cultural groups may both rate themselves as
equally competent in terms of their self-perceived reading abilities,
even though their measured competence may differ as much as a full
standard deviation on standardized literacy tests. This suggests an
adaptive function within each sub-cultural group to the ambient literacy
abilities and demands of each sub-group as its members encounter and
perceive them.

It would seem to be a useful activity to find out more about these
cultural and sub-cultural phenomena with regard to the differences
between adults? measured literacy abilities and their self-perceptions
of their literacy abilities, and to use this information to better
understand the scale of need and desire for adults to participate in the
Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States.
_______________________________________________
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


From smitht at ccv.vsc.edu  Sun Mar  3 16:27:04 2002
From: smitht at ccv.vsc.edu (Tom Smith)
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 16:27:04 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Adult Literacy &n the American Dream:  A Brief Review
In-Reply-To: <20020302.125207.14534.0.sophocles5@juno.com>
Message-ID: <1560542769.1015172824@BURLINGTON>

Thank you George...for your comments and your review.  If it were not for
this listserve I doubt I'd ever see these comments including those of John
Rawls'.  Thank you again.

In building the "more perfect Union," I'd like to ask how we can creatively
reach across the ideological divide.  The task before us is to win a public
consenus to the importance of all Americans having access to the political
process...and not just access but access knowing that their voice is valued
and will be heard.  If Chisman can change (George's review), there's no
reason why we can't turn around public opinion.

Historically, the attitude on the Right concerning "the illiterate" had
everything to do with human capital and a mindset that these folks were
just plain lazy and could never be of any siginificant value to the
society.  However, these opinions and the policies flowing from them
emanated largely from corporate-funded think-tanks. I think there are
sectors on the Right...particularly rank and file church people...who
identify with much of the Right's social agenda...but because these
"losers" are friends, neighbors, and/or family members, they really do
believe in the fundamental worth of this largely invisible group of people.


How do we connect with these potential allies...many of whom are far more
invested personally than many of us?  I'm at a very local level; I don't
have a sense of the national coalitions...or potential coalitions, but I
think progressive minded people need to be creative in looking at who's
with us and who's agin' us.  I know many of our literacy volunteers are
coming out of a religious mission and from their belief in the worth and
value of their students.  There's got to be a way of tapping this network.
Any thoughts?

Tom O. Smith
Bridge Program, Coordinator
Immigrant Scholarship Program, Coordinator
119 Pearl St.
Burlington, VT 05401
phone: (802) 865-4422
fax: (802) 865-3323

_______________________________________________
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


From dani at unc.edu  Sun Mar  3 19:01:54 2002
From: dani at unc.edu (Dani Moore)
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 19:01:54 -0500
Subject: [NLA] COABE Plantation Tour
References: <F39olnNctilIMb3XLVm00002069@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <3C82B972.FBE8F13C@unc.edu>

Hello, everyone,

Unless I've missed it in one of the emails so far, I haven't seen any
mention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People's (NAACP's) economic boycott of South Carolina. For two years,
the NAACP has been waging the boycott over the issue of the Confederate
Flag. In 2000, the state's tourist industry lost over $100 million
dollars as a result of the boycott, which persuaded lawmakers to remove
the flag from inside the Capitol's chambers and from atop the dome. Yet,
the flag still flies on capital grounds and the boycott continues.

Many national and regional organizations have canceled meetings in the
state to support the NAACP efforts, including the National Association
of Federal and Postal Employees, the American Bar Association, Southeast
Conference United Church of Christ, the National Urban League,
Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Association of American
Colleges and Universities.

There is also recent news on this boycott:
http://www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/280103p-2528512c.html

I think this is an interesting dimension of the discussion, and I hope
it won't be overlooked in the dialogue here and at the conference. 

Best to all,

---------------------------------
Dani Moore
Training and Technical Assistance Coordinator
Student Coalition for Action in Literacy Education (SCALE)
dani at unc.edu     919.962.1542     
http://www.unc.edu/depts/scale
_______________________________________________
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


From DocJN at aol.com  Mon Mar  4 08:31:43 2002
From: DocJN at aol.com (DocJN at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:31:43 EST
Subject: [NLA] Where do reading problems go?
Message-ID: <a6.222ad0eb.29b4d13f@aol.com>

Re- Tom Sticht's comments about "where do reading problems go..."  I recall 
something David Harmon said eons ago. To paraphrase, if we measured the 
target population in terms of who felt they needed the program, we are 
running in the high 90's! 

One response to where do the reading "problems" go - they follow an adult 
right into the public-funded literacy center door and all the way through a 
testing process, and show up in numbers that the educators are left to 
explain to adults who know a 5.6 when they see it, or a desired adult high 
school admission that is strongly discouraged when those numbers fall below 
9, or in repeated attempts to pass the GED which generally requires 10th or 
11th grade reading levels. Food for thought?

Joye Norris

_______________________________________________
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


From DEBBYDAM at aol.com  Mon Mar  4 11:33:44 2002
From: DEBBYDAM at aol.com (DEBBYDAM at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:33:44 EST
Subject: [NLA] support for advocacy
Message-ID: <c5.1efeeef7.29b4fbe8@aol.com>

I want to call attention to the useful and wonderful new publication out of 
NCSALL, Building a Level Playing Field: The Need to Expand and Improve the 
National and State Adult Education and Literacy Systems  by John Comings, 
Steve Reder and Andew Sum.  This occasional Paper in the connecting research 
and practice series provides a wealth of concise, updated information that 
can be used to fill legislators and policy makers in on the purpose and work 
of adult education.  I imagine myself pulling it out to beef up those letters 
to legislators, as well as for supporting grant proposals and research.  it 
is reasoned and strongly persuasive, and would be especially useful to those 
in the 13 states for which there is expanded NALS data.  Check it out!    
(ncsall at gse.harvard.edu) DD     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020304/5919680f/attachment.html>

From cb.king at verizon.net  Mon Mar  4 12:35:11 2002
From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine King)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:35:11 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Where do reading problems go?
References: <3C825997.119@aznet.net>
Message-ID: <002901c1c3a3$344f91c0$7cf72a3f@cbking>

Hello Tom:

Researchers' understanding of the "cultural and 
sub-cultural phenomena with regard to the differences 
between adults' measured literacy abilities and their self-
perceptions of their literacy abilities," will more likely
come from two developments on the part of researchers:

(1) the development and use of qualitative-investigative
methods referred to in "Research Methods in Education 
and Psychology" (Mertons, l998, Sage Publications) as 
two other research paradigms, namely, "interpretive-
constructivist" and/or "emancipatory" coupled with 
the relevant statistical data that comes from the 
quantitative, "post-positivist" paradigm.   These two
paradigms emerged, as you probably know, from the
recognition of the gross inadequacies of only using
post-positivist methods on human data to understand
human phenomena.

(2) the fairly new notion, and now becoming systematic,
that the researcher must always do a thorough self-
inspection with the help of peers of every stripe to 
identify point-of-view biases and omissions that will
show up in our methods, our questions, and the 
conceptual development of both.  This includes our
expectations of the data and the development of
testing material.  In a word, we need to do quite a
bit of foundational work in order to come up with
adequate testing materials.

The new developing standard is one that must
include the foundational realization of many views 
with many equally-valuable standards where
communications are central and group-specific.  

There is, of course, the larger group we all belong to,
and therefore a need for a "cash language" (which means 
more than "cash" but also theory, the law, news, institutional 
communications, etc.), and all adults need to know this to
be participatory.  We all could stand development in this 
regard.   But there is always a dynamic relationship 
between this one-group and multiple-"sub"group 
communications which is enriching and/or debilitating,
if communications is our goal on either count.

However, standardized, quantitative, post-positivist 
measures often "default" back to this one standard as
the only standard, as if human beings were objects of 
natural science instead of human like the researcher,
while overlooking or denigrating group standards where 
internal communications work quite well, and have 
developed for more than mere "reasons of ignorance."
In many cases, these communications actually serve to 
define and qualify specific historic groups in our 
culture and in others outside the USA.

A consideration of the above  may help to explain why:

". . . two sub-cultural groups may both rate themselves as
equally competent in terms of their self-perceived reading 
abilities, even though their measured competence may 
differ as much as a full standard deviation on standardized 
literacy tests. This suggests an adaptive function within 
each sub-cultural group to the ambient literacy abilities and 
demands of each sub-group as its members encounter 
and perceive them."

Perhaps our tests don't measure the reality either in their 
(1) methods, (2) their content, or (3) researcher's
assumptions, either politically, socially, psychologically or
philosophically on  many grounds and especially in terms 
of what it means to be "literate."   Perhaps if we
asked our students about communications instead of
"literacy" and gave them adequate distinguishing test data, 
for example, we might come up with a better understanding
about what is happening with our adults, including ourselves,
and how they/we view ourselves.

As with most tests, these will themselves be educative tools
by waiting for and raising questions we may not have asked 
ourselves before--a developing tenet of the emancipatory 
research paradigm noted above.

Good luck with your studies.  As always, I appreciate your
insights and input to this forum.

Catherine King
Adjunct Faculty
Department of Education
National University
San Diego, 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Thomas Sticht <tsticht at aznet.net>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Cc: <tsticht at aznet.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 9:12 AM
Subject: [NLA] Where do reading problems go?


> Research Note       March 2, 2002
> Tom Sticht
> 
> Where does the reading problem go when children grow up?
> 
> If America's public schools aren't doing a good job of teaching reading,
> you wouldn't know it by asking adults how well they read. That's because
> the overwhelming majority of  our nation's adults 16-59 years of age
> think they read Well or Very Well. 
> 
> Reading President Bush's strategic plan for education in the United
> States, one might get the impression that we need to spend billions of
> dollars more on teaching children to read better because the United
> States faces a serious reading problem with millions of children who
> will grow up to become adults with poor reading abilities.  
> 
> This impression is constantly being reinforced by various national and
> international surveys in which the reading skills of youth and adults
> are assessed using standardized tests. Based on a set of more or less
> arbitrary rules, test developers typically  create reading or literacy
> "levels" on these standardized tests and then end up declaring millions
> of adults as of "low literacy" or just "mediocre" compared to those in
> other industrialized nations. Such data are then used by education
> advocates, or by policy makers such as the President of the United
> States,  to call for increases in educational funding to increase the
> reading skills of America's children so that when they grow up the
> nation will have an adult population with better reading abilities. 
> 
> Adult's Perceptions of Their Reading Skills
> 
> But it is one thing to use standardized tests to judge the reading
> skills of adults and still another to ask those same adults how well
> they read the English language. The question is, do the nation's adults
> think they have a reading problem? 
> 
> The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) asked adults to rate
> their own reading skills as they perceived them. In a report on the
> Literacy of Older Adults in America, from the National Center for
> Education Statistics in Washington, DC, November 1996, the authors
> reported (p. 43) that  adults aged 16 to 59 rated themselves as reading
> Very Well-72%, Well-22% and Not Well/Not At All-7%. Overall, then, some
> 93% of adults in this age range rated themselves as reading Well or Very
> Well. 
> 
> When broken out by ethnic groups, ratings were found of
> 
> Whites: Very Well-77%, Well-21%, or Not Well/Not At All-3%. 
> Blacks:  Very Well-67%, Well-27% and Not Well/Not At All-6%. 
> Hispanics: Very Well-46%, Well-22% and Not Well/Not At All-32%
>  
> In this analysis, only Hispanics reported a high percentage, 32 percent,
> or 5.3 million adults,  who thought they could not read English Well or
> Very Well, no doubt reflecting the large immigrant population in this
> category with less education and poorer English language skills than U.
> S. born adults. Among both Blacks and Whites, poor reading appears to be
> a perceived problem for only 3 to 6 percent of these populations, about
> 4.5 million adults in the age range 16-59. 
> 
> International Comparisons
> 
> Another way that has been tired to find out if the U.S. has an adult
> reading problem that needs to be addressed is to take 20 of the highest
> income, richest nations on earth, give the adults a literacy test,  and
> then find out how well the U.S. does. If the average for adults in the
> U.S. falls well below the average for these nations then this might
> indicate a significant degree of reading problems. If the U.S. is as
> good as or better than the average of these developed, high income
> nations, then that might suggest that the U.S. does not have a reading
> problem of crisis proportions.  
> 
> In an Educational Testing Service report entitled "The Twin Challenges
> of Mediocrity and Inequality. Literacy in the U.S. from an International
> Perspective", released February 2002, the authors used data from the
> International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) and did the comparisons
> listed above. They reported that, for a composite score made up of the
> IALS Prose, Document, and Quantitative literacy scales combined, the U.
> S. scored 2 points above the average composite score for 20 of the
> richest nations on earth and ranked number 12 out of 20 on the composite
> score. Comparing U. S. men and women separately to  17 high income
> nations the men were not different from the 17 nation average and ranked
> 12 out of 17,  while the U.S. women scored 5 points above the 17 nation
> average and ranked 9th in average literacy among these high income,
> industrialized nations. 
> 
> Even more telling is the finding that on the Prose literacy scale, at
> the 50th  percentile the 
> average U. S. adult literacy score ranked number 8 out of 21 high income
> nations, while at the 70th and 80th percentiles it ranked number 4 and
> at the 85th and 90th  percentiles it  ranked number 3. Similar shifts
> toward the higher rankings at the higher percentiles were found with the
> Document and Quantitative literacy scales, though not so dramatic. 
> 
> At the lower percentile levels, the U.S. adults tended to score somewhat
> below the average scores of the 21 nations on the three literacy scales,
> though typically the U. S. scores were not statistically significantly
> different from the average scores for other nations at points below the
> 50th percentile on the three scales. The U. S. rankings below the 50th
> percentile ranged from 12th to 19th out of 21 at the low end of the
> percentile distribution. 
> 
> Further, as measured by a composite of the Prose, Document, and
> Quantitative literacy scales on the IALS, at the higher levels of
> literacy, that is the 80th, 85th, and 90th  percentiles the U. S. is in
> the top 3 to 5 ranks of 17 industrialized nations in terms of adult
> literacy proficiency.  So while we're not winning any gold medals, we
> get a few bronze medals for third place in the Olympics of adult
> literacy among the most highly developed, wealthiest nations on earth. 
> 
> Cultural niches for literacy 
> 
> As indicated above, using their own judgments of their reading
> abilities, over 93 percent of America's adults do not think they have a
> reading problem. Using comparisons of average scores on the standardized
> tests of the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), the 
> U. S. is on par with most of the industrialized, knowledge-based, 
> highest income nations on earth. This is like being an average or
> "mediocre" athlete in the small pool of world athletes who qualify for
> the Olympics. Further, if the "gold" is power and wealth that these
> nations are vying for,  the U. S. already ranks as the most powerful and
> richest nation on earth. It would seem to be a hard sell to use these
> data to plea for more money for teaching adults to read better. 
> 
> Perhaps when children grow up and get out in the post-K-12 world they
> adapt to the ambient literacy demands of a cultural niche that they find
> possible to occupy. They find jobs they can qualify for, they get
> information from sources they have access to and feel comfortable in
> using, and as they slip ever more firmly into their literacy niche, they
> feel more and more satisfaction with their literacy skills.  Perhaps
> this is why so many U.S. adults think they read Well or Very Well. 
> 
> In turn, this may be one reason so few adults show up in adult literacy
> programs and why such programs have come to serve more and more those
> adults who are not native English speakers and did not progress through
> the U. S. schools as poor readers. As indicated above, more Hispanics
> perceive themselves to be lacking in reading English, and so it is not
> too surprising that Hispanics and other non-English speaking immigrants
> show up in larger  numbers for adult English language and literacy
> programs.  It seems likely that many immigrants are actively seeking to
> find a cultural niche in the U. S. in which they feel they can meet some
> of their most pressing needs.
> 
> The concept of the cultural niche can be expanded into the idea of
> broader sub-cultures with differing perceptions of their literacy
> abilities. For instance, when the average proficiencies of Whites and
> Blacks on the NALS Prose scale were compared, it was found that for
> Whites who rated themselves as reading Very Well, their average Prose
> proficiency was 308, well into Literacy Level 3, whereas for Blacks
> rating themselves as reading Very Well, their Prose average proficiency
> was 259, in the middle of NALS Literacy Level 2. On the Quantitative
> scale, Whites rating themselves as reading Well scored 278 on the NALS ,
> placing them just inside Level 3, while Blacks who rated themselves as
> reading Well scored 221, at the high end of Level 1, the lowest literacy
> level on the NALS.
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> 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


From sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net  Mon Mar  4 15:27:42 2002
From: sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net (Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:27:42 -0600
Subject: [NLA] Where do reading problems go?
References: <3C825997.119@aznet.net> <002901c1c3a3$344f91c0$7cf72a3f@cbking>
Message-ID: <001d01c1c3bb$0ad7cca0$47d9c740@net>

A bit of a Footnote, if you will, to Catherine King's comments about Tom
Sticht's email message:

The question of researchers *appears* to be how "Adults Perceive Their
Reading Skills".
According to Tom, researchers are using the following, as detailed in this
paragraph in his message:

"> > But it is one thing to use standardized tests to judge the reading
> > skills of adults and still another to ask those same adults how well
> > they read the English language. The question is, do the nation's adults
> > think they have a reading problem? >>"

So we ask an adult how well can you read -- do you have a reading problem?
And the Footnote is:
"Compared to WHAT??"

If you grew up in a family where next to none of the adults who came from
that family could read fluently, what would you use as a role model for
"reading the English language well"?  Would it be the scholar who lives in a
different neighborhood and moves in different circles, both scholastically,
class-wise and in friendships?  No.

And if you as a kid didn't succeed in taking the school's standardized tests
because of your lack of ability to thrive in a timed testing environment or
you had a limited sight vocabulary or ability to break-down words to make
sense of  multiple choice answers, what do you suppose that standardized
test is going to show for results about that kid?  A low level of literacy
skills?  Heck!  "The System" already knew that -- that is, if we are a good
teacher and/or administrator in the kid's educational program!

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


----- Original Message -----
From: "Catherine King" <cb.king at verizon.net>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [NLA] Where do reading problems go?


> Hello Tom:
>
> Researchers' understanding of the "cultural and
> sub-cultural phenomena with regard to the differences
> between adults' measured literacy abilities and their self-
> perceptions of their literacy abilities," will more likely
> come from two developments on the part of researchers:
>
> (1) the development and use of qualitative-investigative
> methods referred to in "Research Methods in Education
> and Psychology" (Mertons, l998, Sage Publications) as
> two other research paradigms, namely, "interpretive-
> constructivist" and/or "emancipatory" coupled with
> the relevant statistical data that comes from the
> quantitative, "post-positivist" paradigm.   These two
> paradigms emerged, as you probably know, from the
> recognition of the gross inadequacies of only using
> post-positivist methods on human data to understand
> human phenomena.
>
> (2) the fairly new notion, and now becoming systematic,
> that the researcher must always do a thorough self-
> inspection with the help of peers of every stripe to
> identify point-of-view biases and omissions that will
> show up in our methods, our questions, and the
> conceptual development of both.  This includes our
> expectations of the data and the development of
> testing material.  In a word, we need to do quite a
> bit of foundational work in order to come up with
> adequate testing materials.
>
> The new developing standard is one that must
> include the foundational realization of many views
> with many equally-valuable standards where
> communications are central and group-specific.
>
> There is, of course, the larger group we all belong to,
> and therefore a need for a "cash language" (which means
> more than "cash" but also theory, the law, news, institutional
> communications, etc.), and all adults need to know this to
> be participatory.  We all could stand development in this
> regard.   But there is always a dynamic relationship
> between this one-group and multiple-"sub"group
> communications which is enriching and/or debilitating,
> if communications is our goal on either count.
>
> However, standardized, quantitative, post-positivist
> measures often "default" back to this one standard as
> the only standard, as if human beings were objects of
> natural science instead of human like the researcher,
> while overlooking or denigrating group standards where
> internal communications work quite well, and have
> developed for more than mere "reasons of ignorance."
> In many cases, these communications actually serve to
> define and qualify specific historic groups in our
> culture and in others outside the USA.
>
> A consideration of the above  may help to explain why:
>
> ". . . two sub-cultural groups may both rate themselves as
> equally competent in terms of their self-perceived reading
> abilities, even though their measured competence may
> differ as much as a full standard deviation on standardized
> literacy tests. This suggests an adaptive function within
> each sub-cultural group to the ambient literacy abilities and
> demands of each sub-group as its members encounter
> and perceive them."
>
> Perhaps our tests don't measure the reality either in their
> (1) methods, (2) their content, or (3) researcher's
> assumptions, either politically, socially, psychologically or
> philosophically on  many grounds and especially in terms
> of what it means to be "literate."   Perhaps if we
> asked our students about communications instead of
> "literacy" and gave them adequate distinguishing test data,
> for example, we might come up with a better understanding
> about what is happening with our adults, including ourselves,
> and how they/we view ourselves.
>
> As with most tests, these will themselves be educative tools
> by waiting for and raising questions we may not have asked
> ourselves before--a developing tenet of the emancipatory
> research paradigm noted above.
>
> Good luck with your studies.  As always, I appreciate your
> insights and input to this forum.
>
> Catherine King
> Adjunct Faculty
> Department of Education
> National University
> San Diego,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Thomas Sticht <tsticht at aznet.net>
> To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
> Cc: <tsticht at aznet.net>
> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 9:12 AM
> Subject: [NLA] Where do reading problems go?
>
>
> > Research Note       March 2, 2002
> > Tom Sticht
> >
> > Where does the reading problem go when children grow up?
> >
> > If America's public schools aren't doing a good job of teaching reading,
> > you wouldn't know it by asking adults how well they read. That's because
> > the overwhelming majority of  our nation's adults 16-59 years of age
> > think they read Well or Very Well.
> >
> > Reading President Bush's strategic plan for education in the United
> > States, one might get the impression that we need to spend billions of
> > dollars more on teaching children to read better because the United
> > States faces a serious reading problem with millions of children who
> > will grow up to become adults with poor reading abilities.
> >
> > This impression is constantly being reinforced by various national and
> > international surveys in which the reading skills of youth and adults
> > are assessed using standardized tests. Based on a set of more or less
> > arbitrary rules, test developers typically  create reading or literacy
> > "levels" on these standardized tests and then end up declaring millions
> > of adults as of "low literacy" or just "mediocre" compared to those in
> > other industrialized nations. Such data are then used by education
> > advocates, or by policy makers such as the President of the United
> > States,  to call for increases in educational funding to increase the
> > reading skills of America's children so that when they grow up the
> > nation will have an adult population with better reading abilities.
> >
> > Adult's Perceptions of Their Reading Skills
> >
> > But it is one thing to use standardized tests to judge the reading
> > skills of adults and still another to ask those same adults how well
> > they read the English language. The question is, do the nation's adults
> > think they have a reading problem?
> >
> > The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) asked adults to rate
> > their own reading skills as they perceived them. In a report on the
> > Literacy of Older Adults in America, from the National Center for
> > Education Statistics in Washington, DC, November 1996, the authors
> > reported (p. 43) that  adults aged 16 to 59 rated themselves as reading
> > Very Well-72%, Well-22% and Not Well/Not At All-7%. Overall, then, some
> > 93% of adults in this age range rated themselves as reading Well or Very
> > Well.
> >
> > When broken out by ethnic groups, ratings were found of
> >
> > Whites: Very Well-77%, Well-21%, or Not Well/Not At All-3%.
> > Blacks:  Very Well-67%, Well-27% and Not Well/Not At All-6%.
> > Hispanics: Very Well-46%, Well-22% and Not Well/Not At All-32%
> >
> > In this analysis, only Hispanics reported a high percentage, 32 percent,
> > or 5.3 million adults,  who thought they could not read English Well or
> > Very Well, no doubt reflecting the large immigrant population in this
> > category with less education and poorer English language skills than U.
> > S. born adults. Among both Blacks and Whites, poor reading appears to be
> > a perceived problem for only 3 to 6 percent of these populations, about
> > 4.5 million adults in the age range 16-59.
> >
> > International Comparisons
> >
> > Another way that has been tired to find out if the U.S. has an adult
> > reading problem that needs to be addressed is to take 20 of the highest
> > income, richest nations on earth, give the adults a literacy test,  and
> > then find out how well the U.S. does. If the average for adults in the
> > U.S. falls well below the average for these nations then this might
> > indicate a significant degree of reading problems. If the U.S. is as
> > good as or better than the average of these developed, high income
> > nations, then that might suggest that the U.S. does not have a reading
> > problem of crisis proportions.
> >
> > In an Educational Testing Service report entitled "The Twin Challenges
> > of Mediocrity and Inequality. Literacy in the U.S. from an International
> > Perspective", released February 2002, the authors used data from the
> > International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) and did the comparisons
> > listed above. They reported that, for a composite score made up of the
> > IALS Prose, Document, and Quantitative literacy scales combined, the U.
> > S. scored 2 points above the average composite score for 20 of the
> > richest nations on earth and ranked number 12 out of 20 on the composite
> > score. Comparing U. S. men and women separately to  17 high income
> > nations the men were not different from the 17 nation average and ranked
> > 12 out of 17,  while the U.S. women scored 5 points above the 17 nation
> > average and ranked 9th in average literacy among these high income,
> > industrialized nations.
> >
> > Even more telling is the finding that on the Prose literacy scale, at
> > the 50th  percentile the
> > average U. S. adult literacy score ranked number 8 out of 21 high income
> > nations, while at the 70th and 80th percentiles it ranked number 4 and
> > at the 85th and 90th  percentiles it  ranked number 3. Similar shifts
> > toward the higher rankings at the higher percentiles were found with the
> > Document and Quantitative literacy scales, though not so dramatic.
> >
> > At the lower percentile levels, the U.S. adults tended to score somewhat
> > below the average scores of the 21 nations on the three literacy scales,
> > though typically the U. S. scores were not statistically significantly
> > different from the average scores for other nations at points below the
> > 50th percentile on the three scales. The U. S. rankings below the 50th
> > percentile ranged from 12th to 19th out of 21 at the low end of the
> > percentile distribution.
> >
> > Further, as measured by a composite of the Prose, Document, and
> > Quantitative literacy scales on the IALS, at the higher levels of
> > literacy, that is the 80th, 85th, and 90th  percentiles the U. S. is in
> > the top 3 to 5 ranks of 17 industrialized nations in terms of adult
> > literacy proficiency.  So while we're not winning any gold medals, we
> > get a few bronze medals for third place in the Olympics of adult
> > literacy among the most highly developed, wealthiest nations on earth.
> >
> > Cultural niches for literacy
> >
> > As indicated above, using their own judgments of their reading
> > abilities, over 93 percent of America's adults do not think they have a
> > reading problem. Using comparisons of average scores on the standardized
> > tests of the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), the
> > U. S. is on par with most of the industrialized, knowledge-based,
> > highest income nations on earth. This is like being an average or
> > "mediocre" athlete in the small pool of world athletes who qualify for
> > the Olympics. Further, if the "gold" is power and wealth that these
> > nations are vying for,  the U. S. already ranks as the most powerful and
> > richest nation on earth. It would seem to be a hard sell to use these
> > data to plea for more money for teaching adults to read better.
> >
> > Perhaps when children grow up and get out in the post-K-12 world they
> > adapt to the ambient literacy demands of a cultural niche that they find
> > possible to occupy. They find jobs they can qualify for, they get
> > information from sources they have access to and feel comfortable in
> > using, and as they slip ever more firmly into their literacy niche, they
> > feel more and more satisfaction with their literacy skills.  Perhaps
> > this is why so many U.S. adults think they read Well or Very Well.
> >
> > In turn, this may be one reason so few adults show up in adult literacy
> > programs and why such programs have come to serve more and more those
> > adults who are not native English speakers and did not progress through
> > the U. S. schools as poor readers. As indicated above, more Hispanics
> > perceive themselves to be lacking in reading English, and so it is not
> > too surprising that Hispanics and other non-English speaking immigrants
> > show up in larger  numbers for adult English language and literacy
> > programs.  It seems likely that many immigrants are actively seeking to
> > find a cultural niche in the U. S. in which they feel they can meet some
> > of their most pressing needs.
> >
> > The concept of the cultural niche can be expanded into the idea of
> > broader sub-cultures with differing perceptions of their literacy
> > abilities. For instance, when the average proficiencies of Whites and
> > Blacks on the NALS Prose scale were compared, it was found that for
> > Whites who rated themselves as reading Very Well, their average Prose
> > proficiency was 308, well into Literacy Level 3, whereas for Blacks
> > rating themselves as reading Very Well, their Prose average proficiency
> > was 259, in the middle of NALS Literacy Level 2. On the Quantitative
> > scale, Whites rating themselves as reading Well scored 278 on the NALS ,
> > placing them just inside Level 3, while Blacks who rated themselves as
> > reading Well scored 221, at the high end of Level 1, the lowest literacy
> > level on the NALS.
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

_______________________________________________
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


From Freemannola at aol.com  Mon Mar  4 17:03:11 2002
From: Freemannola at aol.com (Freemannola at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:03:11 EST
Subject: [NLA] support for advocacy
Message-ID: <a.1b091583.29b5491f@aol.com>

Thanks for the heads up, Debbie.  It is a remarkably useful article.
Margery Freeman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020304/4f6a09b8/attachment.html>

From sophocles5 at juno.com  Mon Mar  4 23:45:57 2002
From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:45:57 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Adult Literacy &n the American Dream:  A Brief Review
Message-ID: <20020304.204558.6878.1.sophocles5@juno.com>

(Unavoidably lengthy.  If interested, I would suggest printing it out and
reading when time is available).

Tom and others

First Tom, thanks for your comments.

Clearly, for a variety of reasons, a broad-based inclusive consensus is
problematic in such a plagiaristic country as the US for a number of key
reasons.  This has been discussed so I won't belabor that here.  Though I
would say, with Merrifield and others, notwithstanding the difficulties I
see little choice but in pursuit of such consensus at least at the level
of affecting national policy and public opinion.  
Such consensus seeking does not mean that I surrender my own
understanding of  literacy or give up on my peculiar approach to
practice, but that in Rawlsean terms, I participate in an "Overlapping
Consensus" if the framework for that is based on sound principles and
effective practices (of coalition building, network strengthening, and
policy influencing).  

In this scenario, I adhere to my (what Rawls refers to as) more
"comprehensive doctrines (e.g., critical pedagogy, philosophical
pragmatism, "scientific-based" research (or whatever) with as much rigor
as I can muster at the level of my own praxis.  I also seek to inject my
perspective within the particular spheres of influence that are available
to me and even to seek to influence the body politic or the community of
adult literacy scholars and practitioners to the extent I am able,
without basing my willingness to participate on the efficacy of such
influence.

Yet in entering the public square in collaboration with others,
particularly in seeking to influence national policy, I need to assume a
more minimalist position *with regards to strengthening a viable
consensus* amongst people of diverse ideological persuasions. 
Historically, such an approach has been a basis of much consensus
building, which I believe characterizes much of the good work of the
National Coalition for Literacy.  However, such consensus has often been
built on a somewhat narrow  interest politics, which unwittingly or not,
typically reinforces a cost-benefit utilitarian mindset.

With Rawls, as well as with others, notably Robert Bellah and his
colleagues in Habits of the Heart and The Good Society (must reads!) as
well as Benjamin Barber in A Passion for Democracy:  American Essays and
the more conservative Walter Lippman (1937) The Good Society, I am
arguing that the philosophical and political basis for such a consensus
needs to be based on something substantive and not merely what arises
amongst the community of participants themselves, given the invariable
(and salutary!) pluralism characteristic of the divergent perspectives of
those engaged.  

In Rawlsean terms, such consensus can never emerge through the plurality
of "comprehensive doctrines" that comprise the full range of the field. 
The issue is whether or not there is a coordinating principle or
perspective, a profound minimalism that can evoke widespread agreement,
notwithstanding the notable differences in comprehensive doctrines.  

On this list, both Catherine King and I have argued for the importance of
US constitutional democracy and the Commonwealth principles upon which
these are premised clearly a utopian vision (or in less dramatic terms,
an ideal) that can ground and guide praxis.  That is (I am suggesting)
these principles represent an ideal or what William James refers to as a
"live hypothesis" grounded in the ethos of the US political culture and
axiomatic to its ling term vitality. 

With you, Tom, I agree that there are grounds for discriminating
discussions both with the more thoughtful and less polemical
neoconservatives both within the political and religious spheres.  One of
the questions I have is whether the U.S. left is willing to embrace the
US configurational and democratic traditions as a primary operative
framework for a critical engagement of the politics of literacy at least
as applied within the context of this nation's political culture

In terms of the political right, particularly given the emphasis on
patriotism, "American values," and a high respect, if not a deification
of the founding constitutional traditions, there is more than a little
room for serious and sustained dialogue, notwithstanding the specter of
false consciousness and hidden curriculums that many on the left,
attribute (not without reason) to the right.  I also share much of this
skepticism; recall my recent post Science & Ideology at the USDE.  Yet,
if our objective is strategic and pragmatic (and I'm drawing on the
philosophical pragmatic tradition here), then perhaps there are crevices
through which to identify some common ground--that ground being at least
in terms of broad principles, the US constitutional and democratic
tradition, however variously defined on the specifics:

"where words are not empty and deeds not brutal, where words are not used
to veil intentions but to disclose realities, and deeds are not used to
violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new realities"
(Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition).

All skepticism aside, the political object here is to hold the patriotic
right to its word and to insist upon a sincere and probing quest for "A
More Perfect Union" as the uttermost trajectory of the "American way of
life" and not to cede one inch of that ground to the neo-conservatives,
but to claim it as an American birthright.  I believe this is exactly
what Jessie Jackson Jr. is doing in his new book.  Let us also recall
that Martin Luther King Jr. drew on this fundamental birthright in his I
Have a Dream Speech.  What a great neglect it is to cede such ground to
the neoconservatives in the name of skepticism or in the name of a
pedagogy of the oppressed which lacks the praxeological efficacy to
substantially insinuate itself within the political culture of this
country.  Is not "A More Perfect Union" a much more viable nearer term
utopian vision for the United States of America than that of A Pedagogy
of the Oppressed" (Freire) or A Critical Pedagogy of the Opposition?
(Giroux)" 

If so, a fleshing out of such politics both at the level of scholarship
and praxis will require much hard work, but an effort worth the sweat
equity if the result is a viable politics of literacy that can at least
provide the *framework* for a viable politics of literacy for the
democratic republic of the United States of America.  Whether or not this
is viable I cannot say that I know. 

One thing that I can say with near certainty is that unless this
traditions is plumbed to the depths, profoundly explored by the moderate
left and right as well as the mainstream, I believe with every fiber of
my being that there is no practical consensus available in the land of
literacy in the United States of America. Whether that in itself is a
negative is also a matter of debate, but if under the guise of certain
streams of "realism" and cynicism the effort to work out a politics of
literacy out of this tradition is not seriously enjoined we will never
know experientially either the limits *or* the extent of its
possibilities.  Let me rest on this point here.

In terms of other cultural resources with "our potential allies," given
the importance of the volunteer ethos in adult literacy and the ethos of
voluntarism as a powerful cultural ideal within the iconography of the
American imagination, there is a powerful bridge here between
conservatives and progressives to find common cause.  

On this, I would emphasize two points.  I think the progressive community
has the right to call the conservatives on the professed values to which
they attribute to this ethos.  That is, if you truly believe in this
ethos "where words are not used to veil intentions but to disclose
realities" then commit to this value system with your heart, strength,
soul mind, and pocket book and do not use it as a marginalizing veil
simply to promote an unrestrained capitalism.  Voluntarism and greed do
not mix at the level "where words are...used to disclose realities."

I would also challenge the progressive community to view the voluntary
sector as a viable resource and rich cultural tradition, to participate
in its strengthening, to promote its values and embrace ut, not as a
panacea to rich governmental involvement in the social, economic issues
of the national life, but as a profound supplement.  

Very closely related to the strengthening of the voluntary ethos is the
strengthening of mediating institutions as a primary contribution of
adult literacy education to the public good as reflected in the countless
ways that adult literacy learners experience life enhancement *in part*
as a result of increased literacy.  Given the ethnographic research
tradition, it would be fairly easy to demonstrate with example after
example the many ways that adult literacy learners more effectively
enhance their own lives and those of others at work, home, and in the
community.  

That is, it would be fairly easy to demonstrate if such efficacy were
viewed as valuable rather than consigned to the dustpins of marginality
by a certain way of looking at things that places cost-benefits
utilitarian counting ahead of both the inalienable rights of which
Chisman speaks and the "modest," but significant impact of adult literacy
in the places where people live.  If I really wanted to play this card, I
could provide example after example that really gets at this, but will
pass for the purpose of staying focused on the core argument.  Simply
put, the issue is not efficacy.  Adult literacy education is efficacious
in the lives of individuals.  Rather, it is a matter of values all the
way down.  What counts is what is valued as worthy.  Can we find a deeper
taproot to ground a public justification for adult literacy education
that that which currently exists?  I believe we can as part and parcel of
the quest for "A More Perfect Union," the surface of which only, is
scratched in this message.

Finally Tom, to your last point in terms of alliances with the religious
community, I believe there are ways of tapping in here as well, which,
for those who are able and willing to draw on principles of biblical
social justice as articulated particularly by the great Hebrew Prophet,
Isaiah as well as in the Christian tradition in the teaching of Jesus,
there is a very profound rich resource.  Great care would need to be
taken here on a variety of levels and for a variety of reasons.  Yet the
religious communities could be a tremendous resource upon which to draw
to develop taproots of support for adult literacy, though on sharply
different grounds than that of a politics in the quest to establish "A
More Perfect Union."  

One common link though (since they have both secular and religious
referents) is the volunteer ethos and support of the strengthening of
mediating institutions.  To put it in Rawlsean terms, one might say that
the religious communities have their own "comprehensive doctrines" to
which they must adhere in order to remain true to what they are.  Yet
they can participate in the Overlapping Consensus based on constitutional
premises in alliance with others, say, advocates of critical pedagogy who
have their own comprehensive doctrines.  

Thus, for the sake of discussion, both conservative Christians and
secular progressive advocates of the critical pedagogy persuasion can
find a common referent in support of adult literacy based upon the
political ideal of "A More Perfect Union," while being motivated more
comprehensively by their own contrasting visions and world views.  Thus,
without this middling ground conservative Christians and secular
proponents of critical pedagogy would be consigned in one manner or
another to convert or beat the other (or short of that retreating into an
isolating enclave).  Yet, if both are able to adhere to the ideal of A
More Perfect Union as an overlapping minimalism there very well may be
viable grounds for a mediating consensus.  

However, we will never know unless this viewpoint is given full girth to
realize the potentiality resident in its vision.  Do we dare puruse our
better angels in the quest for "A More Perfect Union?  Senator Boxer, are
you listening yet?

George Demetrion
Political Philosopher in training

(snipit)

>Historically, the attitude on the Right concerning "the illiterate" 
>had>everything to do with human capital and a mindset that these folks 
>were>just plain lazy and could never be of any siginificant value to the
>society.  However, these opinions and the policies flowing from them
>emanated largely from corporate-funded think-tanks. I think there are
>sectors on the Right...particularly rank and file church people...who
>identify with much of the Right's social agenda...but because these
>"losers" are friends, neighbors, and/or family members, they really do
>believe in the fundamental worth of this largely invisible group of 
>people.
>
>
>How do we connect with these potential allies...many of whom are far 
>more invested personally than many of us?  I'm at a very local level; I 
>don't have a sense of the national coalitions...or potential coalitions,
but I think progressive minded people need to be creative in looking at
who'swith us and who's agin' us.  I know many of our literacy volunteers
are coming out of a religious mission and from their belief in the worth
and value of their students.  There's got to be a way of tapping this
network.

________________________________________________________________
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


From JCretella at aol.com  Tue Mar  5 11:50:03 2002
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:50:03 EST
Subject: [NLA] Adult Literacy &n the American Dream:  A Brief Review
Message-ID: <175.48cc73c.29b6513b@aol.com>

Tom..I read your post to George...Those of us that work with the Coalitions 
you mention are just like you..You have already tapped into these groups 
through the many diverse groups which belong to the coalition. I can't think 
of a single issue or opinion that has not been exprtessed by someone or 
another at a coalition meeting. many are the same people you encounter on 
this list...Hope this gives you some hope!!! Jay cretella
_______________________________________________
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


From tsticht at aznet.net  Tue Mar  5 14:16:01 2002
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 12:16:01 -0700
Subject: [NLA] support for advocacy
Message-ID: <3C85196F.6819@aznet.net>

What a difference a couple of year makes. Here are a couple of recent
items that have made me scratch my head in puzzlement. I wonder if they 
affect other NLA list members in a similar manner. Tom Sticht

Item 1: Determining the scale of need for adult education and literacy
development. 

In 2001. In a research note in June of last year I noted that in January
2001, a final technical report on the National Adult Literacy Survey was
published by NCES entitled: Technical Report and Data File User?s Manual
for the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey, NCES 2001-457, January
2001. I reported that Chapter 14, written by Andrew Kolstad, the
original project director for the NALS at NCES,  systematically
undermined the entire test and questioned its construct validity, that
is, the question of just what it is that the test measures, its
standards validity, that is,  the validity of the 80 percent probability
standard that was used to assign people to the five literacy levels, and
the use validity, that is, the validity of the NALS for accurately
identifying adults at risk for poor literacy skills. In a July 17, 2001
article in the Washington Post Kolstad confirmed his thinking about the
standards validity position and argued that instead of the 80 percent
response probability, a much higher level of validity in making
inferences about adult?s literacy skills was made if a response
probability of .50 was used. In short, one of the reasons why adults who
were classified as poorly literate and placed in levels 1 or 2 of the
NALS when they thought they were fairly literate was that they were
likely classified incorrectly by the use of the 80 percent RP standard. 

In 2002. Fast forward to this year. In a recent posting Debby D?Amico
points to a new research report from the National Center for Adult
Learning and Literacy, called Building a Level Playing Field, that uses
what according to Kolstad are the old,  invalid NALS data, as a large
part of the basis used to establish the scale of need for adult basic
skills education in the U. S. I didn't find anything in the report that
countered Kolstad?s data questioning the validity of the NALS from the
final technical report. This suggests to me that using the NCSALL report
as a source for establishing the scale of need for advocacy could be
misleading. The authors go on to say that the new National Assessment of
Adult Literacy (NAAL) will use much the same methodology that was used
in the NALS so that ten year trends can be determined. I wonder if this
means that the NAAL will overcome the issues of validity raised by
Kolstad regarding the NALS? I also wonder if anyone cares about data on
the scale of need or how accurate it is. I seem to recall that in
Massachusetts despite the considerable publicity in the media after the
MassInc report on New Skills for a New Economy came out, using
essentially the same methodology for determining the scale of need for
adult education and literacy development in Massachusetts as the recent
report on Leveling the Playing Field, the Massachusetts legislature cut
the adult education budget by 40 percent or so anyhow. Skillful advocacy
got most of the money back but I don?t know how much this depended on
the scale of need data from the MassInc report. 

Item 2. The push to raise the education bar from high school to
post-secondary education. 

In 2000. In a post on the NLA list I cited the Thursday Notes for March
16,2000, an electronic newsletter attributed as From the Desk of Ron
Pugsley, then Director of the U. S. Department of Education?s Division
of Adult Education and Literacy which said QUOTE "Jobs requiring an
associate's degree or higher account for
 just 16% of actual job
openings, 
 Meanwhile, nearly one third of 25-29 year-olds attain
bachelor's or associate's degrees and will compete for those jobs."
UNQUOTE At the time I mentioned that this suggests a "surplus" of
post-secondary educated adults over the jobs requiring this much
education.

In 2001. In a research note last year I mentioned a new report by
Carnevale and Desrochers (2001) called Help Wanted
Credentials Required
which presented data showing that  from 1973 to 1998 the percentage of
prime-age workers (both male and female) with some college/AA degree
more than doubled,  from 12 percent to 27 percent.  But from 1979 to
1998 earnings (in constant 1996 dollars) of prime-age male workers
(30-59 years old) declined for those who failed to finish high school,
those with a high school diploma, AND those with some college or an AA
degree. These data lead to questions as to the likely outcomes of
educating more and more people to higher and higher levels of education.
Was it possible that as more and more people acquire higher education
credentials and higher literacy skills wages will fall because employers
have a larger pool of better qualified workers from which to recruit? 
Is that what happened from 1979 to 1998 as the percentages of men with
some college or AA degrees increased, and wages for these men decreased
(in constant 1996 dollars)? 

In 2002. Fast forward to this year. In the report called Building a
Level Playing Field  the authors argue that the new economy calls for
educating more and more adults up to post-secondary levels. A similar
call is made in the report entitled Adult Literacy & the American Dream
by Forrest Chisman from the Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy
(CAAL) (this report was recently reviewed by George Demetrion on the NLA
list). Neither report addresses the issues raised by Pugsley?s 2000
newsletter about the supply of adults with post-secondary and bachelor?s
degrees far exceeding the availability of jobs requiring this much
education, or the work of Carnevale and Desrochers suggesting that if
more and more adults are educated to post-secondary levels, wages are
likely to drop for these adults (at least for men; women with
post-secondary education did not show the same drop in wages as for men
in the Carnevale & Desrochers report, but women earned less than men in
all categories of education). 

In short, these recent calls for raising the education standard for
adults from a high school diploma to some post-secondary education would
seem to set up a condition that once again points to the possibility of
driving up educational achievement such that the supply of adults with
post-secondary education exceeds the demand to the point where wages for
adults with post-secondary education are driven down even more than in
the report by Carnevale and Desrochers.

All these various research studies seem to set up conflicting and
sometimes contradictory messages about the scale of need for adult
education and literacy development in the United States. What is an
advocate to do? Can anything be done to provide advocates with accurate,
valid, consistent, and convincing information about  how many adults in
the U. S. need adult education and literacy development, and how many
want it? Does anyone care?
_______________________________________________
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


From JCGordon at fortunesociety.org  Tue Mar  5 18:27:59 2002
From: JCGordon at fortunesociety.org (John Gordon)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 18:27:59 -0500
Subject: [NLA] COABE Plantation Tour
Message-ID: <sc850e4e.075@mail.fortunesociety.org>

Hi,

First of all, thanks to Janet for raising this important issue. Since getting it, I've been puzzling a bit about how to respond in a way that moves us forward. I have to admit, first of all, that I know nothing about COABE. I've never been to one of their conferences and even had to go to the website to find out what the CO in their name means. This may say more about me than the organization, but, honestly, I've been a director of a literacy program in New York for 17 years and I don't think I have ever heard anyone mention COABE in a meeting or discussion in all that time. Still though, I suspect the organization has more influence than my awareness of it would indicate and it raises, for me, the issue of who speaks for the field and from what perspective they are speaking. I don't have any idea how decisions are made in COABE or to what extent this incident is representative of the attitudes of its membership or leadership, but it does feel like it signals a need for an introspective look at what the organization is all about. 

I don't think we can separate our literacy work issues of race and class. Like it or not, our teaching, administrative decisions, and advocacy are infused with our attitudes on these issues. This discussion has been good so far, but I feel it raises larger questions that need more thoughtful consideration. Hopefully, it will spark a larger discussion about the ways issues of race and literacy work are interrelated and perhaps will help us move towards a more inclusive and critical awareness as a field. Certainly, those folks who are members of or participants in COABE need to address what is happening in that organization. 

But it's not only in the South that race continues to play a key role in determining who has access to education, jobs, social and political power. Questions about standardized testing, family literacy, access to education for welfare recipients, access to funding, all get approached through the prism of race--if not by us than by the people who make the decisions. What does it mean, for example, that the president is proposing to eliminate funding for prison literacy and incarcerated youth? How does he understand that and how do we understand it? Isn't that something we should be fighting over? When we walk into a congressperson's office, what are we actually advocating for, and what compromises are we willing to make? What significance does the continued presence of a Confederate Flag on South Carolina capital grounds have for a literacy conference planned for that state? 

I'm not sure how to move this discussion forward; perhaps folks a little more connected than I am will have a better idea. But I do think this question touches all of us and we need to find a way to address it in an ongoing and thoroughgoing way.

John Gordon

John Gordon
Education Director
The Fortune Society
53 West 23rd Street, 7th Floor
NYC, NY 10010
(212) 691-7554  ext. 516
jcgordon at fortunesociety.org


>>> Dani Moore <dani at unc.edu> 03/03/02 07:01PM >>>
Hello, everyone,

Unless I've missed it in one of the emails so far, I haven't seen any
mention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People's (NAACP's) economic boycott of South Carolina. For two years,
the NAACP has been waging the boycott over the issue of the Confederate
Flag. In 2000, the state's tourist industry lost over $100 million
dollars as a result of the boycott, which persuaded lawmakers to remove
the flag from inside the Capitol's chambers and from atop the dome. Yet,
the flag still flies on capital grounds and the boycott continues.

Many national and regional organizations have canceled meetings in the
state to support the NAACP efforts, including the National Association
of Federal and Postal Employees, the American Bar Association, Southeast
Conference United Church of Christ, the National Urban League,
Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Association of American
Colleges and Universities.

There is also recent news on this boycott:
http://www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/280103p-2528512c.html 

I think this is an interesting dimension of the discussion, and I hope
it won't be overlooked in the dialogue here and at the conference. 

Best to all,

---------------------------------
Dani Moore
Training and Technical Assistance Coordinator
Student Coalition for Action in Literacy Education (SCALE)
dani at unc.edu     919.962.1542     
http://www.unc.edu/depts/scale 
_______________________________________________
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


From DJRosen at theworld.com  Tue Mar  5 19:31:00 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 19:31:00 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Measuring demand and latent demand
References: <3C85196F.6819@aznet.net>
Message-ID: <3C856344.4010700@theworld.com>

Tom and other NLA Colleagues,

Thomas Sticht wrote:

>All these various research studies seem to set up conflicting and
>sometimes contradictory messages about the scale of need for adult
>education and literacy development in the United States. What is an
>advocate to do? Can anything be done to provide advocates with accurate,
>valid, consistent, and convincing information about  how many adults in
>the U. S. need adult education and literacy development, and how many
>want it? Does anyone care?
>

I think it would be fruitful to find out what the actual demand is for 
adult education services, as measured by enrollment waiting lists (where 
they exist) and to try to get a measure on "latent demand," that is,  a 
measure (or measures) that would represent the number of people who -- 
if they knew the services were available, and if the  services were 
available at convenient times and places -- would enroll. Tom, I wonder 
if you -- or if other researchers on the NLA list -- have some thoughts 
about how we could get a reasonably accurate measure of latent demand.

David J. Rosen
<DJRosen at theworld.com>

_______________________________________________
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


From sophocles5 at juno.com  Tue Mar  5 23:58:21 2002
From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 20:58:21 -0800
Subject: [NLA] (A few corrections)  A More Perfect Union
Message-ID: <20020305.210449.9262.1.sophocles5@juno.com>

My spell check went a bit haywire.  Let me post this with the right words
in place (GD).
______________________________________________________________

(Unavoidably lengthy.  If interested, I would suggest printing it out and
reading when time is available).

Tom and others

First Tom, thanks for your comments.

Clearly, for a variety of reasons, a broad-based inclusive consensus is
problematic in such a pluralistic country as the US for a number of key
reasons.  This has been discussed so I won't belabor that here.  Though I
would say, with Merrifield and others, notwithstanding the difficulties I
see little choice but in pursuit of such consensus at least at the level
of affecting national policy and public opinion.  

Such consensus seeking does not mean that I surrender my own
understanding of  literacy or give up on my peculiar approach to
practice, but that in Rawlsean terms, I participate in an "Overlapping
Consensus" if the framework for that is based on sound principles and
effective practices (of coalition building, network strengthening, and
policy influencing).  

In this scenario, I adhere to my (what Rawls refers to as) more
"comprehensive doctrines (e.g., critical pedagogy, philosophical
pragmatism, "scientific-based" research (or whatever) with as much rigor
as I can muster at the level of my own praxis.  I also seek to inject my
perspective within the particular spheres of influence that are available
to me and even to seek to influence the body politic or the community of
adult literacy scholars and practitioners to the extent I am able,
without basing my willingness to participate on the efficacy of such
influence.

Yet in entering the public square in collaboration with others,
particularly in seeking to influence national policy, I need to assume a
more minimalist position *with regards to strengthening a viable
consensus* amongst people of diverse ideological persuasions. 
Historically, such an approach has been a basis of much consensus
building, which I believe characterizes much of the good work of the
National Coalition for Literacy.  However, such consensus has often been
built on a somewhat narrow  interest politics, which unwittingly or not,
typically reinforces a cost-benefit utilitarian mindset.

With Rawls, as well as with others, notably Robert Bellah and his
colleagues in Habits of the Heart and The Good Society (must reads!) as
well as Benjamin Barber in A Passion for Democracy:  American Essays and
the more conservative Walter Lippman (1937) The Good Society, I am
arguing that the philosophical and political basis for such a consensus
needs to be based on something substantive and not merely what arises
amongst the community of participants themselves, given the invariable
(and salutary!) pluralism characteristic of the divergent perspectives of
those engaged.  

In Rawlsean terms, such consensus can never emerge through the plurality
of "comprehensive doctrines" that comprise the full range of the field. 
The issue is whether or not there is a coordinating principle or
perspective, a profound minimalism that can evoke widespread agreement,
notwithstanding the notable differences in comprehensive doctrines.  

On this list, both Catherine King and I have argued for the importance of
US constitutional democracy and the Commonwealth principles upon which
these are premised clearly a utopian vision (or in less dramatic terms,
an ideal) that can ground and guide praxis.  That is (I am suggesting)
these principles represent an ideal or what William James refers to as a
"live hypothesis" grounded in the ethos of the US political culture and
axiomatic to its long term vitality. 

With you, Tom, I agree that there are grounds for discriminating
discussions both with the more thoughtful and less polemical
neoconservatives both within the political and religious spheres.  One of
the questions I have is whether the U.S. left is willing to embrace the
US constitutional and democratic traditions as a primary operative
framework for a critical engagement of the politics of literacy at least
as applied within the context of this nation's political culture

In terms of the political right, particularly given the emphasis on
patriotism, "American values," and a high respect, if not a deification
of the founding constitutional traditions, there is more than a little
room for serious and sustained dialogue, notwithstanding the specter of
false consciousness and hidden curriculums that many on the left,
attribute (not without reason) to the right.  I also share much of this
skepticism; recall my recent post Science & Ideology at the USDE.  Yet,
if our objective is strategic and pragmatic (and I'm drawing on the
philosophical pragmatic tradition here), then perhaps there are crevices
through which to identify some common ground--that ground being at least
in terms of broad principles, the US constitutional and democratic
tradition, however variously defined on the specifics:

"where words are not empty and deeds not brutal, where words are not used
to veil intentions but to disclose realities, and deeds are not used to
violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new realities"
(Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition).

All skepticism aside, the political object here is to hold the patriotic
right to its word and to insist upon a sincere and probing quest for "A
More Perfect Union" as the uttermost trajectory of the "American way of
life" and not to cede one inch of that ground to the neo-conservatives,
but to claim it as an American birthright.  I believe this is exactly
what Jessie Jackson Jr. is doing in his new book.  Let us also recall
that Martin Luther King Jr. drew on this fundamental birthright in his I
Have a Dream Speech.  What a great neglect it is to cede such ground to
the neoconservatives in the name of skepticism or in the name of a
pedagogy of the oppressed which lacks the praxeological efficacy to
substantially insinuate itself within the political culture of this
country.  Is not "A More Perfect Union" a much more viable nearer term
utopian vision for the United States of America than that of A Pedagogy
of the Oppressed" (Freire) or A Critical Pedagogy of the Opposition?
(Giroux)" 

If so, a fleshing out of such politics both at the level of scholarship
and praxis will require much hard work, but an effort worth the sweat
equity if the result is a vibrant politics of literacy that can at least
provide the *framework* for a viable politics of literacy for the
democratic republic of the United States of America.  Whether or not this
is viable I cannot say that I know. 

One thing that I can say with near certainty is that unless this
tradition is plumbed to the depths and profoundly explored by the
moderate
left and right as well as the mainstream, I believe with every fiber of
my being that there is no practical consensus available in the land of
literacy in the United States of America. Whether that in itself is a
negative is also a matter of debate, but if under the guise of certain
streams of "realism" and cynicism the effort to work out a politics of
literacy out of this tradition is not seriously enjoined we will never
know experientially either the limits *or* the extent of its
possibilities.  Let me rest on this point here.

In terms of other cultural resources with "our potential allies," given
the importance of the volunteer ethos in adult literacy and the ethos of
voluntarism as a powerful cultural ideal within the iconography of the
American imagination, there is a powerful bridge here between
conservatives and progressives to find common cause.  

On this, I would emphasize two points.  I think the progressive community
has the right to call the conservatives on the professed values to which
they attribute to this ethos.  That is, if you truly believe in this
ethos "where words are not used to veil intentions but to disclose
realities" then commit to this value system with your heart, strength,
soul, mind, and pocket book and do not use it as a marginalizing veil
simply to promote an unrestrained capitalism.  Voluntarism and greed do
not mix at the level "where words are...used to disclose realities."

I would also challenge the progressive left community to view the
voluntary
sector as a viable resource and rich cultural tradition, to participate
in its strengthening, to promote its values and embrace ut, not as a
panacea to rich governmental involvement in the social, economic issues
of the national life, but as a profound supplement.  

Very closely related to the strengthening of the voluntary ethos is the
strengthening of mediating institutions as a primary contribution of
adult literacy education to the public good as reflected in the countless
ways that adult literacy learners experience life enhancement *in part*
as a result of increased literacy.  Given the ethnographic research
tradition, it would be fairly easy to demonstrate with example after
example the many ways that adult literacy learners more effectively
enhance their own lives and those of others at work, home, and in the
community.  

That is, it would be fairly easy to demonstrate if such efficacy were
viewed as valuable rather than consigned to the dustpins of marginality
by a certain way of looking at things that places cost-benefits
utilitarian counting ahead of both the inalienable rights of which
Chisman speaks and the "modest," but significant impact of adult literacy
in the places where people live.  If I really wanted to play this card, I
could provide example after example that really gets at this, but will
pass for the purpose of staying focused on the core argument.  Simply
put, the issue is not efficacy.  Adult literacy education is efficacious
in the lives of individuals.  Rather, it is a matter of values all the
way down.  What counts is what is valued as worthy.  Can we find a deeper
taproot to ground a public justification for adult literacy education
than that which currently exists?  I believe we can as part and parcel of
the quest for "A More Perfect Union," the surface of which only, is
scratched in this message.

Finally Tom, to your last point in terms of alliances with the religious
community, I believe there are ways of tapping in here as well, which,
for those who are able and willing to draw on principles of biblical
social justice as articulated particularly by the great Hebrew Prophet,
Isaiah as well as in the Christian tradition in the teaching of Jesus,
there is a very profound rich resource.  Great care would need to be
taken here on a variety of levels and for a variety of reasons.  Yet the
religious communities could be a tremendous resource upon which to draw
to develop taproots of support for adult literacy, though on sharply
different grounds than that of a politics in quest to establish "A
More Perfect Union."  

One common link though (since they have both secular and religious
referents) is the volunteer ethos and support of the strengthening of
mediating institutions.  To put it in Rawlsean terms, one might say that
the religious communities have their own "comprehensive doctrines" to
which they must adhere in order to remain true to what they are.  Yet
they can participate in the Overlapping Consensus based on constitutional
premises in alliance with others, say, advocates of critical pedagogy who
have their own comprehensive doctrines.  

Thus, for the sake of discussion, both conservative Christians and
secular progressive advocates of the critical pedagogy persuasion can
find a common referent in support of adult literacy based upon the
political ideal of "A More Perfect Union" while being motivated more
comprehensively by their own contrasting visions and world views.  Thus,
without this middling ground conservative Christians and secular
proponents of critical pedagogy would be consigned in one manner or
another to convert or beat the other (or short of that retreating into an
isolating enclave).  Yet, if both are able to adhere to the ideal of A
More Perfect Union as an overlapping minimalism there very well may be
viable grounds for a mediating consensus.  

However, we will never know unless this viewpoint is given full girth to
realize the potentiality resident in its vision.  Do we dare puruse our
better angels in the quest for "A More Perfect Union?  Senator Boxer, are
you listening yet?

George Demetrion
Political Philosopher in training

(snipit)

>Historically, the attitude on the Right concerning "the illiterate" 
>had>everything to do with human capital and a mindset that these folks 
>were>just plain lazy and could never be of any siginificant value to the
>society.  However, these opinions and the policies flowing from them
>emanated largely from corporate-funded think-tanks. I think there are
>sectors on the Right...particularly rank and file church people...who
>identify with much of the Right's social agenda...but because these
>"losers" are friends, neighbors, and/or family members, they really do
>believe in the fundamental worth of this largely invisible group of 
>people.
>
>
>How do we connect with these potential allies...many of whom are far 
>more invested personally than many of us?  I'm at a very local level; I 
>don't have a sense of the national coalitions...or potential coalitions,
but I think progressive minded people need to be creative in looking at
who'swith us and who's agin' us.  I know many of our literacy volunteers
are coming out of a religious mission and from their belief in the worth
and value of their students.  There's got to be a way of tapping this
network.

________________________________________________________________
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
--------- End forwarded message ----------
--------- End forwarded 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


From JCretella at aol.com  Tue Mar  5 21:21:08 2002
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:21:08 EST
Subject: [NLA] COABE Plantation Tour
Message-ID: <166.9d8e4bb.29b6d714@aol.com>

John, COABE was a "commission" of AAACE until 2 years ago when  it became an 
independent organization... Per haps you went to a AAACE conference. There 
usually was a Commission meeting. But we have been having our own National 
conference for years, even while associated with AAACE. Come to one of 
conferences...We are really practicioner oriented..Regards , Jay Cretella, 
COABE Legislative Liaison...
_______________________________________________
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


From RBickerton at doe.mass.edu  Tue Mar  5 21:33:50 2002
From: RBickerton at doe.mass.edu (Bickerton, Robert P)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:33:50 -0500
Subject: [NLA] support for advocacy
Message-ID: <DE4FCD18CD7FD4118C8C00D0B774DDA405BE7782@mail.doe.mass.edu>

 Tom, et al,

There are few adult educators across our fifty states who pay as much
attention as I do to your (Tom Sticht's) analysis of issues that confront
our field.  Rarely do I find myself coming to a different conclusion.  Such
is the case, however, with at least a couple of points you raised in your
3/5/02 posting.  Following are my thoughts about a couple of the reports you
cite and some different conclusions about their place in advocacy.

The controversy about the 80% cut point used by the NALS has been with us
for some time.  If I recall, you were one of a number of researchers who
cautioned USDOE and the field to use the more widely accepted 60% cut point
used by the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress -- 4th, 8th
and 12th? grade tests) and some other similar instruments.  Kolstad's
arguement that it should have been set at 50% pushes this arguement even
further from the cut points that were actually used.  Both you and Kolstad
are better trained and prepared than I to engage these issues -- however,
I'm sure you won't be surprised that I'm willing to jump into the fray
regardless.  I understand and have followed the arguements about false
positives, but will submit once again an arguement I made almost a decade
ago as the first round of this furor raged (by the way, there's no
comparable "furor" or "rage" this time around -- it's more like a tempest in
a teapot):  cut scores are NOT arrived at solely as a matter of resolving
technical measurement issues -- they are also driven by the context(s) of
the claims that one wishes to make about the results of an assessment AND
these include no small measure of philosophical and political judgements.
In a simplified view of these issues, it's easy to understand how the cut
scores for "proficient" vs. "mastery" would be different.  With large scale
literacy assessments, cut scores are influenced by whether we want to know
if someone's knowledge, skills and abilities are "adequate" for some purpose
or, to the hackneyed phrase/"standard," "world class."  My point is, there
are many who could and have argued that the 80% cut point didn't reflect
false positives, it reflected what we should/need to be expecting as a level
of performance in today's increasingly demanding environments -- at the
workplace, at home, making judgements about public policy issues in our
communities (e.g., environmental), et al.  By the way, I'm not supporting
the 80% cut point, I'm simply pointing out that it can be argued from many
points of view.  

Now to what feels like firmer ground for me.  
>From a public policy perspective, I am more interested in arriving at a
consensus among the adult education/literacy, research, measurement and
other interested/invested communities about what the cut point for the new
NAAL should be than I am in any particular percentage.  The most destructive
dynamic surrounding NALS data was not whether the "actual" (estimated) level
of need for our services was 90 million, 60 million, or even half that
number.  It was that in making the case -- in good faith -- that the current
service delivery system is inadequately supported in terms of BOTH the
adequacy of quality and quantity of services, that this controversy about
the cut points would be inserted and momentum for a response would be
deflated.  My experience is that the thoughtful critique of really good
people was coopted by those antagonistic to our field and people we seek to
serve.  I am hopeful that we can do a better job of "singing with one voice"
the next time around -- we'll get a hell of a lot further to the extent that
we can and do.

Now on to your reference to what happened in Massachusetts.  I can
understand how you and others may have come to the conclusions summarized in
your post, but it's simply just not correct.  The fact is that the MassInc
Report has been extraordinarily well received across virtually all policy
and elected leaders as well as business and labor leaders in our state.  The
fact is that even in the depths of the budget crisis in Massachusetts, a
substantial majority of state representatives and senators were solid
supporters of ABE/literacy.  Yes, this reality has been the result of many
years of skillful and tenacious advocacy -- but the MassInc Report has
demonstrably added momentum.  So, if all of this is true, how did we end up
confronting a cut of almost 50% and the dismantling of what we have been
building over the past decade?  The last minute cut to ABE and a few other
programs came from at most, one or two legislative leaders who made a
political calculation that there was more to gain by shifting this funding
to another more popular program than there was to lose from the
invisible/unempowered/non-constituencies" served by those programs.  Several
legislators who support ABE/literacy in our state warned them that this was
a miscalculation, however, the vote on the ENTIRE state budget was scheduled
for less than 24 hours from the time these cuts were announced.  No
amendments were allowed -- the budget, already 5 months late, had to be
voted up or down.  Still, the vote was delayed for several hours based on
resistance by ABE/literacy's supporters and went forward only after
assurances were received that it could (and would) be fixed.  Yes, an
extraordinarily powerful advocacy movement then ensured the turn-around --
to the point that ABE/literacy received one of the smallest cuts of all
state programs -- but the MassInc Report was frequently cited and used by a
whole host of constituencies along the way.  In fact, an extraordinary press
conference in which our state's top business and labor leaders stood side by
side and stated that while they didn't agree on many things, they were
united in their position that this cut was dumber than dirt (my poetic
license added) and had to be reversed.  

Now, the fact that the analysis used by the MassInc report was conducted and
signed off on by Harvard (NCSALL) and Northeastern (Center for Labor Market
Studies) Universities has a lot to do with its acceptance.  As I alluded to
earlier, I've been making the best case I can using the best (often only)
data available to me for decades, but whether the data I cite is on firmer
ground or not is irrelevant, I'm seen as a self-interested adult educator
and a bureaucrat to boot!  The bottom line -- what gains momentum will
almost always have more to do with perception and good marketing than with
technical merit -- although a good dose of the latter can be very helpful.  

I am very committed to finding common ground in how the NAAL can and should
be constructed, analyzed and used.  I hope we can get far more of us on the
same page this time around.

take care -- and hope we bump into each other sometime soon,
bob bickerton, MA director of adult ed

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Sticht
To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
Cc: tsticht at aznet.net
Sent: 3/5/02 2:16 PM
Subject: [NLA] support for advocacy

What a difference a couple of year makes. Here are a couple of recent
items that have made me scratch my head in puzzlement. I wonder if they 
affect other NLA list members in a similar manner. Tom Sticht

Item 1: Determining the scale of need for adult education and literacy
development. 

In 2001. In a research note in June of last year I noted that in January
2001, a final technical report on the National Adult Literacy Survey was
published by NCES entitled: Technical Report and Data File User's Manual
for the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey, NCES 2001-457, January
2001. I reported that Chapter 14, written by Andrew Kolstad, the
original project director for the NALS at NCES,  systematically
undermined the entire test and questioned its construct validity, that
is, the question of just what it is that the test measures, its
standards validity, that is,  the validity of the 80 percent probability
standard that was used to assign people to the five literacy levels, and
the use validity, that is, the validity of the NALS for accurately
identifying adults at risk for poor literacy skills. In a July 17, 2001
article in the Washington Post Kolstad confirmed his thinking about the
standards validity position and argued that instead of the 80 percent
response probability, a much higher level of validity in making
inferences about adult's literacy skills was made if a response
probability of .50 was used. In short, one of the reasons why adults who
were classified as poorly literate and placed in levels 1 or 2 of the
NALS when they thought they were fairly literate was that they were
likely classified incorrectly by the use of the 80 percent RP standard. 

In 2002. Fast forward to this year. In a recent posting Debby D'Amico
points to a new research report from the National Center for Adult
Learning and Literacy, called Building a Level Playing Field, that uses
what according to Kolstad are the old,  invalid NALS data, as a large
part of the basis used to establish the scale of need for adult basic
skills education in the U. S. I didn't find anything in the report that
countered Kolstad's data questioning the validity of the NALS from the
final technical report. This suggests to me that using the NCSALL report
as a source for establishing the scale of need for advocacy could be
misleading. The authors go on to say that the new National Assessment of
Adult Literacy (NAAL) will use much the same methodology that was used
in the NALS so that ten year trends can be determined. I wonder if this
means that the NAAL will overcome the issues of validity raised by
Kolstad regarding the NALS? I also wonder if anyone cares about data on
the scale of need or how accurate it is. I seem to recall that in
Massachusetts despite the considerable publicity in the media after the
MassInc report on New Skills for a New Economy came out, using
essentially the same methodology for determining the scale of need for
adult education and literacy development in Massachusetts as the recent
report on Leveling the Playing Field, the Massachusetts legislature cut
the adult education budget by 40 percent or so anyhow. Skillful advocacy
got most of the money back but I don't know how much this depended on
the scale of need data from the MassInc report. 

Item 2. The push to raise the education bar from high school to
post-secondary education. 

In 2000. In a post on the NLA list I cited the Thursday Notes for March
16,2000, an electronic newsletter attributed as From the Desk of Ron
Pugsley, then Director of the U. S. Department of Education's Division
of Adult Education and Literacy which said QUOTE "Jobs requiring an
associate's degree or higher account for... just 16% of actual job
openings, ... Meanwhile, nearly one third of 25-29 year-olds attain
bachelor's or associate's degrees and will compete for those jobs."
UNQUOTE At the time I mentioned that this suggests a "surplus" of
post-secondary educated adults over the jobs requiring this much
education.

In 2001. In a research note last year I mentioned a new report by
Carnevale and Desrochers (2001) called Help Wanted...Credentials Required
which presented data showing that  from 1973 to 1998 the percentage of
prime-age workers (both male and female) with some college/AA degree
more than doubled,  from 12 percent to 27 percent.  But from 1979 to
1998 earnings (in constant 1996 dollars) of prime-age male workers
(30-59 years old) declined for those who failed to finish high school,
those with a high school diploma, AND those with some college or an AA
degree. These data lead to questions as to the likely outcomes of
educating more and more people to higher and higher levels of education.
Was it possible that as more and more people acquire higher education
credentials and higher literacy skills wages will fall because employers
have a larger pool of better qualified workers from which to recruit? 
Is that what happened from 1979 to 1998 as the percentages of men with
some college or AA degrees increased, and wages for these men decreased
(in constant 1996 dollars)? 

In 2002. Fast forward to this year. In the report called Building a
Level Playing Field  the authors argue that the new economy calls for
educating more and more adults up to post-secondary levels. A similar
call is made in the report entitled Adult Literacy & the American Dream
by Forrest Chisman from the Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy
(CAAL) (this report was recently reviewed by George Demetrion on the NLA
list). Neither report addresses the issues raised by Pugsley's 2000
newsletter about the supply of adults with post-secondary and bachelor's
degrees far exceeding the availability of jobs requiring this much
education, or the work of Carnevale and Desrochers suggesting that if
more and more adults are educated to post-secondary levels, wages are
likely to drop for these adults (at least for men; women with
post-secondary education did not show the same drop in wages as for men
in the Carnevale & Desrochers report, but women earned less than men in
all categories of education). 

In short, these recent calls for raising the education standard for
adults from a high school diploma to some post-secondary education would
seem to set up a condition that once again points to the possibility of
driving up educational achievement such that the supply of adults with
post-secondary education exceeds the demand to the point where wages for
adults with post-secondary education are driven down even more than in
the report by Carnevale and Desrochers.

All these various research studies seem to set up conflicting and
sometimes contradictory messages about the scale of need for adult
education and literacy development in the United States. What is an
advocate to do? Can anything be done to provide advocates with accurate,
valid, consistent, and convincing information about  how many adults in
the U. S. need adult education and literacy development, and how many
want it? Does anyone care?
_______________________________________________
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


From epssag at langate.gsu.edu  Wed Mar  6 09:28:22 2002
From: epssag at langate.gsu.edu (Sheryl Gowen)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:28:22 -0500
Subject: [NLA] support for advocacy
Message-ID: <sc85e13b.093@langate.gsu.edu>

Tom's message about scale of need and validity issues with the 1992 NALS raises the issue (once again) of who gets to decide what literacy is, who should have it, and for what purposes.  I have been thinking about these questions for a long time--and have begun work on a  retrospective of research and political rhetoric on this issue, going back to the early 1980's--A Nation at Risk, Jumpstart, the high stakes testing movement, the National Workplace Literacy Program, NALS, etc.  Any suggstions for my colleagues on this list about what else to include?  And, thanks to Tom (as usual) for his thoughtful analysis and technical expertise.

Sheryl Gowen, Associate Professor
Research, Measurement and Statistics
Department of Educational Policy Studies
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303-3083
(404) 651-1152
sgowen at gsu.edu

>>> tsticht at aznet.net 03/05/02 18:08 PM >>>
What a difference a couple of year makes. Here are a couple of recent
items that have made me scratch my head in puzzlement. I wonder if they 
affect other NLA list members in a similar manner. Tom Sticht

Item 1: Determining the scale of need for adult education and literacy
development. 

In 2001. In a research note in June of last year I noted that in January
2001, a final technical report on the National Adult Literacy Survey was
published by NCES entitled: Technical Report and Data File User's Manual
for the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey, NCES 2001-457, January
2001. I reported that Chapter 14, written by Andrew Kolstad, the
original project director for the NALS at NCES,  systematically
undermined the entire test and questioned its construct validity, that
is, the question of just what it is that the test measures, its
standards validity, that is,  the validity of th 80 percent probability
standard that was used to assign people to the five literacy levels, and
the use validity, that is, the validity of the NALS for accurately
identifying adults at risk for poor literacy skills. In a July 17, 2001
article in the Washington Post Kolstad confirmed his thinking about the
standards validity position and argued that instead of the 80 percent
response probability, a much higher level of validity in making
inferences about adult's literacy skills was made if a response
probability of .50 was used. In short, one of the reasons why adults who
were classified as poorly literate and placed in levels 1 or 2 of the
NALS when they thought they were fairly literate was that they were
likely classified incorrectly by the use of the 80 percent RP standard. 

In 2002. Fast forward to this year. In a recent posting Debby D'Amico
points to a new research report from the National Center for Adult
Learning and Literacy, called Building a Level Playing Field, that uses
what according to Kolstad are the old,  invalid NALS data, as a large
part of the basis used to establish the scale of need for adult basic
skills education in the U. S. I didn't find anything in the report that
countered Kolstad's data questioning the validity of the NALS from the
final technical report. This suggests to me that using the NCSALL report
as a source for establishing the scale of need for advocacy could be
misleading. The authors go on to say that the new National Assessment of
Adult Literacy (NAAL) will use much the same methodology that was used
in the NALS so that ten year trends can be determined. I wonder if this
means that the NAAL will overcome the issues of validity raised by
Kolstad regarding the NALS? I also wonder if anyone cares about data on
the scale of need or how accurate it is. I seem to recall that in
Massachusetts despite the considerable publicity in the media after the
MassInc report on New Skills for a New Economy came out, using
essentially the same methodology or determining the scale of need for
adult education and literacy development in Massachusetts as the recent
report on Leveling the Playing Field, the Massachusetts legislature cut
the adult education budget by 40 percent or so anyhow. Skillful advocacy
got most of the money back but I don't know how much this depended on
the scale of need data from the MassInc report. 

Item 2. The push to raise the education bar from high school to
post-secondary education. 

In 2000. In a post on the NLA list I cited the Thursday Notes for March
16,2000, an electronic newsletter attributed as From the Desk of Ron
Pugsley, then Director of the U. S. Department of Education's Division
of Adult Education and Literacy which said QUOTE "Jobs requiring an
associate's degree or higher account for* just 16% of actual job
openings, * Meanwhile, nearly one third of 25-29 year-olds attain
bachelor's or associate's degrees and will compete for those jobs."
UNQUOTE At the time I mentioned that this suggests a "surplus" of
post-secondary educated adults over the jobs requiring this much
education.

In 2001. In a research note last year I mentioned a new report by
Carnevale and Desrochers (2001) called Help Wanted*Credentials Required
which presented data showing that  from 1973 to 1998 the percentage of
prime-age workers (both male and female) with some college/AA degree
more than doubled,  from 12 percent to 27 percent.  But from 1979 to
1998 earnings (in constant 1996 dollars) of prime-age male workers
(30-59 years old) declined for those who failed to finish high school,
those with a high school diploma, AND those with some college or an AA
degree. These data lead to questions as to the likely outcomes of
educating more and more people to higher and higher levels of education.
Was it possible that as more and more people acquire higher education
credentials and higher literacy skills wages will fall because employers
have a larger pool of better qualified workers from which to recruit? 
Is that wat happened from 1979 to 1998 as the percentages of men with
some college or AA degrees increased, and wages for these men decreased
(in constant 1996 dollars)? 

In 2002. Fast forward to this year. In the report called Building a
Level Playing Field  the authors argue that the new economy calls for
educating more and more adults up to post-secondary levels. A similar
call is made in the report entitled Adult Literacy & the American Dream
by Forrest Chisman from the Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy
(CAAL) (this report was recently reviewed by George Demetrion on the NLA
list). Neither report addresses the issues raised by Pugsley's 2000
newsletter about the supply of adults with post-secondary and bachelor's
degrees far exceeding the availability of jobs requiring this much
education, or the work of Carnevale and Desrochers suggesting that if
more and more adults are educated to post-secondary levels, wages are
likely to drop for these adults (at least for men; women with
post-secondary education did not show the same drop in wages as for men
in the Carnevale & Desrochers report, but women earned less than men in
all categories of education). 

In short, these recent calls for raising the education standard for
adults from a high school diploma to some post-secondary education would
seem to set up a condition that once again points to the possibility of
driving up educational achievement such that the supply of adults with
post-secondary education exceeds the demand to the point where wages for
adults with post-secondary education are driven down even more than in
the report by Carnevale and Desrochers.

All these various research studies seem to set up conflicting and
sometimes contradictory messages about the scale of need for adult
education and literacy development in the United States. What is an
advocate to do? Can anything be done to provide advocates with accurate,
valid, consistent, and convincing information about  how many adults in
the U. S. need adult edcation and literacy development, and how many
want it? Does anyone care?
_______________________________________________
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


From epssag at langate.gsu.edu  Wed Mar  6 09:51:20 2002
From: epssag at langate.gsu.edu (Sheryl Gowen)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:51:20 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Measuring demand and latent demand
Message-ID: <sc85e69d.084@langate.gsu.edu>

David,

It seems to me that you and Tom are defining demand differently.  You seem to be asking asking how many adults might want literacy services (learner demand).  Tom is asking how many literate workers employers want (labor market demand). Policy and allocation of resources seem to be more responsive to labor market demand than to learner demand.  Advocates seem to be, by definition, more concerned with learner demand. The trick seems to be in convincing policy makers that responding to learner demand is of benefit to the labor market. That will require more case-based, longitudinal data on the outcomes and impact of adult education.

Sheryl Gowen, Associate Professor
Research, Measurement, and Statistics  
Department of Educational Policy Studies
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303-3083
(404) 651-1152
sgowen at gsu.edu
>>> DJRosen at theworld.com 03/05/02 19:31 PM >>>
Tom and other NLA Colleagues,

Thomas Sticht wrote:

>All these various research studies seem to set up conflicting and
>sometimes contradictory messages about the scale of need for adult
>education and literacy development in the United States. What is an
>advocate to do? Can anything be done to provide advocates with accurate,
>valid, consistent, and convincing information about  how many adults in
>the U. S. need adult education and literacy development, and how many
>want it? Does anyone care?
>

I think it would be fruitful to find out what the actual demand is for 
adult education services, as measured by enrollment waiting lists (where 
they exist) and to try to get a measure on "latent demand," that is,  a 
measure (or measures) that would represent the number of people who -- 
if they knew the services were available, and if the  services wer 
available at convenient times and places -- would enroll. Tom, I wonder 
if you -- or if other researchers on the NLA list -- have some thoughts 
about how we could get a reasonably accurate measure of latent demand.

David J. Rosen
<DJRosen at theworld.com>

_______________________________________________
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


From DJRosen at theworld.com  Wed Mar  6 10:02:18 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 10:02:18 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Push outs into adult ed
Message-ID: <3C862F7A.7050307@theworld.com>


NLA Colleagues,

NLA list member Marguerite Lukes, from New York's Literacy Assistance 
Center, calls our attention to an article on the influx of 16-19 year 
olds into New York City's adult education programs and the impact that 
is having.  She wonders if others around the country are facing this 
problem.

How we would describe the problem: overcrowding of classes, lack of fit 
between adult education and (relatively immature) 16-18 year old high 
school drop-outs, or are there are problems, too?  I wonder if any 
cities or states are addressing this problem, and if so how? Are there 
new young adult programs being created to meet this need? If so, where, 
and what do they look like?

David J. Rosen
<DJRosen at theworld.com>

You can find the full-text of the article at:
http://www.citylimits.org/archives/0202learning.htm



  





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020306/0f1fe5b8/attachment.html>

From Rose.Tilghman at ed.gov  Wed Mar  6 09:23:02 2002
From: Rose.Tilghman at ed.gov (Tilghman, Rose)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:23:02 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/7/02
Message-ID: <5DCA49BDD2B0D41186CE00508B6BEBD006D3728E@wdcrobexc01.ed.gov>

>From the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
Editor: Sarah Newcomb
Production: Rose Tilghman

March 7, 2002				
___________________________________


Private Sector Training:
Does Size Matter?

Small and medium-sized firms expect to increase investments in employee
training in coming months, but planned investments by larger companies hit
hard by recession have sagged. This is according to a new report by the
American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). Still, ASTD expects
total training expenditures to increase in 2002. A special focus of growth
has been e-learning. In 2000, private sector training expenditures were $704
per employee, but companies with strong commitments to training spent as
much as $1,574 per employee. Most training involved technical processes or
information technology. State and federal adult education expenditures per
learner that year are estimated at about $400. See http://www.astd.org Go to
Press Room at bottom, click release and click "summary" in text.

FL Adult School
Goes Tech Prep

Florida Community College at Jacksonville is one of nine winners of a FY
2001 Tech Prep Demonstration grant, OVAE just announced. The college gets
$485,519 over three years to redesign its downtown adult high school as a
tech prep program. The goal is to provide adult students with integrated
academic and technical instruction, including opportunities to enroll in
dual credit technical education courses. Graduates earn a diploma and
credits toward an Associates Degree in a technical career field. Evaluation
components include academic achievement, retention and completion, placement
in employment and enrollment in postsecondary education.

Verizon Funds
Workplace and
Online Learning

Verizon gave $350,000 recently to Laubach Literacy International (LLI) and
Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA) to support workplace literacy and
online resources. LLI gets $250,000 to create/distribute a booklet boosting
employers' awareness of how low literacy affects productivity,
profitability, and competitiveness. LVA gets $100,000 to develop the
LVA/Verizon Promising Practices Exchange. The Exchange will expand online
information and learning opportunities for educators helping low-literate
adults. Contact <mailto:bkogut at laubach.org> or <mailto:croethel at laubach.org>

Can Community Colleges
Help Welfare Clients?

Maybe you're scratching your head about what works for welfare clients. The
Community College Role in Welfare to Work, a new ERIC publication, outlines
successful service models based at community colleges in CA, IL, TX and WI.
The work in this book was sponsored by the Department. For sale for $28 at
http://www.jbp.com Click education.

____________________________________________________________________________
___________________
A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
OVAE Homepage http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020306/34066a2f/attachment.html>

From Awilderast at aol.com  Wed Mar  6 11:09:50 2002
From: Awilderast at aol.com (Awilderast at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:09:50 EST
Subject: [NLA] Measuring demand and latent demand
Message-ID: <179.49def72.29b7994e@aol.com>

David,

Maybe we should ask for help on this problem fro mthe communities actually 
involved,  I don't have a major strategy, this is merely a thought.  For 
example, VALUE members probably have a better understandng of need/want in 
their communities than we outsiders have.  Just so with people within Native 
American communities.

Not to have an idea about who wants our services is pretty weird.  What other 
group seeking funds would do so not knowing ACTUAL NEED?  Meaning, I guess, 
ACTUAL WANT?

Andrea
_______________________________________________
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


From DJRosen at theworld.com  Wed Mar  6 11:45:42 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 11:45:42 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Measuring demand and latent demand
References: <sc85e69d.084@langate.gsu.edu>
Message-ID: <3C8647B6.104@theworld.com>


It's good to see a message from you on the NLA list, Sheryl.  It's been 
a while since we've heard your voice here, I think.

Sheryl Gowen wrote:

>David, 
>
>It seems to me that you and Tom are defining demand differently. 
>
Yes.  Tom has been talking about need, I am interested in looking at demand

> You seem to be asking asking how many adults might want literacy services (learner demand). 
>
Yes, and I would want *actual demand* to be measured by the number of 
adults signing up, enrolling for services. Other oral or written 
indications of interest in enrolling might be measures of *latent demand*.

> Tom is asking how many literate workers employers want (labor market demand).
>

I wouldn't call what employers say they want "labor market demand" 
unless employers went beyond just wanting better skilled employees to 
actually changing basic skills hiring standards or providing resources 
for employees to get basic skills services they need to meet their 
standards.  I have seen surveys in which employers say they want (or 
need) highly educated workers, but I haven't seen evidence that they are 
*demanding* these qualifications: that they are lobbying for government 
resources, or using their own resources to pay for educating their 
employees, or changing their hiring standards. I do see evidence that 
they hire more educated workers when there is a good labor supply, but 
when there is a tight labor supply, many hire workers with lower skills. 
 So "labor market demand" as measured by what employers say (rather than 
their actual hiring and training practices) seems to me more like *need* 
(according to employers or to labor market experts) than *demand*.

I think the distinction between *need* (I have found it useful to think 
about need in terms of "who -- needs what --  according to whom" -- and 
especially to pay attention to "according to whom") and *demand* is 
extremely important in our efforts to advocate for adult literacy.  It 
is hard not to be persuaded to act by education demand.  For example, in 
public elementary and secondary education, there is no unmet demand; 
there are no waiting lists for second or sixth grade or any grade in the 
U.S..  I have found that waiting lists for adult literacy and ESL/ESOL 
services -- an indication of demand -- get policy makers' attention 
while reports of need cause their eyes to glaze over.  Part of the 
problem is that the results from the needs studies (whether accurate or 
not) are too discouragingly large for policy makers to tackle. Also. 
policy makers know that not everyone who "needs" the services will in 
fact choose to enroll. But demand studies have moved policy makers to 
action.  It is possible that latent demand studies could have this 
effect, too.  I have not met legislators who are indifferent when they 
learn that adults (especially voters in their district)  have signed up 
for but cannot get basic literacy or ESOL services.

> Policy and allocation of resources seem to be more responsive to labor market demand than to learner demand. 
>
I wonder if this is true for adult education and literacy services. 
 When the labor market demand, as measured by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, goes up, I have not seen a groundswell to increase literacy 
(or job training programs).  Have you? If so, directly as a result of 
increased labor market demand? Recently, in Massachusetts, we saw a 
dramatic turnaround in policy and allocation of adult literacy resources 
based, I believe, on the thousands of phone calls legislators received 
from students (and others).  Labor market demand wasn't a persuasive 
argument since there is now a labor surplus in Massachusetts Some argued 
that this is a short-term phenomenon and companies would soon need high 
skilled workers again, but that wasn't what drove the change in policy. 
 It was the huge outcry from students whose classes were being canceled.

> Advocates seem to be, by definition, more concerned with learner demand. The trick seems to be in convincing policy makers that responding to learner demand is of benefit to the labor market. That will require more case-based, longitudinal data on the outcomes and impact of adult education.
>

I agree.  We must show results for those who enroll in adult education 
to improve their economic situation. And we need their employment data 
for evidence. Being able to show these outcomes, or impact,  would be of 
interest to many learners, as well as employers, labor unions and policy 
makers.

David J. Rosen
<DJRosen at theworld.com>



_______________________________________________
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


From NAASLN at aol.com  Wed Mar  6 11:55:16 2002
From: NAASLN at aol.com (NAASLN at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:55:16 EST
Subject: [NLA] ALERT: Don't Miss This Opportunity
Message-ID: <93.1935780c.29b7a3f4@aol.com>

**** IMPORTANT INFORMATION **** 

**** PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO YOUR COLLEAGUES, CONSTITUENCY GROUPS, 
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL LIST-SERVS  ****

ALERT!  The National Association for Adults with Special Learning Needs - 
NAASLN - is alerting adult educators and providers of adult services about 
our rescheduled conference.

The NAASLN conference, previously scheduled for September 13 -15, 2001, is 
being held April 14 - 16, 2002 -- in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  This 
international conference is being hosted in conjunction with the Greater 
Milwaukee Literacy Coalition and the Milwaukee Area Technical College.  The 
original conference was SOLD OUT...but, due to conflicts in some 
participant's and presenter's schedules, the April 2002 conference now has 
space for additional attendees!  

Listed below is an invitation to you from NAASLN's President, Laura Weisel, 
Ph.D., and a listing of conference sessions.  National associations and 
organizations have joined forces in partnership with NAASLN to promote this 
conference.  Visit our website -- www.naasln.org -- for the most up-to-date 
conference and membership information.  For questions -- contact us directly 
at naasln at aol.com.


Colleagues,
As supporters, advocates, and service providers seeking cutting edge 
information and best practices, the upcoming NAASLN conference promises an 
exciting array of sessions with national leaders.  As an organization, NAASLN 
has always boasted about intimate conferences where participants and national 
leaders can meet and dialog on the challenges serving persons with special 
learning needs.  Our upcoming conference embraces our history and will 
provide opportunities for YOU to learn, network, and grow.  Please join us in 
Milwaukee!

Forging the Future, will be keynoted by Richard Horne, Ed. D., Senior Policy 
Advisor, Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities.  
Dr. Horne will discuss President Bush's key initiatives on behalf of adults 
with disabilities.                  These initiatives include integration of 
adults with disabilities into the workplace, partnering employment programs 
with adult education, and establishing a model of interagency services and 
policies at the federal level that can be used as a framework for integration 
of community services and policies to support adults with disabilities in the 
workforce.  Following his keynote, Dr. Horne will host an intimate small 
group session for individuals interested in further discussing President 
Bush's initiatives.

Highlights of sessions that will presented by national leaders include:

Helen Irlen -- The Irlen Institute, CA
Scotopic Sensitivity/The Irlen Syndrome:  The Impact of Color Overlays on 
Reading, Research and Practice

MaryAnn Corley, Ph.D., National Center for 
Literacy and Social Justice, Wash. DC
Garth Vaz, M.D.,  Siever's Medical, Gonzales, TX
Tonette Rocco, Ph.D. - FL International University
Disabilities and Diversity:  The Sociocultural Dimension of Learning

Laurie Martin, IL Resource Center
Employability and Retention Model for Adults with Suspected Learning 
Disabilities

Glenn Young, OVAE, Washington, DC.
Potential Impact of OCR Rulings on TAF and Other Services

Richard Gacka, Ph.D., PA Learning Differences Center
A Model of Neurodevelopmental Constructions and its Applicability to 
Understanding Learning Differences

Garth Vaz, M.D.,  Siever's Medical, Gonzales, TX
Growing Up LD

Linda Willett, Library and Literacy Partnership, WI 
The WHOLE Language for ESL Adults with Special Learning Needs

Fred Edwards, GED Testing Services, Washington DC
Nancie Payne, Payne and Assoc., WA
The GED -- Ensuring Accommodations for Special Need Learners

June Crawford, National Institute for Literacy
Disabilities and Social Change in America:  The Impact of the Bridges to 
Practice Project

Tina Tucker, National Literacy Center / American Foundation for the Blind
Frances Mary D'Andrea, National Literacy Center / American Foundation for the 
Blind
Bridging the Gap:  Best Practices for Instructing Adults who are Blind or 
Visually Impaired

Laura Weisel, Ph.D., The TLP Group, OH
Emotions!  Understanding and Supporting the Human Prerequisite to Learning

Pat Hardman, Ph.D., The Dyslexia Research Institute, FL
Issues Concerning Diagnosis of Adults with Suspected Learning Disabilities

Susan Arnold, WI Department of Vocational Rehabilitation
What Vocational Rehabilitation Services Can Do to Support Adults with Special 
Needs in Education and Workplace Settings

Milele Landrum, LDA of Oregon
Creating Success in Substance Abuse Treatment for Persons with Learning 
Disabilities

Lynn Rolfsmeier and Cheryl Sandholm, NW Iowa Community College
The POWERful Plan -- for Persons with MR/DD

Richard Cooper, Ph.D., disABILITIES, PA
Internet Resources for Serving Adults with LD/ADD

Mary Ann Jackson and Tom Heffron, WI Technical College System
Collaboration between AEFL and Carl Perkins Funding for Serving Adult Student 
with Disabilities

Patricia Walsh, University of New Orleans
Post-Secondary Options for Adults with Disabilities

Nancie Payne, Payne and Assoc., WA
The Success Factor:  Metacognitive Connections

Jeff Fantine, Ohio University
Mary Lou Belisle, WI
Goal-Setting and Lesson Planning the SMARTER WAY

Bill Muth, Federal Bureau of Prisons
Towards and Effective and Realistic Literacy Policy for Federal Prisoners

Denise Pottmeyer, OH Department of Education
Colleen Clark, SC Literacy Resource Center
Margaret Girkins, Flathead Valley Community College, MT
Managing Statewide Systemic Change to Screen and Support Adults with Special 
Learning Needs

Robyn Rennick, DRILLS, FL
It Didn't Just Go Away Because They Grew Older:  Dyslexia, ADd/SLD Affects 
Adults in Many Different Ways

Jodi Owens and Kristin Schultz, WI Department of Workforce Development
Financial Literacy -- A Benefit fo Those with Special Needs


For a more complete listing -- please visit:  www.naasln.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


From cb.king at verizon.net  Wed Mar  6 12:47:51 2002
From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine King)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:47:51 -0800
Subject: [NLA] support for advocacy
References: <sc85e13b.093@langate.gsu.edu>
Message-ID: <002201c1c537$35f97aa0$47f72a3f@cbking>

Hello Sheryl:

In response to your question, "What else to include?"
below is an "Adult Education and Democracies" Statement
I sent to Gail Spangenberg when she requested information
for her arguments about adult education.  The first part is
a very brief statement, and the second part has headings
and brief expository paragraphs.   The headings are:

ADULT EDUCATION:  ESSENTIAL TO ALL TAXPAYERS
ADULT EDUCATION:  JOBS AND POLITICS
 THE UNITED STATES:  LEADER AS A MATURE DEMOCRACY

Regards,

Catherine King

STATEMENT of the RELATIONSHIP of EDUCATION to DEMOCRACIES

Democracy is about power from the demos--The People.

All adult citizens of the United States constitute the
The Enfranchised People, the demos.

If The People are ignorant, then they are not equipped to
(1) use their franchise or (2) to choose well if they do.

If The People do not know their franchise (their political
voice and power), then they do not have it--they are de
facto disenfranchised.

Therefore, by inference, stewards of a healthy Democracy
are constitutionally obliged to create and constitute the
conditions for:

(1) enfranchising in fact The People who constitute our
communities, and (2) educating The People to exercise
their franchise from a position of knowledge and
wisdom rather than ignorance, poverty and oppression.

End of Statement

ADULT EDUCATION:  ESSENTIAL TO ALL TAXPAYERS:

Adult continuing education is not a gift from taxpayers or a
remediation of an earlier failure.  Nor does it require a
proximate return on investment.  Rather, continuing adult
education is the responsibility of all citizens of a vibrant
and healthy democracy based on community, dialogue,
tolerance, love and peace to all citizens.

ADULT EDUCATION:  JOBS AND POLITICS

The authentic driving principles of capitalism, business
and corporations become social evils when we allow them
to infringe on and usurp the driving principles of a
Democratic Commonwealth.   Job skills are necessary;
however, the bigger the business or corporation, the more
voice the corporate worker needs to help maintain the
power balance between corporate and Commonwealth
interests.  In this regard, and beyond job skills, programs
in adult education have a political responsibility to
educate our citizens to understand their own voices in
a democratic-commonwealth culture.

The basic definitions of democracy include self-government
 manifesting politically as voting.   Our Constitution says
Of-By-For the People, but **doesn't** add "only those who
can afford to prepare themselves to participate, or only The
People who are clever enough to own a stock portfolio or a
computer, or who just got lucky."   Our Constitution **doesn't**
even say only "for those who care to take an interest."
"The People" means everyone by virtue of our being citizens.

Deciding to vote is one thing, having the apparatus available
to vote is another, (witness the recent Florida debacle), and
having the education to understand the complex issues and
nuances of the various arguments and platforms is quite
another.  A person's general education is directly linked to the
question, "On what basis do I vote?"  Behind that one
momentous act (voting) stands everything we've ever read
and understood, and everything any teacher ever did or said.
And on that act our Democratic Commonwealth stands or falls.


THE UNITED STATES:  LEADER AS A MATURE DEMOCRACY

Citizens are not born with social or political wisdom.
Development begins in the institution of the family and is
reflectively taken up in our educational institutions.  With the
rapid changes over the last two centuries and the globalization
of thought in the past 50 years, requirements of literacy and
general education of self-governing adults have expanded.
Hence, our crucial need to re-think available education as
not just for kids but as essential and ongoing support for a
healthy civil society, and so that we may become the
authentic leaders of a mature democracy we claim we are
on the world scene.

Adult education and democracy are connected in four ways.
 First, we can teach **about** democracy in our government,
civics, social studies, and political philosophy courses.

Second, formal curricular knowledge is continually transferred
creating knowledgeable adults.

Third, the unwritten curriculum of social collaboration in a
multicultural arena strikes at the heart of xenophobia in
mono-cultural, mono-class settings.  Xenophobic or classist
attitudes subvert open forums and the willingness to consider
all arguments that are essential to a democratic dialogue.

Fourth, the unwritten curriculum includes the deeper
connection to the vibrant ground of general reflection and
dialogue, and development of The People who make up our
culture.

Freedom of speech means little without intelligent practice.

When AE in the United States is understood in its relationship
to "the democratic experiment," we can see the broad outlines
of what is at present a National Embarrassment of Dickensian
proportions.  What is most essential to a democratic system--
adult education--is, at present, marginalized.  Undereducated
adults devoid of dialogal and political acumen and, therefore,
powerless to act precisely because they are undereducated
adults, is a great irony existing in the bowels of the world's
leading democracy--and renders it in a quiet crisis.

A Mature and Vibrant Democracy should know itself:
Dependent on its citizens to be knowledgeable and wise.
The more complex our culture, the more crucial is the ongoing
education of our adults.   The more powerful corporations and
technology, the more politically educated our citizenry must be.
The more we want to lead as a democracy, the more we must
show the world how important are the voices of our entire polity.
A repositioning and re-centering of adult education is essential,
therefore, to our authentic leadership as a democratic nation.

     Submitted by:  Catherine B. King

----- Original Message -----
From: Sheryl Gowen <epssag at langate.gsu.edu>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: [NLA] support for advocacy


Tom's message about scale of need and validity issues with the 1992 NALS
raises the issue (once again) of who gets to decide what literacy is, who
should have it, and for what purposes.  I have been thinking about these
questions for a long time--and have begun work on a  retrospective of
research and political rhetoric on this issue, going back to the early
1980's--A Nation at Risk, Jumpstart, the high stakes testing movement, the
National Workplace Literacy Program, NALS, etc.  Any suggstions for my
colleagues on this list about what else to include?  And, thanks to Tom (as
usual) for his thoughtful analysis and technical expertise.

Sheryl Gowen, Associate Professor
Research, Measurement and Statistics
Department of Educational Policy Studies
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303-3083
(404) 651-1152
sgowen at gsu.edu

>>> tsticht at aznet.net 03/05/02 18:08 PM >>>
What a difference a couple of year makes. Here are a couple of recent
items that have made me scratch my head in puzzlement. I wonder if they
affect other NLA list members in a similar manner. Tom Sticht

Item 1: Determining the scale of need for adult education and literacy
development.

In 2001. In a research note in June of last year I noted that in January
2001, a final technical report on the National Adult Literacy Survey was
published by NCES entitled: Technical Report and Data File User's Manual
for the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey, NCES 2001-457, January
2001. I reported that Chapter 14, written by Andrew Kolstad, the
original project director for the NALS at NCES,  systematically
undermined the entire test and questioned its construct validity, that
is, the question of just what it is that the test measures, its
standards validity, that is,  the validity of th 80 percent probability
standard that was used to assign people to the five literacy levels, and
the use validity, that is, the validity of the NALS for accurately
identifying adults at risk for poor literacy skills. In a July 17, 2001
article in the Washington Post Kolstad confirmed his thinking about the
standards validity position and argued that instead of the 80 percent
response probability, a much higher level of validity in making
inferences about adult's literacy skills was made if a response
probability of .50 was used. In short, one of the reasons why adults who
were classified as poorly literate and placed in levels 1 or 2 of the
NALS when they thought they were fairly literate was that they were
likely classified incorrectly by the use of the 80 percent RP standard.

In 2002. Fast forward to this year. In a recent posting Debby D'Amico
points to a new research report from the National Center for Adult
Learning and Literacy, called Building a Level Playing Field, that uses
what according to Kolstad are the old,  invalid NALS data, as a large
part of the basis used to establish the scale of need for adult basic
skills education in the U. S. I didn't find anything in the report that
countered Kolstad's data questioning the validity of the NALS from the
final technical report. This suggests to me that using the NCSALL report
as a source for establishing the scale of need for advocacy could be
misleading. The authors go on to say that the new National Assessment of
Adult Literacy (NAAL) will use much the same methodology that was used
in the NALS so that ten year trends can be determined. I wonder if this
means that the NAAL will overcome the issues of validity raised by
Kolstad regarding the NALS? I also wonder if anyone cares about data on
the scale of need or how accurate it is. I seem to recall that in
Massachusetts despite the considerable publicity in the media after the
MassInc report on New Skills for a New Economy came out, using
essentially the same methodology or determining the scale of need for
adult education and literacy development in Massachusetts as the recent
report on Leveling the Playing Field, the Massachusetts legislature cut
the adult education budget by 40 percent or so anyhow. Skillful advocacy
got most of the money back but I don't know how much this depended on
the scale of need data from the MassInc report.

Item 2. The push to raise the education bar from high school to
post-secondary education.

In 2000. In a post on the NLA list I cited the Thursday Notes for March
16,2000, an electronic newsletter attributed as From the Desk of Ron
Pugsley, then Director of the U. S. Department of Education's Division
of Adult Education and Literacy which said QUOTE "Jobs requiring an
associate's degree or higher account for* just 16% of actual job
openings, * Meanwhile, nearly one third of 25-29 year-olds attain
bachelor's or associate's degrees and will compete for those jobs."
UNQUOTE At the time I mentioned that this suggests a "surplus" of
post-secondary educated adults over the jobs requiring this much
education.

In 2001. In a research note last year I mentioned a new report by
Carnevale and Desrochers (2001) called Help Wanted*Credentials Required
which presented data showing that  from 1973 to 1998 the percentage of
prime-age workers (both male and female) with some college/AA degree
more than doubled,  from 12 percent to 27 percent.  But from 1979 to
1998 earnings (in constant 1996 dollars) of prime-age male workers
(30-59 years old) declined for those who failed to finish high school,
those with a high school diploma, AND those with some college or an AA
degree. These data lead to questions as to the likely outcomes of
educating more and more people to higher and higher levels of education.
Was it possible that as more and more people acquire higher education
credentials and higher literacy skills wages will fall because employers
have a larger pool of better qualified workers from which to recruit?
Is that wat happened from 1979 to 1998 as the percentages of men with
some college or AA degrees increased, and wages for these men decreased
(in constant 1996 dollars)?

In 2002. Fast forward to this year. In the report called Building a
Level Playing Field  the authors argue that the new economy calls for
educating more and more adults up to post-secondary levels. A similar
call is made in the report entitled Adult Literacy & the American Dream
by Forrest Chisman from the Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy
(CAAL) (this report was recently reviewed by George Demetrion on the NLA
list). Neither report addresses the issues raised by Pugsley's 2000
newsletter about the supply of adults with post-secondary and bachelor's
degrees far exceeding the availability of jobs requiring this much
education, or the work of Carnevale and Desrochers suggesting that if
more and more adults are educated to post-secondary levels, wages are
likely to drop for these adults (at least for men; women with
post-secondary education did not show the same drop in wages as for men
in the Carnevale & Desrochers report, but women earned less than men in
all categories of education).

In short, these recent calls for raising the education standard for
adults from a high school diploma to some post-secondary education would
seem to set up a condition that once again points to the possibility of
driving up educational achievement such that the supply of adults with
post-secondary education exceeds the demand to the point where wages for
adults with post-secondary education are driven down even more than in
the report by Carnevale and Desrochers.

All these various research studies seem to set up conflicting and
sometimes contradictory messages about the scale of need for adult
education and literacy development in the United States. What is an
advocate to do? Can anything be done to provide advocates with accurate,
valid, consistent, and convincing information about  how many adults in
the U. S. need adult edcation and literacy development, and how many
want it? Does anyone care?
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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


From tsticht at aznet.net  Wed Mar  6 12:25:48 2002
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 10:25:48 -0700
Subject: [NLA] Reply to Bob, David, and Sheryl
Message-ID: <3C86511A.1373@aznet.net>

This is in reply to Bob Bickerton, David Rosen, and Sheryl Gowen.

First, thanks to Bob Bickerton for educating me and others on the NLA
list about the advocacy that recouped some 50 percent of adult education
funds in Massachusetts. This is a tremendous success story for advocacy.
Also, let me point out that I did not have anything to do with the
design or conduct of the NALS and I did not recommend any response
probability for the NALS. I only reacted to the first report when it
came out. I have never done any secondary analyses of NALS data. I have
only used data others have analyzed. Most recently I reacted to
Kolstad?s final technical report where he showed that one makes the
least number of invalid inferences about adult?s skills, both at the low
and the high ends, by using the 50 percent response probability standard
for saying people can or cannot do a task involving literacy. This is
the same response probability that the Comprehensive Adult Student
Assessment System (CASAS) has used for some 25 years to assess adult?s
basic skills and to establish levels of performance. I don?t know why it
is not good enough for the NALS or NAAL, too. 

Second, in his recent post David Rosen said: Quote:"I think it would be
fruitful to find out what the actual demand is for  adult education
services, as measured by enrollment waiting lists (where  they exist)
and to try to get a measure on "latent demand," that is,  a  measure (or
measures) that would represent the number of people who --  if they knew
the services were available, and if the  services were  available at
convenient times and places -- would enroll. Tom, I wonder  if you -- or
if other researchers on the NLA list -- have some thoughts  about how we
could get a reasonably accurate measure of latent demand."Unquote

My answer:  Last August I posted a message on the NLA list pointing out
that in the U.K. Alan Wells, Director of the Basic Skills Agency, took
stock of faults found with the National and International Adult Literacy
Surveys and said: Quote: "I'm a firm supporter of the strategy to
improve the basic skills of all too many adults and I'm not arguing that
we don't have a very urgent problem with under- education in this
country. But we won't get anywhere if we keep going on about seven
million illiterates and innumerates or one in five adults who can't read
or write or use numbers."Unquote 

To get a better fix on adult needs for literacy and numeracy provision,
Wells lead the Basic Skills Agency to support survey research on
people's perceptions of their own skills, why they want to improve their
skills, their access to learning programs, the content of the programs
and what would encourage them to try and improve their skills.
Significant findings included: a third of adults thought that their
basic skills needed improving;  29% of adults questioned said they would
definitely take up a basic skills course and 42% said they would
probably do so; the main reasons for wanting to improve basic skills
were both emotional ("to feel better about yourself/ your skills") and
practical (" to be better at everyday tasks which involve basic
skills"); the majority of adults (41%) asked would prefer teaching to be
in their own home; yet most adults would prefer to learn with a teacher,
however ICT (information and communication technologies) facilities are
also very important; factors that would motivate adults to improve their
basic skills include being able to learn on a computer, being able to
improve computer skills and basic skills at the same time, getting a
qualification and being able to attend a course near home. 

Regarding your interest in getting a fix on "latent demand," I think the
interview approach used by the Basic Skills Agency in "Getting Better
Basic Skills" offers a way to find out how many adults think they need
adult education, how many might attend programs or engage in other forms
of instruction,  under what kinds of terms, and so forth. I also know
from work colleagues and I have done in San Diego that in industrialized
nations like the U.S. and U.K. you can get that information by telephone
and, if you want, you can assess "literacy" in the form of vocabulary
knowledge, spelling knowledge, math knowledge, civic knowledge, and
information about how much reading of what kinds adults engage in, etc.
over the phone. Our telephone survey work (two studies published in two
different refereed journals) show that all this is doable. Using
statistical sampling with census population data it is possible to
extrapolate the telephone data to those who do not have telephones.

Using telephone and statistical sampling and extrapolation technologies,
the costs of conducting such national surveys would be only a fraction
of that involved in going door to door and administering
paper-and-pencil, performance tests with their questionable statistical,
ecological and contextual validity. With such greatly reduced costs, it
would be possible to conduct surveys much more often, perhaps every
other year, and during the course of such surveys, adults who perceive
themselves as at risk for poor basic skills could be given information,
encouragement and motivation to seek out and enroll in programs of the
Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States. This would
bring the issues and advantages of adult education into the public?s
attention more often.  This seems to me to offer a fairly 
cost-beneficial approach for finding out how many adults need adult
education and how many want (manifestly or latently) it.


Third, for Sheryl: I?m really glad to find out that you are going to
take a thorough look into all these reports and assessments. Such a
thorough examination is overdue. I note here that probably the most
important question that the Congress asked the NALS researchers to
report on was,  "Are the literacy skills of America's adults adequate
... to ensure individual opportunities for all adults, to increase
worker productivity, or to strengthen America's competitiveness around
the world?" (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993, p. xviii). The
NALS report answered the question as,  "Because it is impossible to say
precisely what literacy skills are essential for individuals to succeed
in this or any other society, the results of the National Adult Literacy
Survey provide no firm answers to such questions" (Kirsch, Jungeblut,
Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993, p. xviii). The authors discussed the relation
of being in the lower literacy levels to one's social standing as
indicated by more limited occupational opportunities, income, and so
forth. From this, readers were invited to make inferences about how
lower literacy skills may tend to limit one's functioning in society.
All of these same relationships are readily studied by the telephone
survey methodology mentioned above at a lower cost and with fewer
arbitrary decisions.

For an extended critique of the NALS and the telephone methodology see
Sticht, Hofstetter, & Hofstetter (1996). Assessing adult literacy by
telephone. Journal of Literacy Research. Also see my recent critique of
the IALS in Sticht (2001) The International Adult Literacy Survey: how
well does it represent the literacy abilities of adults? Canadian
Journal for the Study of Adult Education. Of course you should be
certain to get Andy Kolstad?s final report on the NALS. In it he notes
that the primary use of the NALS for policy has been to refer to the
lower performing adults in levels 1 and 2 and to argue  for programs to
help raise them to higher levels. Good luck on your work on all this!
_______________________________________________
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


From LVAnnette at aol.com  Wed Mar  6 14:01:27 2002
From: LVAnnette at aol.com (LVAnnette at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:01:27 EST
Subject: [NLA] Re: Susan Green
Message-ID: <d4.13d612f8.29b7c187@aol.com>

At these times it's hard to know the right words to say. I didn't know MS 
Green personally, but have heard a lot about her. I would like to say to all 
her colleagues, friends, and family members "Earth has no sorrow that heaven 
cannot heal, and God will bring all of you through this too. God Bless!
Annette
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020306/33ac9d26/attachment.html>

From Dwyoho at aol.com  Wed Mar  6 15:46:36 2002
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:46:36 EST
Subject: [NLA] COABE Plantation Tour
Message-ID: <98.2264f611.29b7da2c@aol.com>

In a message dated 3/5/02 7:16:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
JCGordon at fortunesociety.org writes:


> This discussion has been good so far, but I feel it raises larger questions 
> that need more thoughtful consideration. Hopefully, it will spark a larger 
> discussion about the ways issues of race and literacy work are interrelated 
> and perhaps will help us move towards a more inclusive and critical 
> awareness as a field. 

Some members of this list may be interested to learn that the National 
Institute for Literacy spnsors another listserv specifically on Poverty, Race 
and Literacy.  Go to www.nifl.gov/lincs and click on discussions to 
subscribe. 

I am encouraged by the number of different individuals who have contributed 
to this thread so far, and the way that some who have already said a great 
deal seem to be listening at the moment.  That's what I am doing myself right 
now..  Others who haven't commented yet on this thread--what are you 
thinking?  Debbie 


Deborah W. Yoho
Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
Co-Moderator, NIFL-Health Discussion Group
921 Woodrow Street
Columbia, SC  29205
803-765-2555  Fax:  803-799-8417  dwyoho at aol.com
Agency email:  litcola at mail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020306/2d911523/attachment.html>

From Wrdwhiz at aol.com  Wed Mar  6 22:00:05 2002
From: Wrdwhiz at aol.com (Wrdwhiz at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:00:05 EST
Subject: [NLA] COABE Plantation Tour
Message-ID: <c6.79853f5.29b831b5@aol.com>

Thank you for this.  I'm hoping to commune with kindred spirits on a concrete 
project for bringing this into perpetual mass focus until the problems 
disappear.  Small feat.

Ariel Pennie
wrdwhiz at aol.com

In a message dated 03/06/02 4:24:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, Dwyoho at aol.com 
writes:

> In a message dated 3/5/02 7:16:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> JCGordon at fortunesociety.org writes:
> 
> 
> 
> >> This discussion has been good so far, but I feel it raises larger 
>> questions that need more thoughtful consideration. Hopefully, it will 
>> spark a larger discussion about the ways issues of race and literacy work 
>> are interrelated and perhaps will help us move towards a more inclusive 
>> 
> 
> 
> Some members of this list may be interested to learn that the National 
> Institute for Literacy spnsors another listserv specifically on Poverty, 
> Race and Literacy.  Go to www.nifl.gov/lincs and click on discussions to 
> subscribe. 
> 
> I am encouraged by the number of different individuals who have contributed 
> to this thread so far, and the way that some who have already said a great 
> deal seem to be listening at the moment.  That's what I am doing myself 
> right now..  Others who haven't commented yet on this thread--what are you 
> thinking?  Debbie 
> 
> 
> Deborah W. Yoho
> Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
> Co-Moderator, NIFL-Health Discussion Group
> 921 Woodrow Street
> Columbia, SC  29205
> 803-765-2555  Fax:  803-799-8417  dwyoho at aol.com
> Agency email:  litcola at mail.com


S.T.O.P. Modern-day Slavery!
<A HREF="http://www.iabolish.com/act/camp/stop/index.htm">http://www.iabolish.com</A>     

    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020306/822b9933/attachment.html>

From andrewsc at interchange.ubc.ca  Thu Mar  7 01:35:38 2002
From: andrewsc at interchange.ubc.ca (A. Schofield/S.Smythe)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 22:35:38 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Push outs into adult ed
References: <3C862F7A.7050307@theworld.com>
Message-ID: <001301c1c5a2$4b858560$c5fd5018@vc.shawcable.net>

Hi David
My program, in Surrey, BC (Canada), is a youth literacy program w/in the public schools system, for 'at risk' designated youth (16-19yrs) with reading/writing/numeracy levels betw 1-4 on the CAAT test (+-K3-5). The students have dropped out of secondary schools, and have a variety of other issues (homelessness, abuse, gangs, petty criminals etc). 34 students are on roll attending either in morning or afternoon sessions. I work alongside a youth literacy worker (coteacher). One third of the students are First Nations (Aboriginal Canadians). Five students are girls. Student literacy issues stem from neurological, emotional trauma, and/or psychological disaffection and withdrawal. In some cases students move from my class into a broader alternate centre program, into mainstream secondary school, college, or they stay in the class. I work within the provincial IRP's, but am constantly modifying sci, math, eng, and soc studies curricula (K10-12). I have a strong research partnership with prof Theresa Rogers @ UBC who is documenting the work. Through this partnership we've introduced a videoliteracy program and some photo literacy work. If you're interested, I have lots more information.

Regards
Andrew Schofield
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David J. Rosen 
  To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 7:02 AM
  Subject: [NLA] Push outs into adult ed



  NLA Colleagues,

  NLA list member Marguerite Lukes, from New York's Literacy Assistance Center, calls our attention to an article on the influx of 16-19 year olds into New York City's adult education programs and the impact that is having.  She wonders if others around the country are facing this problem.

  How we would describe the problem: overcrowding of classes, lack of fit between adult education and (relatively immature) 16-18 year old high school drop-outs, or are there are problems, too?  I wonder if any cities or states are addressing this problem, and if so how? Are there new young adult programs being created to meet this need? If so, where, and what do they look like?

  David J. Rosen
  <DJRosen at theworld.com>


You can find the full-text of the article at:
http://www.citylimits.org/archives/0202learning.htm


  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020306/2d38b586/attachment.html>

From John_Comings at harvard.edu  Thu Mar  7 13:54:57 2002
From: John_Comings at harvard.edu (John Comings)
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:54:57 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: [NLA] support for advocacy
In-Reply-To: <3C85196F.6819@aznet.net>
Message-ID: <SIMEON.10203071357.T@comingjo.gse.harvard.edu>

Building a Level Playing Field does address the debate about the NALS 
levels on page 7.

The report describes three populations that could benefit from AELS 
services.  6.5 million adults who need ESOL services, 23 million who 
need ASE/GED services, and 64 million who speak English well, have a 
high school diploma or GED but who scored in NALS Level 1 or 2.  All 
of this third group are employed and all three groups are working 
age (18-64). The estimate for the first two groups, 29.5 million does 
not use NALS data.

The reason we identified the third group using NALS data is that 
people who scored in Levels 1 and 2 (their numerical score on the 500 
point scale) have reading and math skills below that of the average 
high school graduate.  The bottom score of NALS Level 3 is the mean 
for high school graduates and a few points above the mean for GED
holders. They are not illiterate but their basic skills put them at a 
disadvantage in the workplace.  We could have drawn the line lower, 
midway between the bottom and top of NALS Level 2, for example, but 
our report is setting the bar higher. We believe the standard that the
AELS should shoot for is strong English skills, a GED and basic 
skills sufficient to be successful in a community college program of 
study or technical training. That level of basic skills is very close 
to the score that separates NALS Level 2 and 3.

The present WIA-funded programs and the nonWIA-funded programs that 
have sufficient resources are doing a good job serving the adults who 
need ESOL and ASE/GED services, a population of at least 30 million 
working-age adults. The third group, what the report refers to as the 
new literacy challenge, probably need a new approach to services that 
is based in their places of employment, their homes, and their 
communities. That approach to services might also help adults who 
need ESOL and ASE/GED services, not as a replacement for existing 
programs but as an additional resource.  

I'm not an economist, but I have friends who are, and they all say 
that education leads to higher income.  If there is eventually a 
glut of well educated workers, they will have to organize into 
unions and bargain for their piece of the pie. They will be better 
able to do so because they will have higher basic skills.

This is also an issue of equity. Everyone in our country should have 
access to a basic education that prepares them for post-secondary 
education and training programs. None of us would suggest to your 
children, nieces or nephews that they not go to college. People of 
color, immigrants, and whites from low income families are much more 
likely to be in one of the three challenges outlined in Building a 
Level Playing Field. We have some history to overcome here. They 
deserve their chance. 

I hope this discussion leads to more people reading Building a Level 
Playing Field.  It's less than 25 pages long.  It is built on the 
MassINC report, which has been incredibly successful here, as Bob 
Bickerton said. I don't mind taking the credit, but I don't deserve 
it. MassINC knows how to organize public opinion, and they helped 
Andy, Johan and I to craft the report in a way that would make it 
successful. And, of course, Bob and the people working in ABE in 
this state have worked hard for almost 15 years to improve program 
services. At a statewide summit last week, the Governor, the Mayor of 
Boston, and representatives from business, labor, education, and the 
philanthropy all made very strong statements in support of ABE 
services.

John Comings
----------------------------------------
John Comings                     Phone: 617.496.0516
NCSALL -- 106 Nichols House      Fax:   617.495.4811
7 Appian Way                     Email: john_comings at harvard.edu
Graduate School of Education     Web:   http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu
Harvard University
Cambridge MA 02138

_______________________________________________
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


From tsticht at aznet.net  Thu Mar  7 19:36:48 2002
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:36:48 -0700
Subject: [NLA] Support for advocacy
Message-ID: <3C88079F.24D8@aznet.net>

According to John Coming?s recent post, Andrew Kolstad?s criticisms of
the NALS are addressed on page 7 of the report Building a Level Playing
Field.  In my earlier post, I noted that Kolstad questioned the
construct validity (what it is the NALS three scales actually measure),
the standards validity  (using the 80 percent probability standard which
produces four times the false negative errors (saying an adult cannot do
some tasks when in fact he can),  over the number of false positive
errors  (saying that an adult can do a task when in fact he cannot), and
the use validity, that is, the validity of the NALS for accurately
identifying adults at risk for poor literacy skills. 

I took John?s advise and re-read the report again to find out how the
report rebutted Kolstad?s criticisms. I went to page seven as he advised
and found the following statements:

Paragraph A: Quote: "Like most standardized tests and national surveys,
NALS has received criticism. Some of the critics suggest that the way in
which the NALS data were analyzed placed too many people in Levels 1 and
2. The basis for this argument is that some people in NALS Level 2, for
example, were able to accomplish some but not all of the NALS Level 3
tasks. The other argument is that NALS used tasks (balancing a
checkbook, for example) that might be unfamiliar to some people (in the
preceding example, those who do not have checking accounts). People who
have never had a checking account might have been able to answer a
question that used the same math had the task been something they do all
the time, possibly a similar task that takes place in their work."
Unquote

Paragraph A mentions some of the criticisms of NALS, but does not go
into the three problems of validity that Kolstad found with the NALS.
Also, note that the paragraph does not rebut either of the two lines of
criticism against the NALS that it cites. That is left to the next
paragraph. It goes like this:

Paragraph B: Quote: "These criticisms do not undermine the findings
presented here because this report is focused on the demands of the new
economy. The kinds of tasks used in the NALS are similar to those
demanded in the 21st century workplace. In addition, the new economy
needs workers who are able to apply these skills with accuracy and speed
and in diverse settings." Unquote

No evidence is provided for these assertions and as far as I can tell
that is the end of how the report addresses Kolstad?s concerns about the
validity of the NALS. 

I know that teaching critical thinking is one of the goals of adult
educators to prepare adult literacy learners for the "new economy." So
I?ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to judge whether Paragraph B
rebuts the specific criticisms identified in Paragraph A, or any of the
other concerns that Kolstad has identified. 

Fortunately, other than the NALS data, and the need to read around a few
more non sequiturs, the report has what I think are some very
interesting and useful data and citations of research that can be
profitably used by advocates. I join John in hoping that others will
read the report. 

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


From DJRosen at theworld.com  Thu Mar  7 19:51:46 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 19:51:46 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Increased Number of Young Adults in Adult Education Programs
Message-ID: <3C880B22.90408@theworld.com>

NLA Colleagues,

A colleague wrote me and gave permission to post her message to the NLA 
list:

 
"I am the director of an adult education program at a community college that normally serves between 700 to 800 
GED students per year.  Since 1986 I have seen a steady increase in the number of young adults wanting to enroll 
in GED Test Preparation classes.  At one point 47% of my enrollment was comprised of persons under the age of 20, 
yet my overall enrollment had not increased.  In other words, the older adult population was being displaced by 
the youth population.  The main complaint from the adults was that "kids" tended to be loud, boisterous and 
disruptive.  I solved the problem by offering youth-only classes, adult only classes, and mixed classes.  Surveys 
indicated that some adults enjoy being in the company of young people, whereas others prefer a more sedate learning 
environment.  Some youth, we found, enjoy the company of older adults whereas others want to be with their own age 
group.  By offering something for everyone, we were able to recapture our displaced older adults and the percent 
of young adult enrolled in the program declined from a high of 47% to 26%.

The problem I have encountered is in finding teachers that are good at working with young people.  Beyond that, 
the modifications to the program design have worked well for us.  

More recently, I have noticed a renewed increase in the numbers of young adults seeking to enroll in GED Test 
Preparation Classes.  Rumors abound that high schools would rather have some of their 'problem students' enroll 
in a GED program rather than stay on their campuses.

Chris Palacios  
cpalaci at delmar.edu "












_______________________________________________
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


From Dwyoho at aol.com  Fri Mar  8 11:00:59 2002
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:00:59 EST
Subject: [NLA] Support for advocacy
Message-ID: <113.dbc8df6.29ba3a3b@aol.com>

Tom, fogiive my ignorance, but how can I get a copy of the report?  There may 
be other listers who don't know where to get it either.  Debbie

Deborah W. Yoho
Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
Co-Moderator, NIFL-Health Discussion Group
921 Woodrow Street
Columbia, SC  29205
803-765-2555  Fax:  803-799-8417  dwyoho at aol.com
Agency email:  litcola at mail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020308/496c2b4e/attachment.html>

From DJRosen at theworld.com  Fri Mar  8 14:01:07 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 14:01:07 -0500
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [NLA] Push outs into adult ed]
Message-ID: <3C890A73.60508@theworld.com>

NLA Colleagues,

If you had difficulty getting to the article that Marguerite Lukes mentioned, 
the article on young adult school push-outs, below -- thanks to Janet Isserlis -- 
is another address that should work.  

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator

http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/articleView.cfm?articlenumber=61



_______________________________________________
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


From Dwyoho at aol.com  Fri Mar  8 15:41:18 2002
From: Dwyoho at aol.com (Dwyoho at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:41:18 EST
Subject: [NLA] Increased Number of Young Adults in Adult Education Programs
Message-ID: <70.1907604b.29ba7bee@aol.com>

In a message dated 3/8/02 1:20:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
DJRosen at theworld.com writes:


>  Rumors abound that high schools would rather have some of their 'problem 
> students' enroll 
> in a GED program rather than stay on their campuses.
> 

When I was a high school principal, I sometimes "guided" troublesome students 
aged 17 and above to leave the school and enter adult ed.  Yes, I pushed them 
out.  I knew adult ed was not appropriate for them and I doubt that many 
actually enrolled in adult ed programs, but some did.  The problem was that I 
felt I had no other choice.  There were no alternatives, and other students 
were profoundly affected by the disruptive presence of these students in the 
school.  There were also students who initiated the change themselves.  They 
thought a GED would be an easier and quicker route to getting an education.  
I rarely disabused them of that idea.

I am certain this was, is, not unusual.  Recently in our state there has been 
a resurgence of an old idea, the "alternative school" approach for dealing 
with these students.   For better or worse, many of these alternative 
programs have been co-located with adult ed, and sometimes the adult ed 
administrator is also assigned the task of administering the alternative 
program as well!  

What are the implications for policy?


Deborah W. Yoho
Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
Co-Moderator, NIFL-Health Discussion Group
921 Woodrow Street
Columbia, SC  29205
803-765-2555  Fax:  803-799-8417  dwyoho at aol.com
Agency email:  litcola at mail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020308/236883d1/attachment.html>

From JCretella at aol.com  Fri Mar  8 17:24:12 2002
From: JCretella at aol.com (JCretella at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:24:12 EST
Subject: [NLA] Increased Number of Young Adults in Adult Education Programs
Message-ID: <50.7c2a366.29ba940c@aol.com>

Deborah, Before I retired I was Director of Adult Education and Principal of 
the Alternative High School. It was no coincidence. I was tired of getting 
the 16 yr old "troublemakers" (as they were called). They were two young to 
take on AE and it wasn't fair to the community to just through them out. So 
my guidance counselor (ADULT ED Counselor) and I put together a program for 
an alternative program. The administration (k-12 guys and gals) were not tto 
happy but the board of ed thought it was a great idea. The alternative 
students did not "drop out",,,they kept their  high school tosters. The 
school was located in a location away from the high schools near the adult ed 
center...it was important for it to have its oqn location...It was limited to 
20 students who went through a screening process. The decision to admit them 
was up to the Adult Ed Director (that"s why the high school principals were 
not too happy) Today that program is a model in the state. And we were able 
to deal with the drop out problem on our terms. Over the years about 20-30% 
of alternative students have gone on tp post-secondary programs. There's a 
lot more that goes with the story but the concept of alternative high school 
is a good one when it is not used as a dumpimg ground for k-12. The system 
now has an alternative program for middle school kids...Hope this sheds some 
light on the issue.
_______________________________________________
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


From tsticht at aznet.net  Sat Mar  9 16:39:38 2002
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 14:39:38 -0700
Subject: [NLA] Fall From the Summit Continues
Message-ID: <3C8A8117.102C@aznet.net>

Research Note                               8 March 2002

The Action Agenda Midway Year 2: The Fall From the Summit Continues 

Tom Sticht

In September of 2000 the National Literacy Summit 2000 steering
committee launched An Action Agenda for Literacy entitled "From the
Margins to the Mainstream". The Action Agenda called for an education
system of QUALITY services for adult students with ease of ACCESS to
these services and sufficient RESOURCES to support quality and access.
This adult education and literacy system was set as the national goal to
be achieved by the year 2010. Unfortunately, at the end of the first six
months of the second year into the Action Agenda, results in these
aspects of the system are not encouraging.  

QUALITY: In the Thursday Notes for 6/14/01 from The Desk of Ronald
Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education and Literacy (DAEL)
in the U.S. Department of Education it was reported that most states met
or exceeded their Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA)
performance targets which they had established working interactively 
with the DAEL. However, he went on to say,  " Many of the performance
targets negotiated with the Department tended to be at the low end of
the spectrum in this first year." I have not seen any reports from
either the Department of Education or the Action Agenda web page for the
second year of the WIA/AEFLA performance targets.  But it seems to me
that if programs have continued to set their five year goals "at the low
end of the spectrum," there is reason to doubt that any improvements in
"quality," considered as programs helping adults reach higher levels of
learning than what they were already achieving before the Action Agenda
requirements were put in place , will be achieved in the near future.  I
have not seen anything telling how the Action Agenda managers will
evaluate the achievement of the Acton Agenda "quality" goals so they and
we will know that they are being achieved. 

ACCESS: Last year I noted in a September 2001 NLA post that from 1998 to
2000, just three years, we lost 12 years of progress in enrolling adults
in the AELS. For three decades there was fairly consistent growth in
enrollments in the AELS, from around 370,000 in 1966 to 2,879,000 in
1985, to 4,100,000 million in 1997. In 1998, when the Workforce
Investment Act, Title 2 Adult Education and Family Literacy Act was
enacted, with the National Reporting System and its encouragement of
some form of standardized testing for accountability, enrollments
started to drop. In 1999 they fell to 3.6 million, a drop of some
500,000 from 1997, and in 2000 enrollments fell by an additional 700,000
to around 2,900,000 million according to a message on the NLA list from
Ron Pugsley in his Thursday Notes (8/22/01). This is a drop of almost 30
percent, some 1.2 million enrollments,  from the peak of 4.1 million in
1997. I have found no data for FY 2001 enrollments nor have I found any
discussion of the drastic decline in enrollments in the Adult Education
and Literacy System (AELS) at the National Coalition for Literacy web
site, the Action Agenda web site, the National Institute for Literacy
web site, or anywhere else, either. Surely this massive decline in
enrollments in the AELS  should be of major concern to those advocating
for greater access to AELS services in the Action Agenda. 

RESOURCES:  In September 2000 the National Literacy Summit 2000 Action
Agenda included  Action Agenda Priority 1: Resources, Outcome B: Action
2: "Persuade Congress to appropriate $1 billion annually to the adult
education, language, and literacy system." Unfortunately, in February
2002 President Bush submitted his budget for State Grants for Adult
Education for FY 2003 which provides the core federal funding for the
AELS and requested funding of $575 million, which is the same as for FY
2002 and includes $70 million earmarked for the English Literacy and
Civics Education programs. Adjusting for inflation, the President?s
request for the AELS reduces the purchasing power of State Grants for FY
2003 below that of FY 2002. Additionally, the President?s proposed
budget decreases Even Start Family Literacy funds by $50 million, and
Incarcerated Youth and Offenders and Prison Literacy funds drop a
combined $22 million to zero for FY 2003. As many as 20 job training
programs are being dropped by the President, some of which provide
workplace basic skills programs for adults. All this suggests hat fundng
for the adult education, language, and literacy system may be sliding
down from the summit unless the Congress can indeed be persuaded to
increase the President's funding proposals. 

The Action Agenda Commitments

A visit to the Action Agenda web site indicates that there is a page on
which  "commitments of the week" will be posted. As of March 8, 2002
there were two commitments posted, and both of them appeared to be at
least several weeks and perhaps months old. I could not find on the
Action Agenda web site any information about how many and what kind of
commitments have been made in the first six months of the second year of
the Action Agenda. 

There is also a Calendar of events that shows where presentations about
the Action Agenda will be given. The most recent entry on the calendar
is dated September 26, 2001  and mentions a conference in Seattle,
Washington. Whether other presentations about the Action Agenda have
been given or planned for since six months ago cannot be determined from
the posted calendar. Based just on what is on the web site, there does
not appear to be much "buzz" about the Action Agenda going on in the
field.

Lack of Action on the Action Agenda

Midway through the second year since the National Literacy Summit 2000
committee released From the Margins to the Mainstream: An Action Agenda
for Literacy in September 2000, it appears to me that the indicators for
Quality, Access and Resources goals set in the Action Agenda are
registering few to none of the "measurable gains" the Action Agenda
calls for. Also, from the calendar of presentations and commitments
pages of the Action Agenda web site, it is easy get the impression that
at this time there is not much by way of action going on to advance the
Action Agenda. 

There are 8.5 years left until 2010.
_______________________________________________
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


From cb.king at verizon.net  Sun Mar 10 14:26:47 2002
From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine King)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 11:26:47 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Fall From the Summit Continues
References: <3C8A8117.102C@aznet.net>
Message-ID: <006c01c1c869$d9ce9400$a6f72a3f@cbking>

Tom:

I was interested to read your report about the
Action Agenda and share your concern about
its implementation; however, I am unclear about 
your attitude about it.  You say:

"I have not seen anything telling how the Action 
Agenda managers will ***evaluate*** the achievement 
of the Acton Agenda 'quality' goals so they and
we will know that they are being achieved" (my
emphasis).   

Are you saying the Agenda is a definitive failure,
or on its way to being so?  Are you critiquing the 
notion of "quality" work and methods with those of 
post-positivist quantification methods of "evaluation"?  
And if so, what are the inherent problems with 
doing so?   I.e., reading developments in quality with
quantitative assumptions about what determines
***evaluation*** in the researchers eyes?

If not, and assuming that adults can learn and programs'
delivery improve and can, in fact, proceed nicely (not
be "falling") with or without assessments tools and 
quantitative outcome recording, do you have any 
suggestions about how to remedy the situation and 
problem as you understand it and have laid it out in your
note?   Or would you consider any evaluations or
assessments delivered in qualitative, narrative, etc., 
terms legitimately **evaluative**?

Regards,

Catherine King  

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Thomas Sticht <tsticht at aznet.net>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Cc: <tsticht at aznet.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 1:39 PM
Subject: [NLA] Fall From the Summit Continues


> Research Note                               8 March 2002
> 
> The Action Agenda Midway Year 2: The Fall From the Summit Continues 
> 
> Tom Sticht
> 
> In September of 2000 the National Literacy Summit 2000 steering
> committee launched An Action Agenda for Literacy entitled "From the
> Margins to the Mainstream". The Action Agenda called for an education
> system of QUALITY services for adult students with ease of ACCESS to
> these services and sufficient RESOURCES to support quality and access.
> This adult education and literacy system was set as the national goal to
> be achieved by the year 2010. Unfortunately, at the end of the first six
> months of the second year into the Action Agenda, results in these
> aspects of the system are not encouraging.  
> 
> QUALITY: In the Thursday Notes for 6/14/01 from The Desk of Ronald
> Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education and Literacy (DAEL)
> in the U.S. Department of Education it was reported that most states met
> or exceeded their Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA)
> performance targets which they had established working interactively 
> with the DAEL. However, he went on to say,  " Many of the performance
> targets negotiated with the Department tended to be at the low end of
> the spectrum in this first year." I have not seen any reports from
> either the Department of Education or the Action Agenda web page for the
> second year of the WIA/AEFLA performance targets.  But it seems to me
> that if programs have continued to set their five year goals "at the low
> end of the spectrum," there is reason to doubt that any improvements in
> "quality," considered as programs helping adults reach higher levels of
> learning than what they were already achieving before the Action Agenda
> requirements were put in place , will be achieved in the near future.  I
> have not seen anything telling how the Action Agenda managers will
> evaluate the achievement of the Acton Agenda "quality" goals so they and
> we will know that they are being achieved. 
> 
> ACCESS: Last year I noted in a September 2001 NLA post that from 1998 to
> 2000, just three years, we lost 12 years of progress in enrolling adults
> in the AELS. For three decades there was fairly consistent growth in
> enrollments in the AELS, from around 370,000 in 1966 to 2,879,000 in
> 1985, to 4,100,000 million in 1997. In 1998, when the Workforce
> Investment Act, Title 2 Adult Education and Family Literacy Act was
> enacted, with the National Reporting System and its encouragement of
> some form of standardized testing for accountability, enrollments
> started to drop. In 1999 they fell to 3.6 million, a drop of some
> 500,000 from 1997, and in 2000 enrollments fell by an additional 700,000
> to around 2,900,000 million according to a message on the NLA list from
> Ron Pugsley in his Thursday Notes (8/22/01). This is a drop of almost 30
> percent, some 1.2 million enrollments,  from the peak of 4.1 million in
> 1997. I have found no data for FY 2001 enrollments nor have I found any
> discussion of the drastic decline in enrollments in the Adult Education
> and Literacy System (AELS) at the National Coalition for Literacy web
> site, the Action Agenda web site, the National Institute for Literacy
> web site, or anywhere else, either. Surely this massive decline in
> enrollments in the AELS  should be of major concern to those advocating
> for greater access to AELS services in the Action Agenda. 
> 
> RESOURCES:  In September 2000 the National Literacy Summit 2000 Action
> Agenda included  Action Agenda Priority 1: Resources, Outcome B: Action
> 2: "Persuade Congress to appropriate $1 billion annually to the adult
> education, language, and literacy system." Unfortunately, in February
> 2002 President Bush submitted his budget for State Grants for Adult
> Education for FY 2003 which provides the core federal funding for the
> AELS and requested funding of $575 million, which is the same as for FY
> 2002 and includes $70 million earmarked for the English Literacy and
> Civics Education programs. Adjusting for inflation, the President's
> request for the AELS reduces the purchasing power of State Grants for FY
> 2003 below that of FY 2002. Additionally, the President's proposed
> budget decreases Even Start Family Literacy funds by $50 million, and
> Incarcerated Youth and Offenders and Prison Literacy funds drop a
> combined $22 million to zero for FY 2003. As many as 20 job training
> programs are being dropped by the President, some of which provide
> workplace basic skills programs for adults. All this suggests hat fundng
> for the adult education, language, and literacy system may be sliding
> down from the summit unless the Congress can indeed be persuaded to
> increase the President's funding proposals. 
> 
> The Action Agenda Commitments
> 
> A visit to the Action Agenda web site indicates that there is a page on
> which  "commitments of the week" will be posted. As of March 8, 2002
> there were two commitments posted, and both of them appeared to be at
> least several weeks and perhaps months old. I could not find on the
> Action Agenda web site any information about how many and what kind of
> commitments have been made in the first six months of the second year of
> the Action Agenda. 
> 
> There is also a Calendar of events that shows where presentations about
> the Action Agenda will be given. The most recent entry on the calendar
> is dated September 26, 2001  and mentions a conference in Seattle,
> Washington. Whether other presentations about the Action Agenda have
> been given or planned for since six months ago cannot be determined from
> the posted calendar. Based just on what is on the web site, there does
> not appear to be much "buzz" about the Action Agenda going on in the
> field.
> 
> Lack of Action on the Action Agenda
> 
> Midway through the second year since the National Literacy Summit 2000
> committee released From the Margins to the Mainstream: An Action Agenda
> for Literacy in September 2000, it appears to me that the indicators for
> Quality, Access and Resources goals set in the Action Agenda are
> registering few to none of the "measurable gains" the Action Agenda
> calls for. Also, from the calendar of presentations and commitments
> pages of the Action Agenda web site, it is easy get the impression that
> at this time there is not much by way of action going on to advance the
> Action Agenda. 
> 
> There are 8.5 years left until 2010.
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From RBickerton at doe.mass.edu  Sun Mar 10 15:36:09 2002
From: RBickerton at doe.mass.edu (Bickerton, Robert P)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:36:09 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Fall From the Summit Continues
Message-ID: <DE4FCD18CD7FD4118C8C00D0B774DDA405BE77B6@mail.doe.mass.edu>

Tom, et al,

There are several areas related to the Summit about which we should be
concerned and you have pointed out a few.  The one I am most concerned about
is how little momentum for change has been generated by the Summit -- and
I'm referring here more to the absence of momentum across our field than I
am to among policy and elected leaders and the public at large.  A close
second is the concern we share about stagnation in the level of resources
committed to "ABE" (literacy, ASE, ESOL, et al).  I believe this is in part
due to our attempts to achieve a "one size fits all" document.  I believe we
need to address the needs and concerns of our different primary audiences a
bit differently while maintaining a consistent conceptual and thematic
framework.  For example, this is particularly important when we consider
that what communicates effectively with policy and elected leaders is not
the same as what communicates effectively with the members of our own field.
Mushed together in the same piece, neither side will find the case
compelling.  Done well, they can be tied together like two sides of the same
coin and energize these key constituencies.  

However, when it comes to two of the domains you discuss, Quality and
Access, some of us would argue that in a scarcity environment, they are
inversely related, i.e., that with severely limited funding, more of one is
achieved by having less of the other.  This list has touched upon this issue
in the past.  I have always believed that the 4.1 million under-educated and
limited English proficient adults alleged to have been "served" in a year
was a destructive fiction.  There is an enormous difference between "served"
as in burgers/fast food and "served" as in provided with a genuine
opportunity to succeed and achieve one's dreams and aspirations.  When we
see figures like an average of "66 hours/student/year" we should have the
integrity and courage to admit that too many of the students we enroll in
classes scheduled for 150 to 500 hours or more per year are dropping out
with nothing more than damaged self-esteem (once again, for many) and a
detour from their pursuit of a dream that we can only hope doesn't start to
feel like a dead end.  Many subscribers to this list are aware that over a
decade ago in Massachusetts, we arrived at a difficult but firm consensus
decision to focus on quality, providing every enrolled student with a
meaningful opportunity to enroll by limiting access.  With $47 million in
combined state and federal funding this year, we will enroll 25,000 students
and struggle with over 14,000 on waiting lists.  I believe this dynamic
needs to be analyzed more carefully before concluding that the drop in the
number of students "served" is necessarily problematic in an environment
that continues to be defined by a disgracefully low level of resources.  

I have one other caution to share about the numbers Tom has pointed to.
Serious attempts to analyze these numbers should begin by asking how USDOE
assures the validity, reliability and comparability of the data it collects
from the states and summarizes in the reports it posts and distributes.  I
believe that this data has yet to achieve the level of quality needed for it
to be summed, averaged, or compared.  Absent the enforcement of rigorous
standards for the quality of data submitted by the states, I believe you
pretty much get what you'd expect when a spotlight is shone on some aspect
of performance.  When the spotlight was on access/"quantity," we got really
large numbers of students "served."  Now that the spotlight is on "impact,"
we are getting rapidly larger numbers of hours of instruction, educational
gains and goals achieved.  Before we draw any substantive conclusions from
all this, we'd better decide what "claims" can be reliably supported by the
data.  

Let's keep focussed on the issues Tom is pointing to:  are we in an era of
positive momentum with regard to quality, access and resources.  But let's
also make sure we're pointed in the "right direction" as we seek to increase
momentum and resolve these seemingly intractable challenges.  I will once
again submit that our first step is achieving agreement, re, what the "right
direction" actually is -- what I refer to as achieving a "common vision."
Otherwise we'll continue to wander in the desert for another 40 or more
years!

take care,
bob bickerton, MA director of adult ed




-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Sticht [mailto:tsticht at aznet.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 4:40 PM
To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
Cc: tsticht at aznet.net
Subject: [NLA] Fall From the Summit Continues


Research Note                               8 March 2002

The Action Agenda Midway Year 2: The Fall From the Summit Continues 

Tom Sticht

In September of 2000 the National Literacy Summit 2000 steering
committee launched An Action Agenda for Literacy entitled "From the
Margins to the Mainstream". The Action Agenda called for an education
system of QUALITY services for adult students with ease of ACCESS to
these services and sufficient RESOURCES to support quality and access.
This adult education and literacy system was set as the national goal to
be achieved by the year 2010. Unfortunately, at the end of the first six
months of the second year into the Action Agenda, results in these
aspects of the system are not encouraging.  

QUALITY: In the Thursday Notes for 6/14/01 from The Desk of Ronald
Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education and Literacy (DAEL)
in the U.S. Department of Education it was reported that most states met
or exceeded their Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA)
performance targets which they had established working interactively 
with the DAEL. However, he went on to say,  " Many of the performance
targets negotiated with the Department tended to be at the low end of
the spectrum in this first year." I have not seen any reports from
either the Department of Education or the Action Agenda web page for the
second year of the WIA/AEFLA performance targets.  But it seems to me
that if programs have continued to set their five year goals "at the low
end of the spectrum," there is reason to doubt that any improvements in
"quality," considered as programs helping adults reach higher levels of
learning than what they were already achieving before the Action Agenda
requirements were put in place , will be achieved in the near future.  I
have not seen anything telling how the Action Agenda managers will
evaluate the achievement of the Acton Agenda "quality" goals so they and
we will know that they are being achieved. 

ACCESS: Last year I noted in a September 2001 NLA post that from 1998 to
2000, just three years, we lost 12 years of progress in enrolling adults
in the AELS. For three decades there was fairly consistent growth in
enrollments in the AELS, from around 370,000 in 1966 to 2,879,000 in
1985, to 4,100,000 million in 1997. In 1998, when the Workforce
Investment Act, Title 2 Adult Education and Family Literacy Act was
enacted, with the National Reporting System and its encouragement of
some form of standardized testing for accountability, enrollments
started to drop. In 1999 they fell to 3.6 million, a drop of some
500,000 from 1997, and in 2000 enrollments fell by an additional 700,000
to around 2,900,000 million according to a message on the NLA list from
Ron Pugsley in his Thursday Notes (8/22/01). This is a drop of almost 30
percent, some 1.2 million enrollments,  from the peak of 4.1 million in
1997. I have found no data for FY 2001 enrollments nor have I found any
discussion of the drastic decline in enrollments in the Adult Education
and Literacy System (AELS) at the National Coalition for Literacy web
site, the Action Agenda web site, the National Institute for Literacy
web site, or anywhere else, either. Surely this massive decline in
enrollments in the AELS  should be of major concern to those advocating
for greater access to AELS services in the Action Agenda. 

RESOURCES:  In September 2000 the National Literacy Summit 2000 Action
Agenda included  Action Agenda Priority 1: Resources, Outcome B: Action
2: "Persuade Congress to appropriate $1 billion annually to the adult
education, language, and literacy system." Unfortunately, in February
2002 President Bush submitted his budget for State Grants for Adult
Education for FY 2003 which provides the core federal funding for the
AELS and requested funding of $575 million, which is the same as for FY
2002 and includes $70 million earmarked for the English Literacy and
Civics Education programs. Adjusting for inflation, the President's
request for the AELS reduces the purchasing power of State Grants for FY
2003 below that of FY 2002. Additionally, the President's proposed
budget decreases Even Start Family Literacy funds by $50 million, and
Incarcerated Youth and Offenders and Prison Literacy funds drop a
combined $22 million to zero for FY 2003. As many as 20 job training
programs are being dropped by the President, some of which provide
workplace basic skills programs for adults. All this suggests hat fundng
for the adult education, language, and literacy system may be sliding
down from the summit unless the Congress can indeed be persuaded to
increase the President's funding proposals. 

The Action Agenda Commitments

A visit to the Action Agenda web site indicates that there is a page on
which  "commitments of the week" will be posted. As of March 8, 2002
there were two commitments posted, and both of them appeared to be at
least several weeks and perhaps months old. I could not find on the
Action Agenda web site any information about how many and what kind of
commitments have been made in the first six months of the second year of
the Action Agenda. 

There is also a Calendar of events that shows where presentations about
the Action Agenda will be given. The most recent entry on the calendar
is dated September 26, 2001  and mentions a conference in Seattle,
Washington. Whether other presentations about the Action Agenda have
been given or planned for since six months ago cannot be determined from
the posted calendar. Based just on what is on the web site, there does
not appear to be much "buzz" about the Action Agenda going on in the
field.

Lack of Action on the Action Agenda

Midway through the second year since the National Literacy Summit 2000
committee released From the Margins to the Mainstream: An Action Agenda
for Literacy in September 2000, it appears to me that the indicators for
Quality, Access and Resources goals set in the Action Agenda are
registering few to none of the "measurable gains" the Action Agenda
calls for. Also, from the calendar of presentations and commitments
pages of the Action Agenda web site, it is easy get the impression that
at this time there is not much by way of action going on to advance the
Action Agenda. 

There are 8.5 years left until 2010.
_______________________________________________
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


From sophocles5 at juno.com  Mon Mar 11 11:56:30 2002
From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 08:56:30 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Fall From the Summit Continues
References: <DE4FCD18CD7FD4118C8C00D0B774DDA405BE77B6@mail.doe.mass.edu>
Message-ID: <20020311.085631.11102.0.sophocles5@juno.com>


On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:36:09 -0500 "Bickerton, Robert P"
<RBickerton at doe.mass.edu> writes:

  But let's also make sure we're pointed in the "right direction" as we
seek to 
>increase momentum and resolve these seemingly intractable challenges.  I
will 
>once again submit that our first step is achieving agreement, re, what
the 
>"right direction" actually is -- what I refer to as achieving a "common 
>vision."  Otherwise we'll continue to wander in the desert for another
40 or 
>more years!
>
Assuming this is feasible (and the jury is still out) the fundamental
issue remains on what value framework will/can such a common vision be
premised, including the politics of literacy that would give this shape. 
Without a coherent political culture to ground such a common ground I can
only submit that any such effort will continue to be based on shaky
ground.  Are we willing/able to truly wrestle with that or will action be
based on whatever various expediencies may seem plausible at any given
time?  While I far from dismiss the importance of such pragmatic (small
p) strategizing and believe it critical in the realm of short term
politics and therefore needs to continue, for the long-term issues
implied in Bob's note, something more comprehensive will be required that
confronts the issue of political culture full force.  I base this
assumption on the Freirian aphorism that the pedagogical is political and
the political is pedagogical "all the way down" one might say.

George Demetrion
Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford
sophocles5 at juno.com


________________________________________________________________
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


From sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net  Mon Mar 11 18:15:48 2002
From: sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net (Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:15:48 -0600
Subject: [NLA] Fall From the Summit Continues
References: <DE4FCD18CD7FD4118C8C00D0B774DDA405BE77B6@mail.doe.mass.edu>
Message-ID: <002a01c1c952$bfdfc8e0$16d9c740@net>

Bob, Tom et al,

Bob - you struck a "noisy chord" with this administrator related to Tom's
note on the Summit, progress (lack of it, actually) and the three pillars
withIN the "Into the Mainstream" plan of action.  You began by writing:
> "There are several areas related to the Summit about which we should be
> concerned and you have pointed out a few.  The one I am most concerned
about
> is how little momentum for change has been generated by the Summit -- and
> I'm referring here more to the absence of momentum across our field than I
> am to among policy and elected leaders and the public at large."

Guess what I see as the reason?  I believe that those of us "across our
field" looked to this Summit document as a way that we could make effective
changes in tearing down illiteracy, to help all adults to exercise their
right to read, to make a turn-around in building the family.  In my view,
from the field, it didn't happen because the goals were not reachable goals
for most literacy programs.  I say, "Give me a goal I can accomplish and I
will fight for that goal until every one of my pendages is bloodied."

All I read into those plans of action was "pie in the sky" goals for merely
a few programs to accomplish.  I could see that perhaps the more powerful
programs with huge numbers of students would be able to *exercise* their
power.  But surely not programs like ours here.

A secondary factor in progress made includes being close to the source - to
decision-makers - to politicians - to the power.  With limited funding, the
programs having to travel to either locally elected officials or Washington,
DC also loomed heavily on the success a literacy effort could have
accomplishing the steps outlined in that politically driven document, I
felt.

You also stated:
> A close second is the concern we share about stagnation in the level of
resources
> committed to "ABE" (literacy, ASE, ESOL, et al).  I believe this is in
part
> due to our attempts to achieve a "one size fits all" document.  I believe
we
> need to address the needs and concerns of our different primary audiences
a
> bit differently while maintaining a consistent conceptual and thematic
> framework. >>

I so agree!!!  Because the second factor in our *field's* efforts to
accomplish the lofty goals of the Margins to Mainstream was the field's
inability to get the point across that we are NOT all alike, that "one size
does NOT fit all"!!!

Trying not to beat a dead horse, I feel the above "one size fits all" is
directly related to this statement (edited) from Tom's email:
< For three decades there was fairly consistent growth in
< enrollments .... In 1998, when the Workforce Investment Act,
< Title 2 Adult Education and Family Literacy Act was enacted, with
< the National Reporting System and its encouragement of
< some form of standardized testing for accountability, enrollments
< started to drop. In 1999 they fell to 3.6 million, .... and in 2000
enrollments
< fell by an additional 700,000... according to a message on the NLA list
from
< Ron Pugsley ... a drop of almost 30 percent ...<<

Because the adult with limited literacy skills doesn't fit in the mold (the
old 'round peg in a square hole' philosophy), the Nat'l Reporting System and
the standardized test philosophy is threatening to these learners.  We run
them off with that approach being required before they even get to the first
step of internalizing, "Hey!  I'm not as stupid as that 2nd grade teacher
*told* me I was!"

Additionally, I would like someone to research:  Were those "falls" actual?
Or were they, rather, "unreported numbers" of students who no longer show up
on the records, but who are actually continuing ... are enrolled in programs
where they facilitate the adult learners' striving to meet their personal
goals??  They are the programs who refuse to try to squeeze that poor soul
into a square hole via testing!

Has it ever been researched where/how those "drops in figures" fit into the
big picture alongside the exact dates that standardized testing requirements
began?  Could it be even the slightest possibility that the two have
*some*thing to do with one another??

Bob, you brought up:
> However, when it comes to two of the domains you discuss, Quality and
> Access, some of us would argue that in a scarcity environment, they are
> inversely related, i.e., that with severely limited funding, more of one
is
> achieved by having less of the other.  <<

How in the world can a program without financial resources to build, grow,
staff, change, add methods, materials, alternative approaches, do so without
access to money???  So "access" to ANYthing *is* impacted, without question,
when the financial well of resources dries up!

Quality vs quantity?  I believe that, if programs watch how thinly they
spread their people-resources, they still CAN offer "quality programming"
although on a much smaller scale than is desireable to influence the "purse
string holders".

I strongly agree with what you said here, Bob:
< There is an enormous difference between "served"
> as in burgers/fast food and "served" as in provided with a genuine
> opportunity to succeed and achieve one's dreams and aspirations.  When we
> see figures like an average of "66 hours/student/year" we should have the
> integrity and courage to admit that too many of the students we enroll in
> classes scheduled for 150 to 500 hours or more per year are dropping out
> with nothing more than damaged self-esteem (once again, for many) and a
> detour from their pursuit of a dream that we can only hope doesn't start
to
> feel like a dead end. >>

Individualized, learner-driven programming for men and women who have
families, jobs, and responsibilities in lives away from the educational
environment will come with hopes that fit *their* available time schedule.
(And it *isn't* going to be 150 to 500 hours/yr.!!)  Whoever *isn't*
admitting that the dropout rates are directly related to intense hour-driven
expectations of the adult learner (that likely weren't even discussed with
them to determine if these hours were realistic!) will fail that human being
and shut yet another door.  (Closed doors are *worse* than "dead ends",
Bob -- the adult learner *knows* that Knowledge is hidden behind that bolted
door that they cannot break down!)

Self-esteem damage???  I am so-ooo concerned about that for our adult Future
Readers!!!!  What will our men, who grow older and become grandpas, tell
their great-great-grandchild how they were treated when THEY first learned
to read???  Are we passing on a legacy of how being able to read is
important?  or Demeaning?  or Rewarding?  or Life Changing?  or
Demoralizing?  What will the adjective be that today's adult learner tells
the "future child" on his knee some year???  Will he be able to take that
child into the pages of a favorite children's book and be able to -- with
*joy* in his voice and a smile on his face -- read that book aloud?  Or will
all those forboding tests stand in the way of achieving such a wonderful
personal goal that no line on the NRS has space for?

Nancy Hansen
Ex. Director
Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council
Sioux Falls, SD
sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bickerton, Robert P" <RBickerton at doe.mass.edu>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: [NLA] Fall From the Summit Continues


> Tom, et al,
>
> There are several areas related to the Summit about which we should be
> concerned and you have pointed out a few.  The one I am most concerned
about
> is how little momentum for change has been generated by the Summit -- and
> I'm referring here more to the absence of momentum across our field than I
> am to among policy and elected leaders and the public at large.  A close
> second is the concern we share about stagnation in the level of resources
> committed to "ABE" (literacy, ASE, ESOL, et al).  I believe this is in
part
> due to our attempts to achieve a "one size fits all" document.  I believe
we
> need to address the needs and concerns of our different primary audiences
a
> bit differently while maintaining a consistent conceptual and thematic
> framework.  For example, this is particularly important when we consider
> that what communicates effectively with policy and elected leaders is not
> the same as what communicates effectively with the members of our own
field.
> Mushed together in the same piece, neither side will find the case
> compelling.  Done well, they can be tied together like two sides of the
same
> coin and energize these key constituencies.
>
> However, when it comes to two of the domains you discuss, Quality and
> Access, some of us would argue that in a scarcity environment, they are
> inversely related, i.e., that with severely limited funding, more of one
is
> achieved by having less of the other.  This list has touched upon this
issue
> in the past.  I have always believed that the 4.1 million under-educated
and
> limited English proficient adults alleged to have been "served" in a year
> was a destructive fiction.  There is an enormous difference between
"served"
> as in burgers/fast food and "served" as in provided with a genuine
> opportunity to succeed and achieve one's dreams and aspirations.  When we
> see figures like an average of "66 hours/student/year" we should have the
> integrity and courage to admit that too many of the students we enroll in
> classes scheduled for 150 to 500 hours or more per year are dropping out
> with nothing more than damaged self-esteem (once again, for many) and a
> detour from their pursuit of a dream that we can only hope doesn't start
to
> feel like a dead end.  Many subscribers to this list are aware that over a
> decade ago in Massachusetts, we arrived at a difficult but firm consensus
> decision to focus on quality, providing every enrolled student with a
> meaningful opportunity to enroll by limiting access.  With $47 million in
> combined state and federal funding this year, we will enroll 25,000
students
> and struggle with over 14,000 on waiting lists.  I believe this dynamic
> needs to be analyzed more carefully before concluding that the drop in the
> number of students "served" is necessarily problematic in an environment
> that continues to be defined by a disgracefully low level of resources.
>
> I have one other caution to share about the numbers Tom has pointed to.
> Serious attempts to analyze these numbers should begin by asking how USDOE
> assures the validity, reliability and comparability of the data it
collects
> from the states and summarizes in the reports it posts and distributes.  I
> believe that this data has yet to achieve the level of quality needed for
it
> to be summed, averaged, or compared.  Absent the enforcement of rigorous
> standards for the quality of data submitted by the states, I believe you
> pretty much get what you'd expect when a spotlight is shone on some aspect
> of performance.  When the spotlight was on access/"quantity," we got
really
> large numbers of students "served."  Now that the spotlight is on
"impact,"
> we are getting rapidly larger numbers of hours of instruction, educational
> gains and goals achieved.  Before we draw any substantive conclusions from
> all this, we'd better decide what "claims" can be reliably supported by
the
> data.
>
> Let's keep focussed on the issues Tom is pointing to:  are we in an era of
> positive momentum with regard to quality, access and resources.  But let's
> also make sure we're pointed in the "right direction" as we seek to
increase
> momentum and resolve these seemingly intractable challenges.  I will once
> again submit that our first step is achieving agreement, re, what the
"right
> direction" actually is -- what I refer to as achieving a "common vision."
> Otherwise we'll continue to wander in the desert for another 40 or more
> years!
>
> take care,
> bob bickerton, MA director of adult ed
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Sticht [mailto:tsticht at aznet.net]
> Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 4:40 PM
> To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
> Cc: tsticht at aznet.net
> Subject: [NLA] Fall From the Summit Continues
>
>
> Research Note                               8 March 2002
>
> The Action Agenda Midway Year 2: The Fall From the Summit Continues
>
> Tom Sticht
>
> In September of 2000 the National Literacy Summit 2000 steering
> committee launched An Action Agenda for Literacy entitled "From the
> Margins to the Mainstream". The Action Agenda called for an education
> system of QUALITY services for adult students with ease of ACCESS to
> these services and sufficient RESOURCES to support quality and access.
> This adult education and literacy system was set as the national goal to
> be achieved by the year 2010. Unfortunately, at the end of the first six
> months of the second year into the Action Agenda, results in these
> aspects of the system are not encouraging.
>
> QUALITY: In the Thursday Notes for 6/14/01 from The Desk of Ronald
> Pugsley, Director of the Division of Adult Education and Literacy (DAEL)
> in the U.S. Department of Education it was reported that most states met
> or exceeded their Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA)
> performance targets which they had established working interactively
> with the DAEL. However, he went on to say,  " Many of the performance
> targets negotiated with the Department tended to be at the low end of
> the spectrum in this first year." I have not seen any reports from
> either the Department of Education or the Action Agenda web page for the
> second year of the WIA/AEFLA performance targets.  But it seems to me
> that if programs have continued to set their five year goals "at the low
> end of the spectrum," there is reason to doubt that any improvements in
> "quality," considered as programs helping adults reach higher levels of
> learning than what they were already achieving before the Action Agenda
> requirements were put in place , will be achieved in the near future.  I
> have not seen anything telling how the Action Agenda managers will
> evaluate the achievement of the Acton Agenda "quality" goals so they and
> we will know that they are being achieved.
>
> ACCESS: Last year I noted in a September 2001 NLA post that from 1998 to
> 2000, just three years, we lost 12 years of progress in enrolling adults
> in the AELS. For three decades there was fairly consistent growth in
> enrollments in the AELS, from around 370,000 in 1966 to 2,879,000 in
> 1985, to 4,100,000 million in 1997. In 1998, when the Workforce
> Investment Act, Title 2 Adult Education and Family Literacy Act was
> enacted, with the National Reporting System and its encouragement of
> some form of standardized testing for accountability, enrollments
> started to drop. In 1999 they fell to 3.6 million, a drop of some
> 500,000 from 1997, and in 2000 enrollments fell by an additional 700,000
> to around 2,900,000 million according to a message on the NLA list from
> Ron Pugsley in his Thursday Notes (8/22/01). This is a drop of almost 30
> percent, some 1.2 million enrollments,  from the peak of 4.1 million in
> 1997. I have found no data for FY 2001 enrollments nor have I found any
> discussion of the drastic decline in enrollments in the Adult Education
> and Literacy System (AELS) at the National Coalition for Literacy web
> site, the Action Agenda web site, the National Institute for Literacy
> web site, or anywhere else, either. Surely this massive decline in
> enrollments in the AELS  should be of major concern to those advocating
> for greater access to AELS services in the Action Agenda.
>
> RESOURCES:  In September 2000 the National Literacy Summit 2000 Action
> Agenda included  Action Agenda Priority 1: Resources, Outcome B: Action
> 2: "Persuade Congress to appropriate $1 billion annually to the adult
> education, language, and literacy system." Unfortunately, in February
> 2002 President Bush submitted his budget for State Grants for Adult
> Education for FY 2003 which provides the core federal funding for the
> AELS and requested funding of $575 million, which is the same as for FY
> 2002 and includes $70 million earmarked for the English Literacy and
> Civics Education programs. Adjusting for inflation, the President's
> request for the AELS reduces the purchasing power of State Grants for FY
> 2003 below that of FY 2002. Additionally, the President's proposed
> budget decreases Even Start Family Literacy funds by $50 million, and
> Incarcerated Youth and Offenders and Prison Literacy funds drop a
> combined $22 million to zero for FY 2003. As many as 20 job training
> programs are being dropped by the President, some of which provide
> workplace basic skills programs for adults. All this suggests hat fundng
> for the adult education, language, and literacy system may be sliding
> down from the summit unless the Congress can indeed be persuaded to
> increase the President's funding proposals.
>
> The Action Agenda Commitments
>
> A visit to the Action Agenda web site indicates that there is a page on
> which  "commitments of the week" will be posted. As of March 8, 2002
> there were two commitments posted, and both of them appeared to be at
> least several weeks and perhaps months old. I could not find on the
> Action Agenda web site any information about how many and what kind of
> commitments have been made in the first six months of the second year of
> the Action Agenda.
>
> There is also a Calendar of events that shows where presentations about
> the Action Agenda will be given. The most recent entry on the calendar
> is dated September 26, 2001  and mentions a conference in Seattle,
> Washington. Whether other presentations about the Action Agenda have
> been given or planned for since six months ago cannot be determined from
> the posted calendar. Based just on what is on the web site, there does
> not appear to be much "buzz" about the Action Agenda going on in the
> field.
>
> Lack of Action on the Action Agenda
>
> Midway through the second year since the National Literacy Summit 2000
> committee released From the Margins to the Mainstream: An Action Agenda
> for Literacy in September 2000, it appears to me that the indicators for
> Quality, Access and Resources goals set in the Action Agenda are
> registering few to none of the "measurable gains" the Action Agenda
> calls for. Also, from the calendar of presentations and commitments
> pages of the Action Agenda web site, it is easy get the impression that
> at this time there is not much by way of action going on to advance the
> Action Agenda.
>
> There are 8.5 years left until 2010.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

_______________________________________________
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


From DJRosen at theworld.com  Mon Mar 11 19:03:31 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:03:31 -0500
Subject: [NLA] A Shared Vision
Message-ID: <3C8D45D3.5090102@theworld.com>

NLA Colleagues,

Bob Bickerton wrote:

> Let's keep focussed on the issues Tom is pointing to:  are we in an era of
> positive momentum with regard to quality, access and resources.  But let's
> also make sure we're pointed in the "right direction" as we seek to 
> increase
> momentum and resolve these seemingly intractable challenges.  I will once
> again submit that our first step is achieving agreement, re, what the 
> "right
> direction" actually is -- what I refer to as achieving a "common vision."
> Otherwise we'll continue to wander in the desert for another 40 or more
> years!

A common vision that recurs in adult literacy national discussions, 
including those on this list, one for which there is widespread 
agreement among students and practitioners, is that adult literacy 
education should become a system with adequate funding, a system which 
provides elementary and secondary level skills and accompanying support 
services for adults, just as the K-12 system provides these for 
children, a system which includes a broad spectrum of education providers. 

Another way to describe this, put forward by several people on this 
list, is that adult education and literacy (including basic and 
secondary level skills and ESL/ESOL) must become a right, just as public 
K-12 education is a right for children.

This should be our shared vision, and we should not rest until we 
achieve it. This is a vision which adult learners. practitioners and 
friends of the field can all work on together.  The challenge is how -- 
over this decade -- to make it happen.

David J. Rosen
<DJRosen at theworld.com>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020311/87cbb396/attachment.html>

From sophocles5 at juno.com  Mon Mar 11 23:36:59 2002
From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:36:59 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Report on Literacy & USDOE
Message-ID: <20020311.203700.11054.1.sophocles5@juno.com>

Colleagues:

A Recent Report on Literacy (2-27-02) included some interesting
observations by high ranking officials of the US Department of Education.

First, there is the brief report on the meeting between Assistant
Secretary Carol D'Amico who is overseeing adult and vocational ed
programs for the Department.    In a 2-13 meeting with state directors
D'Amico said that the Bush administration "will evaluate and support
programs based on the extent to which they are proven to increase
achievement" (p. 1).  Reauthorization for the ABE program and vocational
ed are slated for 2003.  As she further explained it (quoting from the
summary ) "she wants to see a system that is better able to prepare young
people and adults for jobs and college level studies, and to help
immigrants become citizens."  Focusing on the problems of a system that
is marginalized and underfunded in the first place (GD's opinion, not Ms.
D'Amico's), the Assistant Secretary wondered rhetorically, "What are the
barriers that inhibit the ability of community organizations, schools and
community colleges to deliver quality education."  

Some of the state directors responded by pointing to the need for more
funding.  No economic stimulus was required here D'Amico argued, who, it
was reported, "is more interested in using current funding amounts to
leverage investments by others"

D'Amico assured (apparently the taxpayers and other vested interests),
"Don't misunderstand.  I will not advocate for the billions and billions
it would take to reach 90 million people using the existing system.  I
don't think we can get there from here."  Commenting further, she stated
that "We don't know what that answer is" [in getting from there to here]
(?).

The writer of the column pointed to the Department's 5 year plan calling
for "invest[ment] in pilot sites to develop new models of cooperation
between well-trained adult education teachers, volunteers and other
community resources like libraries."  One assumes that the writer is
implying that some substantial funding (not billions and billions) would
be a worthy investment in helping to illuminate a direction for the
field.

MA state director Bob Bickerton was not convinced about current plans
underway by the Bush-oriented USDOE to address (or not, GD) the pressing
needs of the field.  Said Bickerton, "For me the jury will be out until
we can get into more dialogue, because at that forum we couldn't actually
get past the first level of dealing with the issue.  The terms were too
broad."

Also at issue (or so it seems) is whether the Bush administration
actually sees a problem worth critically examining and addressing.  Sure
there's the 90 million.  Sure, we could throw billions at the problem. 
But wait, no one's asking for that.  If I have it right for years the
field has been seeking a one billion dollar investment in ABE and an ABE
system based on policy that resonates with what ABE actually provides. 
That would be good solid life relevant education at various levels of
attainment progressively enabling individuals to enhance their lives as
they incorporate ABE within the varied contexts of their own life
purposes.  

As the EFF project has sought to demonstrate, such life long education
plays a role in enabling adults to improve their lives within their
social roles as workers, family members and community members/citizens
and in the process to contribute to the vitality of the commonwealth of
the Republic of the United States of America  This has been the implicit
public philosophy underlaying the EFF project from the get go but has
never been fully articulated by its developers.  Perhaps now is the time
in this era of patriotism for the USDOE not to throw billions, but say
invest $100 million into the EFF project to help the vision come into
fruition and say another $100 million into NCSALL which is focusing
specifically on adult literacy and adult education research. 

And to demonstrate a little good will one might encourage the USDOE to
invest abother $100 million into the new literacy organization Pro
Literacy World Wide, the impending merger of LLA and LVA.  For the son of
Barbara Bush that would be a worthy investment indeed and more than a
little sign of good will. Of couse the money would be well spent perhaps
in supporting a few pilot demonstration projects of what really works
well or in providing capacity building resources of supporting the 1000
or so local literacy programs that will come under the aegesis of this
new agency.

Going back to EFF, one can't help wondering if the Bush administration
views the constructivist philosophy upon which the EFF standards are
based as a form of ideological faddism of the progressive literacy
community that cannot stand the light of the solid empirical research of
an "evidence-based" scientific tradition.  Not that EFF is not evidence
based.  Not that the adult literacy scholarship stemming from the
ethnographic tradition that underlays the New Literacy Studies of which
Merrifield speaks, is not evidence-based, but such constructivist-based
research/scholartship may not be the kind of evidence that the Bush
administration touts as legitimate.  Ah, there is the rub, indeed.

One cannot also help wondering if the real target of the USDOE under the
Bush administration is not the entire progressive education tradition
starting from the work of John Dewey.  Certainly there has been a
persistent ideological drive among the neoconservative community to paint
the 60s in the most lurid, superficial, and polarized light.  Notice Rod
Paige's observations on whole language reading theory.  According to the
writer of this edition of The Report on Literacy Programs:

"Paige zeroed in on the teaching of reading specifically, saying research
has settled the question about methods that work, relegating fads such as
whole language to the dust bin."

Notice the anti-intellectual broad brush by which, apparently, Professor
Paige reduces an entire scholarly tradition.  No need for the Secretary
of Education to critically review the complex and contentious field of
reading research/scholarship/ theory.  Yes, Mr. Secretary, I said theory,
as if the Bush administration is not operating out of a world view, a
vision, a theory, if you will.  

As if truth is objective, value free and evidently available through a
certain methodological rigor that can be sharply separated from values. 
As if research into the human sciences, so to speak, is based on the same
empirical principles as chemistry, nuclear physics, and calculus.  As if
the academic disciplines of history, literary theory,
sociology,.political science, and anthropology (to name a few) don't have
their own canonical principles (as contentious as they may be) through
which scholarship in their respected fields are judged.  As if 100 years
of education scholarship are now to be part of the dust bin of history
based upon the ideological litmus test allowed by the current USDOE in
its proposed great transformation of the Department of Education.  As if
the USDOE has an intellectual and moral right to establish a reign of
truth based upon its own uideological precepts parading as objective
science.  Ghosts of Michael Foucault (who?) are turning in their graves.

Then finally, recall  this statement from the USDOE's Draft Strategic
Plan

"Unlike medicine, agriculture, and industrial production, the field of
education operates largely on the basis of ideology and professional
consensus.  As such, it is subject to fads and is incapable of cumulative
progress that follows from the application of the scientific method and
from the systematic collection and use of objective information in policy
making" (p. 48).

If that unsupported value-laden statement is not a declaration of war
against educational scholarly community as a field I don't know what is. 
It would be very instructive to hear publicly and unequivocally from such
organizations like the International Reading Association, .the National
Council of English Teachers, and the National Council of Mathematic
Teachers and other like groups on how they're reading the vision of the
current USDOE.  Have they made statements and are they willing to go on
record on their views, whatever they may be, of the direction of the
current Bush administration?

Make no mistake about it, the constructivist principles upon which these
agencies have based much of their work is viewed as anathema by the
ideological forces that are giving shape to the current USDOE.  The name
of E.D. Hirsch Jr. is looming in the background.  Make no mistake about
it.Cultural Literacy has become revived in the name of American Values, a
sanitzied view of U.S. history, the phonemic revival, character
education, and "evidence-based" research.  And it is proporting not to be
ideology, but Truth, aka, "common sense," science, the era of normalcy
for the 21st century.

One howling in the wilderness

GD



________________________________________________________________
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


From DJRosen at theworld.com  Tue Mar 12 09:01:28 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:01:28 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Advocacy Resources
Message-ID: <3C8E0A38.8030808@theworld.com>

NLA Colleagues,

I would like to call your attention to two Web pages which will help you 
as you do adult literacy education advocacy at the state or local level:

    http://www.alri.org/advocacydocs.html   and

    http://alri.org/advocacy.html

The second Web page lists state and urban organizations which (as of 
March, 2001) have been doing adult literacy advocacy work.  This is a 
good way to connect with others in your state or city to organize and 
advocate for adult literacy education.

Also,  please check the information for your state and let me know if it 
needs to be changed. I will update the list later in March or early April.  

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator
<DJRosen at theworld.com>

_______________________________________________
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


From triciad at crocker.com  Tue Mar 12 13:55:01 2002
From: triciad at crocker.com (Tricia Donovan)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:55:01 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Report on Literacy & USDOE
Message-ID: <20020312172016.28049.qmail@shagrat.silicongoblin.com>

George,
Reading the report excerpts below, I am heartened to think the emphasis in
ABE programs might shift from test prep to life prep.  However, the emphasis
on achievement (as demonstrated on standardized tests) may serve to
undermine these lofty goals.  Who can say how long it will take someone to
grasp narrative voice in literature or the use of variables in algebra?
Progress may be slow and not easily discernable on GED practice tests,
TABES, ABLES, etc.

As long as teachers and learners are convinced that test scores are what
matter, test prep curriculum will dominate the ABE landscape.  Teaching for
understanding, whether a la EFF or a la NCTM or a la whatever system, is too
often not the goal in the classrooms I observe.  Most often, students say
they want, and teachers therefore provide, training to pass a particular
test.  This situation is exacerbated by program demands that there be
measurable improvement on program-chosen or state-mandated tests which
further encourage teachers to press on page after page in workbooks that
address the skills such tests measure rather than teaching to develop
reasoning and communication skills. Teaching to the test does not prepare
learners for the academic demands of college; just look at the statistic
that only 11% of GED graduates go on to complete at least one year of
post-secondary education.

It takes too much classroom time to really educate people for the future for
learners, teachers, programs and funding agencies to support the effort, it
seems; but taking the emphasis off test performance and placing it on
knowledge enhancement would be a start.  Thanks for raising the issues.
Tricia Donovan
Curriculum Developer/Writer
TERC



----------
>From: "George E. Demetrion" <sophocles5 at juno.com>
>To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>Subject: [NLA] Report on Literacy & USDOE
>Date: Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 8:36 PM
>

> Colleagues:
>
> A Recent Report on Literacy (2-27-02) included some interesting
> observations by high ranking officials of the US Department of Education.
>
> First, there is the brief report on the meeting between Assistant
> Secretary Carol D'Amico who is overseeing adult and vocational ed
> programs for the Department.    In a 2-13 meeting with state directors
> D'Amico said that the Bush administration "will evaluate and support
> programs based on the extent to which they are proven to increase
> achievement" (p. 1).  Reauthorization for the ABE program and vocational
> ed are slated for 2003.  As she further explained it (quoting from the
> summary ) "she wants to see a system that is better able to prepare young
> people and adults for jobs and college level studies, and to help
> immigrants become citizens."  Focusing on the problems of a system that
> is marginalized and underfunded in the first place (GD's opinion, not Ms.
> D'Amico's), the Assistant Secretary wondered rhetorically, "What are the
> barriers that inhibit the ability of community organizations, schools and
> community colleges to deliver quality education."
>
> Some of the state directors responded by pointing to the need for more
> funding.  No economic stimulus was required here D'Amico argued, who, it
> was reported, "is more interested in using current funding amounts to
> leverage investments by others"
>
> D'Amico assured (apparently the taxpayers and other vested interests),
> "Don't misunderstand.  I will not advocate for the billions and billions
> it would take to reach 90 million people using the existing system.  I
> don't think we can get there from here."  Commenting further, she stated
> that "We don't know what that answer is" [in getting from there to here]
> (?).
>
> The writer of the column pointed to the Department's 5 year plan calling
> for "invest[ment] in pilot sites to develop new models of cooperation
> between well-trained adult education teachers, volunteers and other
> community resources like libraries."  One assumes that the writer is
> implying that some substantial funding (not billions and billions) would
> be a worthy investment in helping to illuminate a direction for the
> field.
>
> MA state director Bob Bickerton was not convinced about current plans
> underway by the Bush-oriented USDOE to address (or not, GD) the pressing
> needs of the field.  Said Bickerton, "For me the jury will be out until
> we can get into more dialogue, because at that forum we couldn't actually
> get past the first level of dealing with the issue.  The terms were too
> broad."
>
> Also at issue (or so it seems) is whether the Bush administration
> actually sees a problem worth critically examining and addressing.  Sure
> there's the 90 million.  Sure, we could throw billions at the problem.
> But wait, no one's asking for that.  If I have it right for years the
> field has been seeking a one billion dollar investment in ABE and an ABE
> system based on policy that resonates with what ABE actually provides.
> That would be good solid life relevant education at various levels of
> attainment progressively enabling individuals to enhance their lives as
> they incorporate ABE within the varied contexts of their own life
> purposes.
>
> As the EFF project has sought to demonstrate, such life long education
> plays a role in enabling adults to improve their lives within their
> social roles as workers, family members and community members/citizens
> and in the process to contribute to the vitality of the commonwealth of
> the Republic of the United States of America  This has been the implicit
> public philosophy underlaying the EFF project from the get go but has
> never been fully articulated by its developers.  Perhaps now is the time
> in this era of patriotism for the USDOE not to throw billions, but say
> invest $100 million into the EFF project to help the vision come into
> fruition and say another $100 million into NCSALL which is focusing
> specifically on adult literacy and adult education research.
>
> And to demonstrate a little good will one might encourage the USDOE to
> invest abother $100 million into the new literacy organization Pro
> Literacy World Wide, the impending merger of LLA and LVA.  For the son of
> Barbara Bush that would be a worthy investment indeed and more than a
> little sign of good will. Of couse the money would be well spent perhaps
> in supporting a few pilot demonstration projects of what really works
> well or in providing capacity building resources of supporting the 1000
> or so local literacy programs that will come under the aegesis of this
> new agency.
>
> Going back to EFF, one can't help wondering if the Bush administration
> views the constructivist philosophy upon which the EFF standards are
> based as a form of ideological faddism of the progressive literacy
> community that cannot stand the light of the solid empirical research of
> an "evidence-based" scientific tradition.  Not that EFF is not evidence
> based.  Not that the adult literacy scholarship stemming from the
> ethnographic tradition that underlays the New Literacy Studies of which
> Merrifield speaks, is not evidence-based, but such constructivist-based
> research/scholartship may not be the kind of evidence that the Bush
> administration touts as legitimate.  Ah, there is the rub, indeed.
>
> One cannot also help wondering if the real target of the USDOE under the
> Bush administration is not the entire progressive education tradition
> starting from the work of John Dewey.  Certainly there has been a
> persistent ideological drive among the neoconservative community to paint
> the 60s in the most lurid, superficial, and polarized light.  Notice Rod
> Paige's observations on whole language reading theory.  According to the
> writer of this edition of The Report on Literacy Programs:
>
> "Paige zeroed in on the teaching of reading specifically, saying research
> has settled the question about methods that work, relegating fads such as
> whole language to the dust bin."
>
> Notice the anti-intellectual broad brush by which, apparently, Professor
> Paige reduces an entire scholarly tradition.  No need for the Secretary
> of Education to critically review the complex and contentious field of
> reading research/scholarship/ theory.  Yes, Mr. Secretary, I said theory,
> as if the Bush administration is not operating out of a world view, a
> vision, a theory, if you will.
>
> As if truth is objective, value free and evidently available through a
> certain methodological rigor that can be sharply separated from values.
> As if research into the human sciences, so to speak, is based on the same
> empirical principles as chemistry, nuclear physics, and calculus.  As if
> the academic disciplines of history, literary theory,
> sociology,.political science, and anthropology (to name a few) don't have
> their own canonical principles (as contentious as they may be) through
> which scholarship in their respected fields are judged.  As if 100 years
> of education scholarship are now to be part of the dust bin of history
> based upon the ideological litmus test allowed by the current USDOE in
> its proposed great transformation of the Department of Education.  As if
> the USDOE has an intellectual and moral right to establish a reign of
> truth based upon its own uideological precepts parading as objective
> science.  Ghosts of Michael Foucault (who?) are turning in their graves.
>
> Then finally, recall  this statement from the USDOE's Draft Strategic
> Plan
>
> "Unlike medicine, agriculture, and industrial production, the field of
> education operates largely on the basis of ideology and professional
> consensus.  As such, it is subject to fads and is incapable of cumulative
> progress that follows from the application of the scientific method and
> from the systematic collection and use of objective information in policy
> making" (p. 48).
>
> If that unsupported value-laden statement is not a declaration of war
> against educational scholarly community as a field I don't know what is.
> It would be very instructive to hear publicly and unequivocally from such
> organizations like the International Reading Association, .the National
> Council of English Teachers, and the National Council of Mathematic
> Teachers and other like groups on how they're reading the vision of the
> current USDOE.  Have they made statements and are they willing to go on
> record on their views, whatever they may be, of the direction of the
> current Bush administration?
>
> Make no mistake about it, the constructivist principles upon which these
> agencies have based much of their work is viewed as anathema by the
> ideological forces that are giving shape to the current USDOE.  The name
> of E.D. Hirsch Jr. is looming in the background.  Make no mistake about
> it.Cultural Literacy has become revived in the name of American Values, a
> sanitzied view of U.S. history, the phonemic revival, character
> education, and "evidence-based" research.  And it is proporting not to be
> ideology, but Truth, aka, "common sense," science, the era of normalcy
> for the 21st century.
>
> One howling in the wilderness
>
> GD
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
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


From cb.king at verizon.net  Tue Mar 12 12:30:30 2002
From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine King)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:30:30 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Report on Literacy & USDOE
References: <20020311.203700.11054.1.sophocles5@juno.com>
Message-ID: <003f01c1c9eb$c394f020$13f72a3f@cbking>

To David and George, et al:

David's notion of relating AE to Constitutional
rights is directly related to George's quote from the
Bush administration.  He relates the quote that they

"will evaluate and support programs based on the
extent to which they are proven to increase achievement."

The above statement, in fact, reveals a view such that:

(1)  The American adult electorate are children and not
             the American Adult Electorate, and

(2)  The speaker is speaking from an annoyed oligarchy
             or a benevolent tyranny rather than a re-public/
             democracy run ordered by commonwealth principles.

In other words, "proving achievement" has become a
false political gateway where stewardship is, in fact,
rooted in principles that flow from corporate profiteering
and government-as-reluctant-giver rather than any idea of
democratic commonwealth made up of an adult electorate
for whom and to whom they are responsible.

If our stewards understood themselves and what they
supposedly stand for, they would be happy and grateful
that our American adults WANT to participate in educative
activities and provide for that participation.  A good
steward would know how important this participation is
to the health of the democracy they supposedly stand for.

>From this view, the gateway of "achievement" is a silly
idea that should elicit from both adults and educators,
the follow-up comment:   "Who do they think they are?"

George also says:  "Then finally, recall  this statement
from the USDOE's Draft Strategic Plan:

'Unlike medicine, agriculture, and industrial production, the
field of education operates largely on the basis of ideology
and professional consensus.  As such, it is subject to fads
and is incapable of cumulative progress that follows from
the application of the scientific method and from the
systematic collection and use of objective information in
policy making' (p. 48)."

George is right--we should be outraged.

Politics and education are not medicine, agriculture and
industrial production.  It is an expression of naivet?, even
ignorance at this stage, and dangerous to expect
the data of education, politics, or any human science
(human beings) to respond in the same way that
biology acts, or in the same way that industrial production
produces products.

It is also naive to think that even the natural sciences or
statistics are not developed around notions of value--
before, during and after.  A "professional consensus"
around argued evidence in the public arena is how any
science moves around, and objectivity and truth have
long been "read" with a small "o" and "t" where new
evidence always raises questions against the old and
where people listen to and participate in reasonable
discussions.

Whatever else education is, its political import is
centered around developing people who can engage in
peaceful dialogue from which policy is formed and from
which new truths and objectivities will be lived.

The difference is not in the method, but rather in the data
and its import on future human objective living.

Where the data of science is relatively static, the data of
human beings is developmental--as is the scientist in
both kinds of fields.   But a higher complexity of the data
has never stopped us before, nor does it render us
"incapable of cumulative progress that follows from
the application of the scientific method and from the
systematic collection and use of objective information in
policy making."

What renders us "incapable of progress" is the attitude
reflected in our own USDOE's Draft Strategic Plan
that would make such a exhaustively ignorant statement
as the above, and those who think evidence concerning
human beings must resemble the "exactitude" of factory
items in order to pass muster.   God help us if that ideal
ever comes to be.   It's a false ideal too long affecting
internal as well as external policy.  Indeed, nothing
good or even adequate will ever get done that is
rooted in this naive and ultimately nihilistic point of view.

If our education departments continue to hold this position,
then education in America has, in fact, cut its own throat.

Whether by default or intention, adult education and
literacy efforts will also be "incapable of progress" as long
as our policy makers and administrators think from the point
of view of a benevolent tyranny rather than that of
stewardship of a commonwealth dependent on an informed
and educating electorate whom they pretend to serve.
(Thank you, George, for bringing this to our attention again.)

Regards,

Catherine King

----- Original Message -----
From: George E. Demetrion <sophocles5 at juno.com>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 8:36 PM
Subject: [NLA] Report on Literacy & USDOE


> Colleagues:
>
> A Recent Report on Literacy (2-27-02) included some interesting
> observations by high ranking officials of the US Department of Education.
>
> First, there is the brief report on the meeting between Assistant
> Secretary Carol D'Amico who is overseeing adult and vocational ed
> programs for the Department.    In a 2-13 meeting with state directors
> D'Amico said that the Bush administration "will evaluate and support
> programs based on the extent to which they are proven to increase
> achievement" (p. 1).  Reauthorization for the ABE program and vocational
> ed are slated for 2003.  As she further explained it (quoting from the
> summary ) "she wants to see a system that is better able to prepare young
> people and adults for jobs and college level studies, and to help
> immigrants become citizens."  Focusing on the problems of a system that
> is marginalized and underfunded in the first place (GD's opinion, not Ms.
> D'Amico's), the Assistant Secretary wondered rhetorically, "What are the
> barriers that inhibit the ability of community organizations, schools and
> community colleges to deliver quality education."
>
> Some of the state directors responded by pointing to the need for more
> funding.  No economic stimulus was required here D'Amico argued, who, it
> was reported, "is more interested in using current funding amounts to
> leverage investments by others"
>
> D'Amico assured (apparently the taxpayers and other vested interests),
> "Don't misunderstand.  I will not advocate for the billions and billions
> it would take to reach 90 million people using the existing system.  I
> don't think we can get there from here."  Commenting further, she stated
> that "We don't know what that answer is" [in getting from there to here]
> (?).
>
> The writer of the column pointed to the Department's 5 year plan calling
> for "invest[ment] in pilot sites to develop new models of cooperation
> between well-trained adult education teachers, volunteers and other
> community resources like libraries."  One assumes that the writer is
> implying that some substantial funding (not billions and billions) would
> be a worthy investment in helping to illuminate a direction for the
> field.
>
> MA state director Bob Bickerton was not convinced about current plans
> underway by the Bush-oriented USDOE to address (or not, GD) the pressing
> needs of the field.  Said Bickerton, "For me the jury will be out until
> we can get into more dialogue, because at that forum we couldn't actually
> get past the first level of dealing with the issue.  The terms were too
> broad."
>
> Also at issue (or so it seems) is whether the Bush administration
> actually sees a problem worth critically examining and addressing.  Sure
> there's the 90 million.  Sure, we could throw billions at the problem.
> But wait, no one's asking for that.  If I have it right for years the
> field has been seeking a one billion dollar investment in ABE and an ABE
> system based on policy that resonates with what ABE actually provides.
> That would be good solid life relevant education at various levels of
> attainment progressively enabling individuals to enhance their lives as
> they incorporate ABE within the varied contexts of their own life
> purposes.
>
> As the EFF project has sought to demonstrate, such life long education
> plays a role in enabling adults to improve their lives within their
> social roles as workers, family members and community members/citizens
> and in the process to contribute to the vitality of the commonwealth of
> the Republic of the United States of America  This has been the implicit
> public philosophy underlaying the EFF project from the get go but has
> never been fully articulated by its developers.  Perhaps now is the time
> in this era of patriotism for the USDOE not to throw billions, but say
> invest $100 million into the EFF project to help the vision come into
> fruition and say another $100 million into NCSALL which is focusing
> specifically on adult literacy and adult education research.
>
> And to demonstrate a little good will one might encourage the USDOE to
> invest abother $100 million into the new literacy organization Pro
> Literacy World Wide, the impending merger of LLA and LVA.  For the son of
> Barbara Bush that would be a worthy investment indeed and more than a
> little sign of good will. Of couse the money would be well spent perhaps
> in supporting a few pilot demonstration projects of what really works
> well or in providing capacity building resources of supporting the 1000
> or so local literacy programs that will come under the aegesis of this
> new agency.
>
> Going back to EFF, one can't help wondering if the Bush administration
> views the constructivist philosophy upon which the EFF standards are
> based as a form of ideological faddism of the progressive literacy
> community that cannot stand the light of the solid empirical research of
> an "evidence-based" scientific tradition.  Not that EFF is not evidence
> based.  Not that the adult literacy scholarship stemming from the
> ethnographic tradition that underlays the New Literacy Studies of which
> Merrifield speaks, is not evidence-based, but such constructivist-based
> research/scholartship may not be the kind of evidence that the Bush
> administration touts as legitimate.  Ah, there is the rub, indeed.
>
> One cannot also help wondering if the real target of the USDOE under the
> Bush administration is not the entire progressive education tradition
> starting from the work of John Dewey.  Certainly there has been a
> persistent ideological drive among the neoconservative community to paint
> the 60s in the most lurid, superficial, and polarized light.  Notice Rod
> Paige's observations on whole language reading theory.  According to the
> writer of this edition of The Report on Literacy Programs:
>
> "Paige zeroed in on the teaching of reading specifically, saying research
> has settled the question about methods that work, relegating fads such as
> whole language to the dust bin."
>
> Notice the anti-intellectual broad brush by which, apparently, Professor
> Paige reduces an entire scholarly tradition.  No need for the Secretary
> of Education to critically review the complex and contentious field of
> reading research/scholarship/ theory.  Yes, Mr. Secretary, I said theory,
> as if the Bush administration is not operating out of a world view, a
> vision, a theory, if you will.
>
> As if truth is objective, value free and evidently available through a
> certain methodological rigor that can be sharply separated from values.
> As if research into the human sciences, so to speak, is based on the same
> empirical principles as chemistry, nuclear physics, and calculus.  As if
> the academic disciplines of history, literary theory,
> sociology,.political science, and anthropology (to name a few) don't have
> their own canonical principles (as contentious as they may be) through
> which scholarship in their respected fields are judged.  As if 100 years
> of education scholarship are now to be part of the dust bin of history
> based upon the ideological litmus test allowed by the current USDOE in
> its proposed great transformation of the Department of Education.  As if
> the USDOE has an intellectual and moral right to establish a reign of
> truth based upon its own uideological precepts parading as objective
> science.  Ghosts of Michael Foucault (who?) are turning in their graves.
>
> Then finally, recall  this statement from the USDOE's Draft Strategic
> Plan
>
> "Unlike medicine, agriculture, and industrial production, the field of
> education operates largely on the basis of ideology and professional
> consensus.  As such, it is subject to fads and is incapable of cumulative
> progress that follows from the application of the scientific method and
> from the systematic collection and use of objective information in policy
> making" (p. 48).
>
> If that unsupported value-laden statement is not a declaration of war
> against educational scholarly community as a field I don't know what is.
> It would be very instructive to hear publicly and unequivocally from such
> organizations like the International Reading Association, .the National
> Council of English Teachers, and the National Council of Mathematic
> Teachers and other like groups on how they're reading the vision of the
> current USDOE.  Have they made statements and are they willing to go on
> record on their views, whatever they may be, of the direction of the
> current Bush administration?
>
> Make no mistake about it, the constructivist principles upon which these
> agencies have based much of their work is viewed as anathema by the
> ideological forces that are giving shape to the current USDOE.  The name
> of E.D. Hirsch Jr. is looming in the background.  Make no mistake about
> it.Cultural Literacy has become revived in the name of American Values, a
> sanitzied view of U.S. history, the phonemic revival, character
> education, and "evidence-based" research.  And it is proporting not to be
> ideology, but Truth, aka, "common sense," science, the era of normalcy
> for the 21st century.
>
> One howling in the wilderness
>
> GD
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
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


From sophocles5 at juno.com  Tue Mar 12 12:04:05 2002
From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:04:05 -0800
Subject: [NLA] E.D. Hirsch Jr. Reference
Message-ID: <20020312.090408.9294.0.sophocles5@juno.com>

 http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mathman/edh2cal.htm

I had mentioned the influence of E.D. Hirsch on the neo-conservative
thinking that appears to be informing the USDOE under the Bush
administration.  For those interested, Hirsch's talk to the California
State Board of Education (linked above) provides a good overview of his
perspective.  I encourage folks interested in probing the ideological
basis of the current USDOE to take a good, hard look at Hirsch's talk.  

While there might be superficial bi-partisanship informing the Bush
presidency on education, the ideological strains underlaying such policy
are anything but bi-partisan. In any event, Hirsch's talk provides a good
overview of some of the key strands that go into the neo-conservative
thinking that shapes the USDOE policy. 

BTW, just because it is neo-conservative doesn't make it elicit, but it
does make it value-laden, scientific talk of objectivity notwithstanding.
 My goal here is to flesh out the ideology so that it can be openly
discussed in the marketplace of ideas rather than kept under wraps under
the guise of scientific objectivity (neutrality) and the rubric of the
"evidence-based" education movement which masks a great deal.

For a critique of Hirsch by the educational scholar Walter Feinberg,
click on the following link:

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/Archives/13_03/hirsch.htm

George Demetrion



________________________________________________________________
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


From Rose.Tilghman at ed.gov  Tue Mar 12 15:50:55 2002
From: Rose.Tilghman at ed.gov (Tilghman, Rose)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:50:55 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
Message-ID: <5DCA49BDD2B0D41186CE00508B6BEBD006D372B4@wdcrobexc01.ed.gov>

>From the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
Editor: Sarah Newcomb
Production: Rose Tilghman

March 14, 2002				
___________________________________


2000 Data Drive 
EL/Civics 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service has posted its 2000
state-by-state analysis of immigration patterns, making that data available
for calculating states' English Literacy/Civics (EL/Civics) allotments for
July 1. The new data affect the states' allotments by updating current
immigrant populations and recent increases in immigration. These elements
drive formula funding for states' EL/Civics programs. Congress set aside the
funds in appropriations legislation over the last several years. See
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/IMM00yrbk/ExcIMM00/Tab
le17.xls

NAM: We Need 
Adult Literacy, 
English Literacy

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) recommends that improving
adults' literacy skills be a national priority. A NAM survey, The Skills
Gap: 2001, reports a continuing gap in workers' skill levels. What's missing
for both job applicants and employees? Employability skills such as
attendance, timeliness, work ethic and other qualities are lacking; with
reading, communication and math skills ranking second. Other NAM
recommendations include immigration policies incorporating initiatives to
meet cultural and language skill needs of immigrants. Immigrants are the
main source of labor growth. See
http://www.nam.org/Docs/CenterforWorkforceSuccess/23975_NAMSkillsGapforPress
.pdf

Money Smarts
For Free

How much do your learners know about finances? The Money Smart Training
Program can help. It includes lesson plans, overheads and materials for
students--and it's free from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC). Material is written at the sixth grade level. Ten units on bank
services, consumer rights, saving, credit, home ownership and more can be
ordered from the FDIC. See http://www.fdic.gov/news/publications/moneysmart
Download order form and fax to 202/942-3098. Allow three weeks to ship. 

DAEL Jobs
Now Available

Join us! We're recruiting for two key positions: a Chief for the Program
Improvement Branch; and a Program Specialist to lead the Community
Technology Centers (CTC) program. 
*The branch chief manages development and implementation of policies and
strategies that improve access to--and quality of--adult education services.
The branch chief provides guidance and leadership to a team of Program
Specialists, as well as to staff of both the Community Technology Centers
Program and English Literacy/Civics Demonstration Program. The branch
handles issues such as adults with disabilities, family literacy, English
language instruction, and program improvement. 

*The CTC lead position provides expertise in evaluating CTC programs at the
federal, state and local levels. He or she will manage all phases of the
competitive grant process as well as technical assistance, policy analysis
and a cross-Department team. For more, see
http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1048.HTM and
http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1039.HTM respectively.


____________________________________________________________________________
___________________
A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
OVAE Homepage http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020312/80d18ce2/attachment.html>

From DJRosen at theworld.com  Tue Mar 12 17:37:16 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:37:16 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Guest on NIFL Technology List 3/18-3/22
Message-ID: <3C8E831C.4020803@theworld.com>

NLA Colleagues,

Emily Hacker, Moderator of the NIFL Technology List, has asked that I post 
this announcement:

Hello list: We have a special opportunity to explore an interactive web site
that teaches basic skills in a simulated office setting. I've invited the
web site's developer, Michael Hillinger, to join us on the list next week
(3/18 - 3/22) to discuss the site. Michael is very interested in getting
your feedback on the current prototype, answering questions and taking any
suggestions you may have to further develop this resource. 

Here is a schedule for this discussion: From 3/12-3/17, explore "The Office"
(details are in Michael's intro below). As you explore, jot down questions,
comments, ideas, etc. From 3/18-3/22, discuss your questions and ideas on
the list with Michael.
**************************************************************************
MICHAEL'S INTRO - PLEASE READ:

hello to all,

Over the last two years I have been working on a particularly interesting
project funded by OVAE/DoEd. Our goal was to look at ways to train basic
skills, in particular the SCANS skills, using technology. The result is a
site called "The Office" 
http://www.workingsimulations.com/theOffice.html. The goal is to create
instruction that melds basic skill instruction and the context in which
those skills are used.  The Office is a highly interactive simulation of an
office workday--you answer the phone, read and respond to memos and email,
set priorities, etc. But the underlying goal is to practice the basic skills
that comprise these tasks. Reading, math, problem solving, social skills all
come into play. The audience for this material is likely varied. Certainly
students in vocational education, adult basic ed, and workplace
(re)training. But existing on the web also allows it to reach other
audiences who find value in the approach and topics.

This program is still a prototype. The number of skills is fairly limited
and there are some areas that need improvement. Still, it is a significant
piece of work with more depth and interactivity than you will find almost
anywhere else on the web. If  you have the time, please stop by and give the
program a try. Let me know what you think, good and bad during our
discussion next week. I'd be particularly interested in other tasks you
think might fit this context. For example, we already have been working on
an addition to the program on "phone skills", answering, social skills,
problem solving--around the use of the phone. You may also have some ideas
for how it could be used in your particular context.

Finally, if you want to read more about the programs approach and
philosophy, I have a paper published at 
http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=hillinger that
provides some background.


To use this program.

The version now on the web 
http://www.workingsimulations.com/theOffice.html is free of charge and may
be used by anyone with a web connection. If you don't already have it, you
will need to download the free shockwave plugin for your browser. There is a
link on the site that will help you with that. Your computer should also
have sound capability.

Once you successfully download the program enter your name and proceed to
the opening screen. The "welcome" button takes you on a tour of the program.
I suggest you start in to the program immediately by clicking the "settings"
button and, on the next screen, clicking the "start" button. This will set
you up with a basic lesson that includes a couple of skill strands. The
first task will start about a minute after you begin the program.
 
=====
Michael Hillinger
LexIcon Systems
Beaver Meadow Rd
Sharon VT 05065
802.763.7599 (office)
802.384.7599 (cell)
email: mlh at lexiconsys.com
http://www.lexiconsys.com/


********************************************************************
Emily Hacker
Moderator, NIFL Technology
Director of Learning Technologies
F.E.G.S
(212) 366-8122
ehacker at fegs.org

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PASS ON THIS INFORMATION!!! 



_______________________________________________
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


From joost_d at hccs.cc.tx.us  Wed Mar 13 11:16:50 2002
From: joost_d at hccs.cc.tx.us (David Joost)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:16:50 -0600
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <5DCA49BDD2B0D41186CE00508B6BEBD006D372B4@wdcrobexc01.ed.gov>
Message-ID: <3C8F7B72.71F05D0@hccs.cc.tx.us>

The "Skills Gap" report from NAM advises that adult literacy should be
made a top priority but at the same time suggests that no additional
funding is necessary to impact the 90 million Americans in need of
greater literacy skills. It is outrageous to suggest that the adult
literacy problem will be meaningfully impacted by level or reduced
funding and expecting "home study" and "e-learning" to save the day.
Without a reliable adult education and literacy system that is fulltime,
year-round and professionally organized, our national will never achieve
the adult literacy levels of its international competitor nations. This
is the same kind of "spend-nothing-do-nothing-and-it-will-all-work-out"
"head-in-the-sand" thinking that has caused the torrential exodus of
manufacturing jobs from out this country.

David Joost
President
Texas Council for Adult Education Cooperative Directors

> "Tilghman, Rose" wrote:
> 
>                      From the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
> 
>                               Office of Vocational and Adult Education
> 
> Editor: Sarah Newcomb
> Production: Rose Tilghman
> 
> March 14, 2002
> ___________________________________
> 
> 2000 Data Drive
> EL/Civics
> 
> The Immigration and Naturalization Service has posted its 2000
> state-by-state analysis of immigration patterns, making that data
> available for calculating states' English Literacy/Civics (EL/Civics)
> allotments for July 1. The new data affect the states' allotments by
> updating current immigrant populations and recent increases in
> immigration. These elements drive formula funding for states'
> EL/Civics programs. Congress set aside the funds in appropriations
> legislation over the last several years. See
> http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/IMM00yrbk/ExcIMM00/Table17.xls
> 
> NAM: We Need
> Adult Literacy,
> English Literacy
> 
> The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) recommends that
> improving adults' literacy skills be a national priority. A NAM
> survey, The Skills Gap: 2001, reports a continuing gap in workers'
> skill levels. What's missing for both job applicants and employees?
> Employability skills such as attendance, timeliness, work ethic and
> other qualities are lacking; with reading, communication and math
> skills ranking second. Other NAM recommendations include immigration
> policies incorporating initiatives to meet cultural and language skill
> needs of immigrants. Immigrants are the main source of labor growth.
> See
> http://www.nam.org/Docs/CenterforWorkforceSuccess/23975_NAMSkillsGapforPress.pdf
> 
> Money Smarts
> For Free
> 
> How much do your learners know about finances? The Money Smart
> Training Program can help. It includes lesson plans, overheads and
> materials for students--and it's free from the Federal Deposit
> Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Material is written at the sixth grade
> level. Ten units on bank services, consumer rights, saving, credit,
> home ownership and more can be ordered from the FDIC. See
> http://www.fdic.gov/news/publications/moneysmart  Download order form
> and fax to 202/942-3098. Allow three weeks to ship.
> 
> DAEL Jobs
> Now Available
> 
> Join us! We're recruiting for two key positions: a Chief for the
> Program Improvement Branch; and a Program Specialist to lead the
> Community Technology Centers (CTC) program.
> 
> ?The branch chief manages development and implementation of policies
> and strategies that improve access to--and quality of--adult education
> services. The branch chief provides guidance and leadership to a team
> of Program Specialists, as well as to staff of both the Community
> Technology Centers Program and English Literacy/Civics Demonstration
> Program. The branch handles issues such as adults with disabilities,
> family literacy, English language instruction, and program
> improvement.
> 
> ?The CTC lead position provides expertise in evaluating CTC programs
> at the federal, state and local levels. He or she will manage all
> phases of the competitive grant process as well as technical
> assistance, policy analysis and a cross-Department team. For more, see
> http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1048.HTM and
> http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1039.HTM respectively.
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
>     A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
> 
>                Office of Vocational and Adult Education
> 
>              OVAE Homepage http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/
_______________________________________________
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


From tsticht at aznet.net  Wed Mar 13 19:06:30 2002
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:06:30 -0700
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
Message-ID: <3C8FE982.8C5@aznet.net>

I agree with David Joost's trenchant comments. Following are some more
observations re the NAM research promulgated by USED/OVAE/DAEL in the
latest Thursday Notes. 
Tom Sticht

Let us all now praise high quality, research-based education!

Given the present federal administration?s concerns for high quality,
research-based approaches to education I was surprised to find the
Thursday notes for 3/14/02 discussing the Skills Gap report by the
National Association of Manufacturing. The report is so inadequate in
its methodology and reporting as to stagger one?s faith in big business.
But then I noted that the report was prepared in part with the aid of a
consulting firm named Andersen. I don?t know if this is the Andersen of
Enron fame or not. 

What is bad about this report? Almost everything, but here is a starter.
First, NAM sent out a survey to 6000 randomly chosen members of its
association. The dismal return rate was a little over 10 percent! So
close to 9 out of 10 companies apparently thought the survey so
unimportant that they did not even respond. Hardly a strong endorsement
of manufacturing?s great and grave concern with the skills of  America?s
workforce. 

Though we are told that about half (48%) of survey respondents reported
rejecting up to 1/2 of applicants for all job openings, we aren?t told
how many job openings there were and how many people were qualified for
each job. Could be there were two, three, or more qualified applicants
for each job. 

Summing over all manufacturing concerns in the survey, 10.5% thought
there was not a shortage of qualified job candidates, 60.3% thought
there was a moderate shortage, and some 20.2% thought there was a
serious shortage (some must not have responded). So some 70 percent (of
the 10 percent or so of those who responded) thought there was no or
only a moderate shortage of qualified job applicants and this includes
job categories from production workers to high level professional and
technical personnel. 

At the lower end of the skilled job category,  it was found that for
applicants for entry level production workers, 37 percent of companies
thought there were no problems, 44.7 percent thought there were moderate
problems, and only 16.3 percent thought there were serious problems.
That?s only about 96 companies out of 6,000 that both responded to the
survey and then thought there were serious "skill" problems of
applicants for production work. 

The most common reasons for rejecting job applicants were poor "basic
employability skills" for entry level hourly wage personnel ? skills
like  poor attendance, tardiness, etc. These "skills" are what a lot of
people used to think of as "attitudes" or "behavioral" problems. Some
69% of respondents said they had problems with these job applicant 
"skills."

The next biggest problem was insufficient work experience which affected
34% of applicants for hourly and over 46% of professional, salaried
personnel. 

In third place for rejecting applicants was inadequate basic
reading/writing skills which affected some 31.6% of hourly production
workers; inadequate math affected 20.7% of hourly personnel, while
inadequate oral communication skills affected 17.5% of hourly personnel.
Inadequate oral communication affected 16.8% of applicants for
professional, jobs, too. 

Interestingly, when asked about the skills of current employees, poor
employability skills (tardiness, absenteeism, etc.) were the greatest
problem (59.1%) just like they were for job applicants, while the basic
skills of reading, writing, math and English language had ratings of
from over 20 to 32% as employee problems. Given these concerns for
hourly personnel?s basic skills in oral communication, literacy and
math, it is somewhat surprising (sic) to find that the major education
or training benefits offered to employees in the surveyed companies were
(1) specific skills for specific jobs-64.2%; (2) tuition reimbursement
for undergraduate or graduate courses-60.6%, (3) continuing education
for technical/professional personnel-39.6%, (4) certification training
for technical degrees or licenses-37.1%, (5) teamwork/leadership-33.5%,

and in the lower ranking education opportunities were basic math-15.8%,
ESL-14.5%, GED-9.3% and basic reading/writing-8.6%. 

The report provides no cross-tabulations, such as how many with oral
communication  problems also had serious drug problems.  By itself,
failing the drug screening was a larger problem (26.9%) than poor oral
communication problems (17.5%). No demographic data such as gender, age,
ethnicity, years of education, etc. are given. No common methodology for
companies to use to answer the questions are presented, though I note
that the report is intended for the press and public, so there may be
more information in some more detailed, private report. 

Altogether, the NAM report seems inadequate to reach any conclusions
about a "skills gap" between the skills of the workforce and the skills
needs of the manufacturing industries. It could be that the 10 percent
or so of companies that responded to the survey are just participating
in that perennial favorite of the older generation, that is, bashing the
new generation. This is suggested in part by the answer they gave to the
question, Do you believe your local schools are doing a good job in
providing students for the workplace? Only 22% said yes, while 78% said
no. Yet in the Introduction to the report it is stated that the U.S.
manufacturing workforce is the best in the world. If the schools aren?t
providing this great workforce, who is?
_______________________________________________
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


From irrobert at swbell.net  Thu Mar 14 10:43:14 2002
From: irrobert at swbell.net (Robert Pinhero)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:43:14 -0600
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
In-Reply-To: <3C8F7B72.71F05D0@hccs.cc.tx.us>
Message-ID: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net>

David's comment regarding the severely under funded adult education system
is certainly valid. Magazines, newspapers, surveys and research continue to
point this out, yet not much gets translated into greater investment in the
system.

However I disagree with his take on  the root cause of the exodus of
manufacturing jobs. It seems to me that the nations that are the
beneficiaries of these manufacturing jobs are those where there is little or
no access to formal adult education as compared to the US...Manufacturers
choose China, Mexico , Ecuador, Taiwan etc....because it is CHEAPER to have
the products made there even after factoring in shipping costs. There is a
certain irony in this because increasing the skills of US workers carries
with it the expectation of higher wages which may actually result in even
more manufacturing jobs leaving our shores.

My experience in the manufacturing sector is that many times ( not always )
the requirement of a GED or HS Diploma is actually quite artificial when the
actual job tasks are analyzed. I certainly do not intend this to mean that I
don't see a value in acquiring these credentials, however the reality of our
capitalistic system continues to insure that employers will always want to
"get the most and pay the least " whenever possible. So as long as labor and
production facilities remain cheaper and accessible elsewhere I believe our
manufacturers will continue to search for the best bottom line deals.

If I'm not mistaken the # 1 category of reasons why employers rejected
applicants  was related to work ethics...showing up on time...good
attendance...etc....

Skills are a lot easier to teach than ethics and good work habits!

I just recently surveyed a sampling of 120 manufacturing production workers
from two companies and one of the questions basically asked them to state
what they felt was the skill they needed the most help with to be successful
in their current job and possibly advance to a higher position. 42 percent
of the responses ( 42 out of 120 ) dealt with people skills and conflict
resolution. Only 14 mentioned more knowledge about their job...only 9
mentioned computer skills.....just tossing this out here as a point of
interest




Robert M. Pinhero
Education & Training Consultant
PO Box 684031
Austin, Texas 78768-4031
Voice: 512-236-1052
Fax: 512-478-8208

-----Original Message-----
From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org
[mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org]On Behalf Of David Joost
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM
To: nla at lists.literacytent.org; Texas Adult Educator
Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


The "Skills Gap" report from NAM advises that adult literacy should be
made a top priority but at the same time suggests that no additional
funding is necessary to impact the 90 million Americans in need of
greater literacy skills. It is outrageous to suggest that the adult
literacy problem will be meaningfully impacted by level or reduced
funding and expecting "home study" and "e-learning" to save the day.
Without a reliable adult education and literacy system that is fulltime,
year-round and professionally organized, our national will never achieve
the adult literacy levels of its international competitor nations. This
is the same kind of "spend-nothing-do-nothing-and-it-will-all-work-out"
"head-in-the-sand" thinking that has caused the torrential exodus of
manufacturing jobs from out this country.

David Joost
President
Texas Council for Adult Education Cooperative Directors

> "Tilghman, Rose" wrote:
>
>                      From the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
>
>                               Office of Vocational and Adult Education
>
> Editor: Sarah Newcomb
> Production: Rose Tilghman
>
> March 14, 2002
> ___________________________________
>
> 2000 Data Drive
> EL/Civics
>
> The Immigration and Naturalization Service has posted its 2000
> state-by-state analysis of immigration patterns, making that data
> available for calculating states' English Literacy/Civics (EL/Civics)
> allotments for July 1. The new data affect the states' allotments by
> updating current immigrant populations and recent increases in
> immigration. These elements drive formula funding for states'
> EL/Civics programs. Congress set aside the funds in appropriations
> legislation over the last several years. See
>
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/IMM00yrbk/ExcIMM00/Tab
le17.xls
>
> NAM: We Need
> Adult Literacy,
> English Literacy
>
> The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) recommends that
> improving adults' literacy skills be a national priority. A NAM
> survey, The Skills Gap: 2001, reports a continuing gap in workers'
> skill levels. What's missing for both job applicants and employees?
> Employability skills such as attendance, timeliness, work ethic and
> other qualities are lacking; with reading, communication and math
> skills ranking second. Other NAM recommendations include immigration
> policies incorporating initiatives to meet cultural and language skill
> needs of immigrants. Immigrants are the main source of labor growth.
> See
>
http://www.nam.org/Docs/CenterforWorkforceSuccess/23975_NAMSkillsGapforPress
.pdf
>
> Money Smarts
> For Free
>
> How much do your learners know about finances? The Money Smart
> Training Program can help. It includes lesson plans, overheads and
> materials for students--and it's free from the Federal Deposit
> Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Material is written at the sixth grade
> level. Ten units on bank services, consumer rights, saving, credit,
> home ownership and more can be ordered from the FDIC. See
> http://www.fdic.gov/news/publications/moneysmart  Download order form
> and fax to 202/942-3098. Allow three weeks to ship.
>
> DAEL Jobs
> Now Available
>
> Join us! We're recruiting for two key positions: a Chief for the
> Program Improvement Branch; and a Program Specialist to lead the
> Community Technology Centers (CTC) program.
>
> ?The branch chief manages development and implementation of policies
> and strategies that improve access to--and quality of--adult education
> services. The branch chief provides guidance and leadership to a team
> of Program Specialists, as well as to staff of both the Community
> Technology Centers Program and English Literacy/Civics Demonstration
> Program. The branch handles issues such as adults with disabilities,
> family literacy, English language instruction, and program
> improvement.
>
> ?The CTC lead position provides expertise in evaluating CTC programs
> at the federal, state and local levels. He or she will manage all
> phases of the competitive grant process as well as technical
> assistance, policy analysis and a cross-Department team. For more, see
> http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1048.HTM and
> http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1039.HTM respectively.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
___________________
>
>     A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
>
>                Office of Vocational and Adult Education
>
>              OVAE Homepage http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/
_______________________________________________
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


From mcsmith at niu.edu  Thu Mar 14 12:44:13 2002
From: mcsmith at niu.edu (M C Smith)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:44:13 -0600
Subject: [NLA] Skills Gap report
In-Reply-To: <20020314170109.23424.qmail@shagrat.silicongoblin.com>
Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.1.20020314113513.01f50288@corn.cso.niu.edu>

Another point which Tom Sticht did not mention, but is worthwhile to note 
regarding the validity of the Skills Gap report: These surveys are almost 
always completed either by the company's HR director or the CEO/COO or a 
close underling. The responses are often simply these individuals' 
impressions of the characteristics of their workforce--almost always based 
on inadequate data. How many HR directors or CEOs spend any time directly 
observing workers on the shop floor? Even shop supervisors may have 
inadequate or incomplete information regarding the skills (literacy or 
otherwise) or the workers whom they supervise. Many manufacturing jobs, for 
example, require little "literacy" in the sense that the average layperson 
thinks of it--reading and writing and, maybe, a bit of math. So, 
supervisors and managers have little opportunity to witness what their 
employees are capable of doing. Another point--many companies across the US 
have terminated their workplace literacy and basic skills programs for 
employees, suggesting either that there is no "skills gap" or these 
companies are simply not putting their money where their mouth is, to quote 
my old Uncle Benny.

M Cecil Smith, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Educational Psychology
Northern Illinois University
mcsmith at niu.edu

_______________________________________________
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


From mlcarver at nslsilus.org  Fri Mar 15 10:57:38 2002
From: mlcarver at nslsilus.org (mlcarver at nslsilus.org)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:57:38 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Skills Gap report
Message-ID: <RELAY1LSrBwlJHWt7He00002319@relay1.softcomca.com>

I also think a large part of the skills gap perceived by HR & CEO/COO types equates knowledge of English (native and non-native) with literacy.  If we don't define literacy the same way, we aren't looking at the same skills gap. Employers want bodies who can follow orders with a minimum of communications errors.  My observation has been that those of us in literacy prefer to help people improve their reading and life skills to help them in more areas than just work.  When employers realize the work skills gap is also a life skills gap, they will (hopefully) see the need to put more money into literacy to improve their potential employee pool. (I can dream!)
Mary Lynn Carver
Lake County Adult Learning Connection
Waukegan, IL
mlcarver at nslsilus.org

Original Message:
-----------------
From: M C Smith mcsmith at niu.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:44:13 -0600
To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
Subject: [NLA] Skills Gap report


Another point which Tom Sticht did not mention, but is worthwhile to note 
regarding the validity of the Skills Gap report: These surveys are almost 
always completed either by the company's HR director or the CEO/COO or a 
close underling. The responses are often simply these individuals' 
impressions of the characteristics of their workforce--almost always based 
on inadequate data. How many HR directors or CEOs spend any time directly 
observing workers on the shop floor? Even shop supervisors may have 
inadequate or incomplete information regarding the skills (literacy or 
otherwise) or the workers whom they supervise. Many manufacturing jobs, for 
example, require little "literacy" in the sense that the average layperson 
thinks of it--reading and writing and, maybe, a bit of math. So, 
supervisors and managers have little opportunity to witness what their 
employees are capable of doing. Another point--many companies across the US 
have terminated their workplace literacy and basic skills programs for 
employees, suggesting either that there is no "skills gap" or these 
companies are simply not putting their money where their mouth is, to quote 
my old Uncle Benny.

M Cecil Smith, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Educational Psychology
Northern Illinois University
mcsmith at niu.edu

_______________________________________________
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

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

_______________________________________________
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


From cb.king at verizon.net  Fri Mar 15 13:37:15 2002
From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine King)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:37:15 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking>

Colleagues:

Robert Pinhero points to how educational people
(like us) differ from many business people who
employ undereducated adults (not all, of course).

The "skills gap" (and what we mean by it) may
actually exist in some fronts in the USA; but as Dr.
Pinhero points out, between nations at present we
also suffer from a "socio-economic-political gap"
where low-skilled workers are preferred over high-
skilled workers. In some situations and to some folks,
educating adults is counter-productive to their
financial, and so their political, concerns.

This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
policy makers are influenced by those among us who
consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
concerns.

While all will give lip-service to the Constitution and
notions of political "equality" and freedom for all, our
policy makers continue to ignore or to throw up false
barriers to programs that will educate the under-
educated electorate among us--programs that
in fact "free" our adults to know their voices and their
franchise and therefore have them, and create an
equality of voice that just might become equipped to
change things.  Heaven forbid.

But perhaps the thought for some doesn't even
extend to the political but rather becomes political
merely because AE doesn't serve the bottom line at
present.

Examples of AE's barriers are: calls for endless studies
that will show need based in changing ideas of how that
need is grounded in (1) business concerns (?) and (2) a
kind of data-standard impossible to attain (factory-like);
calls for post-facto program "achievement" ill defined, as if
AE programs had bought something and needed to pay
for it; an over-focus on children where we are sent
scrambling to check backgrounds of board members;
a view of AE as some sort of welfare program; a view
of government's relationship to AE as philanthropic
rather than constitutive; as view of adults' right to an
education as qualified by an adult's economic status
(whether they can pay for it or not), etc., etc.

Against the political forces made up of such ideas,
AE will always remain politically powerless and
scrambling for funds.  Efforts to counter such
negligence and the motivated forces behind them
will continue to be haphazard and even futile under
the present scenario where more understanding of
adults' needs makes for less, not more, support,
though I am sure some "edge-funds" will continue to
flow here and there as they have in the past.

Regards,

Catherine King

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Pinhero <irrobert at swbell.net>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:43 AM
Subject: RE: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


> David's comment regarding the severely under funded adult education system
> is certainly valid. Magazines, newspapers, surveys and research continue
to
> point this out, yet not much gets translated into greater investment in
the
> system.
>
> However I disagree with his take on  the root cause of the exodus of
> manufacturing jobs. It seems to me that the nations that are the
> beneficiaries of these manufacturing jobs are those where there is little
or
> no access to formal adult education as compared to the US...Manufacturers
> choose China, Mexico , Ecuador, Taiwan etc....because it is CHEAPER to
have
> the products made there even after factoring in shipping costs. There is a
> certain irony in this because increasing the skills of US workers carries
> with it the expectation of higher wages which may actually result in even
> more manufacturing jobs leaving our shores.
>
> My experience in the manufacturing sector is that many times ( not
always )
> the requirement of a GED or HS Diploma is actually quite artificial when
the
> actual job tasks are analyzed. I certainly do not intend this to mean that
I
> don't see a value in acquiring these credentials, however the reality of
our
> capitalistic system continues to insure that employers will always want to
> "get the most and pay the least " whenever possible. So as long as labor
and
> production facilities remain cheaper and accessible elsewhere I believe
our
> manufacturers will continue to search for the best bottom line deals.
>
> If I'm not mistaken the # 1 category of reasons why employers rejected
> applicants  was related to work ethics...showing up on time...good
> attendance...etc....
>
> Skills are a lot easier to teach than ethics and good work habits!
>
> I just recently surveyed a sampling of 120 manufacturing production
workers
> from two companies and one of the questions basically asked them to state
> what they felt was the skill they needed the most help with to be
successful
> in their current job and possibly advance to a higher position. 42 percent
> of the responses ( 42 out of 120 ) dealt with people skills and conflict
> resolution. Only 14 mentioned more knowledge about their job...only 9
> mentioned computer skills.....just tossing this out here as a point of
> interest
>
>
>
>
> Robert M. Pinhero
> Education & Training Consultant
> PO Box 684031
> Austin, Texas 78768-4031
> Voice: 512-236-1052
> Fax: 512-478-8208
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org
> [mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org]On Behalf Of David Joost
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM
> To: nla at lists.literacytent.org; Texas Adult Educator
> Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
>
>
> The "Skills Gap" report from NAM advises that adult literacy should be
> made a top priority but at the same time suggests that no additional
> funding is necessary to impact the 90 million Americans in need of
> greater literacy skills. It is outrageous to suggest that the adult
> literacy problem will be meaningfully impacted by level or reduced
> funding and expecting "home study" and "e-learning" to save the day.
> Without a reliable adult education and literacy system that is fulltime,
> year-round and professionally organized, our national will never achieve
> the adult literacy levels of its international competitor nations. This
> is the same kind of "spend-nothing-do-nothing-and-it-will-all-work-out"
> "head-in-the-sand" thinking that has caused the torrential exodus of
> manufacturing jobs from out this country.
>
> David Joost
> President
> Texas Council for Adult Education Cooperative Directors
>
> > "Tilghman, Rose" wrote:
> >
> >                      From the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
> >
> >                               Office of Vocational and Adult Education
> >
> > Editor: Sarah Newcomb
> > Production: Rose Tilghman
> >
> > March 14, 2002
> > ___________________________________
> >
> > 2000 Data Drive
> > EL/Civics
> >
> > The Immigration and Naturalization Service has posted its 2000
> > state-by-state analysis of immigration patterns, making that data
> > available for calculating states' English Literacy/Civics (EL/Civics)
> > allotments for July 1. The new data affect the states' allotments by
> > updating current immigrant populations and recent increases in
> > immigration. These elements drive formula funding for states'
> > EL/Civics programs. Congress set aside the funds in appropriations
> > legislation over the last several years. See
> >
>
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/IMM00yrbk/ExcIMM00/Tab
> le17.xls
> >
> > NAM: We Need
> > Adult Literacy,
> > English Literacy
> >
> > The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) recommends that
> > improving adults' literacy skills be a national priority. A NAM
> > survey, The Skills Gap: 2001, reports a continuing gap in workers'
> > skill levels. What's missing for both job applicants and employees?
> > Employability skills such as attendance, timeliness, work ethic and
> > other qualities are lacking; with reading, communication and math
> > skills ranking second. Other NAM recommendations include immigration
> > policies incorporating initiatives to meet cultural and language skill
> > needs of immigrants. Immigrants are the main source of labor growth.
> > See
> >
>
http://www.nam.org/Docs/CenterforWorkforceSuccess/23975_NAMSkillsGapforPress
> .pdf
> >
> > Money Smarts
> > For Free
> >
> > How much do your learners know about finances? The Money Smart
> > Training Program can help. It includes lesson plans, overheads and
> > materials for students--and it's free from the Federal Deposit
> > Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Material is written at the sixth grade
> > level. Ten units on bank services, consumer rights, saving, credit,
> > home ownership and more can be ordered from the FDIC. See
> > http://www.fdic.gov/news/publications/moneysmart  Download order form
> > and fax to 202/942-3098. Allow three weeks to ship.
> >
> > DAEL Jobs
> > Now Available
> >
> > Join us! We're recruiting for two key positions: a Chief for the
> > Program Improvement Branch; and a Program Specialist to lead the
> > Community Technology Centers (CTC) program.
> >
> > ?The branch chief manages development and implementation of policies
> > and strategies that improve access to--and quality of--adult education
> > services. The branch chief provides guidance and leadership to a team
> > of Program Specialists, as well as to staff of both the Community
> > Technology Centers Program and English Literacy/Civics Demonstration
> > Program. The branch handles issues such as adults with disabilities,
> > family literacy, English language instruction, and program
> > improvement.
> >
> > ?The CTC lead position provides expertise in evaluating CTC programs
> > at the federal, state and local levels. He or she will manage all
> > phases of the competitive grant process as well as technical
> > assistance, policy analysis and a cross-Department team. For more, see
> > http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1048.HTM and
> > http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1039.HTM respectively.
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________
> ___________________
> >
> >     A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
> >
> >                Office of Vocational and Adult Education
> >
> >              OVAE Homepage http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
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


From sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net  Fri Mar 15 18:16:05 2002
From: sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net (Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:16:05 -0600
Subject: [NLA] Skills Gap report
References: <RELAY1LSrBwlJHWt7He00002319@relay1.softcomca.com>
Message-ID: <00ab01c1cc77$63355a60$16d9c740@net>

Just a footnote to Mary Lynn's message:
When employers realize their workers are sustaining more *injuries* in a
labor-intensive job held in a workplace where safety notices go up on
bulletin boards rather than being passed on verbally THEN -- **may**be they
will put their money where their mouth is!  (Since when did employers care
about life skills or family or time away from their workplace? Another pipe
dream!)

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <mlcarver at nslsilus.org>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:57 AM
Subject: RE: [NLA] Skills Gap report


I also think a large part of the skills gap perceived by HR & CEO/COO types
equates knowledge of English (native and non-native) with literacy.  If we
don't define literacy the same way, we aren't looking at the same skills
gap. Employers want bodies who can follow orders with a minimum of
communications errors.  My observation has been that those of us in literacy
prefer to help people improve their reading and life skills to help them in
more areas than just work.  When employers realize the work skills gap is
also a life skills gap, they will (hopefully) see the need to put more money
into literacy to improve their potential employee pool. (I can dream!)
Mary Lynn Carver
Lake County Adult Learning Connection
Waukegan, IL
mlcarver at nslsilus.org

Original Message:
-----------------
From: M C Smith mcsmith at niu.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:44:13 -0600
To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
Subject: [NLA] Skills Gap report


Another point which Tom Sticht did not mention, but is worthwhile to note
regarding the validity of the Skills Gap report: These surveys are almost
always completed either by the company's HR director or the CEO/COO or a
close underling. The responses are often simply these individuals'
impressions of the characteristics of their workforce--almost always based
on inadequate data. How many HR directors or CEOs spend any time directly
observing workers on the shop floor? Even shop supervisors may have
inadequate or incomplete information regarding the skills (literacy or
otherwise) or the workers whom they supervise. Many manufacturing jobs, for
example, require little "literacy" in the sense that the average layperson
thinks of it--reading and writing and, maybe, a bit of math. So,
supervisors and managers have little opportunity to witness what their
employees are capable of doing. Another point--many companies across the US
have terminated their workplace literacy and basic skills programs for
employees, suggesting either that there is no "skills gap" or these
companies are simply not putting their money where their mouth is, to quote
my old Uncle Benny.

M Cecil Smith, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Educational Psychology
Northern Illinois University
mcsmith at niu.edu

_______________________________________________
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

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

_______________________________________________
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


From sophocles5 at juno.com  Sat Mar 16 16:44:02 2002
From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:44:02 -0800
Subject: [NLA] A basic right, a public value. a true investment
Message-ID: <20020316.134403.9294.1.sophocles5@juno.com>

Colleagues:

There has been much fruitful discussion on the value of adult literacy
over these airwaves.  As part of this continuing dialogue I would like to
offer some representatives comments from students and tutors in our
program,  These are Basic Literacy students most of whom would fall into
the NALS I level and possibly some in NALS 2. (Tom and others, I'm well
aware of the disputes).

The tutors are both volunteers and paid tutors who live in the community
where the program is situated.  For the comments I draw both from a
family resource  in the north of Hartford (BL students) and a residency
for seniors (ESOL students).

The comments that follow are not based on a scientific sample and I do
not claim that they are representative in any formal scientific sense. 
They do not cover the universe of our student population.  One might say
in an informal sense, that the comments are typical.  They span the
normal range of our program.  

While they provide a glimpse into our program, clearly additional
information to more fully bring out the significance of such learning. 
Various ethnographic studies on adult literacy have done that.  In
effect, they utilize site-based information to provide authenticity to
"evidence-based" qualitative studies. (I place "evidence-based" in quotes
not because I view empirical evidence as unimportant, but because of my
concern that the way the term is used by the Bush led USDOE is invariably
tinged with particular ideological overtones that attempts to mask the
particularity of its value system in the guise of scientific
"objectivity" and "neutrality."  Obviously, I view such claims with more
than a little skepticism).

In any event, it is not that "rigorous" "evidence-based" studies cannot
be developed from a range of methodologies (qualitative and
quantitative).  The issue of what counts has less to do with methodology
than that of values. Thus, one could build from the following student and
tutor statements a solid research project to better illuminate the impact
of adult literacy and show that it has significance in the lives of
individuals and within the context of families and local community
settings.  And, in a more diffusive way, on the larger civic culture. 
The critical issue is not that there is not impact, but of it's value and
who (what) is determining such values.

Let me stop here lest my text take over the narratives below.

GeorgeDemetrion
Manager, Community-Based Programming
Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford
______________________________________________________________

(Some notes in preparing a power point presentation)

Literacy is using printed and written information to function in society,
to achieve one goals, and to develop one knowledge and potential. 
National Adult Literacy Survey 1993.

The mission of Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford is to create
opportunities for Hartford area adults to learn to read, write, and speak
English; to gain new ways to represent themselves and to expand their
contributions to their families and communities. 

I want to comprehend and read better.  And I'm hungry for knowledge. 
I'll be more independent.  I won't have to  depend on anybody.  I want to
share my knowledge with a younger generation.

 I thought all I wanted was reading and writing.  I wanted more than
that. A lot of doors opened.  When you keep feeding the brain with new
ideas, knowledge about reading and writing, and other learning skills,
other doors open.  Whatever a student has hidden, learning can bring it
out.  Learning sets new adventures for me, new ideas, new challenges

Read, write and speak English

 It's necessary to study English when we go to the restaurant.

 It's important to study the meaning of words.

It's  important when we are looking for a street.

I need English to share with other persons.

When I read a story it makes me meditate, think about what's going on in
life.

When the time comes I will get my G.E.D.  I have more challenges to go in
life.  I am going to make it.  You got to have a well made up mind.

This year I learned to put words together better and break words down.  I
can read the newspaper and street signs.  I can write a letter.  This
will help me do things for myself.
 I would like to continue going to school.  I would like to be a nurse.

I like coming to Literacy Volunteers because, after two years, I see
progress and I feel good about that.  I hope to continue coming and to
make some progress.
To represent one self

I need to learn English to talk to the doctor without an interpreter.

Education is important because a man or a woman who doesn't have reading
skills is dependent. When you rely on someone to read your mail, you are
not completely independent.  Education is important because, without it,
you can't fill out a job application.

Coming to school makes me strong.  I can do more for myself.  I can write
my letters and feel good about it.  Writing letters and sharing them with
friends makes me think about how strong I am.  Coming to school opens
doors for me
.
I want to study English so other people don't discriminate against me.

 When I returned to school I was very old.  I came back because I would
like to do for myself.  I want to learn much more so I will be able to
explain more.

We learn to read and write and will know more about the world.  We want
to know more about where we live.  We want to express ourselves fully. 
Sometimes we stay behind because we're shy.  If we learn more we will
have more confidence.

 To expand contributions to family & community

The Clark program is very important to me.  It helped me when I first
came here.  I could not read and write.  Now I can help myself.  I am
able to help my daughter with her homework.
 
I  like to do a lot of things with my grand kids. Every time I do stuff,
they're right there learning it.  Then my granddaughter ask me a
question, like what is it. She's like, grandma, what is this word?  I'm
like   cat.   She  like, how can I spell that?  C-a-t., cat.  Then she'll
write it five times and I'll have to spell it  That's how I get taught
the learning, then I'll spell it myself.  And I help her out more than
me.  Most everything I'm doing, she catch on with me.  We at about the
same level.

I am coming to class with Literacy Volunteers because I want to learn to
read and write better so I can read to my grandchildren.  I want to learn
to read and write so I can learn to read my mail.  This is a very good
program.

My daughter was getting older and coming to me with different questions
and she didn't know how to read and she needed my advising.  Some things
I couldn't help her with. That was the first time I realized I had a
reading problem.  Before it really didn'tt matter.
 
I read things the kids bring home from school.  Martha helped me read
them.  She taught me to write notes to the kids.  I had to write notes to
my family.  I used to bring my kids books, like Mother Goose.  She used
to help me read some stories, and when I go home I go over them with my
kids.

My daughter asked me to read this book to her.  I couldn't read to her. 
I  didn't  know how to tell her that I couldn't read.  Now I read a
little better and I can read to the baby and my sons.  Now I read my own
letters and I can write my address on my envelopes.  Before I couldn't do
that.

I want to read and write more.  I love to read and write because I want
to share letters with my family who lives in Jamaica. I want to share
with them my experience in America

It's s important to be involved in your community.  If we adults are more
involved in our community, we could make it better.  A lot of us have
good ideas, but we just  don't  know how to get it out.  If we knew how
to do that, we wouldn't have so many kids getting into crime and drugs.

"From [my daughter] going to school from September from now, every day
she bring homework and the homework done and go back to school.  I help
her with the homework.  Before, when she was in kindergarten and then she
go to Grade One, I used to have problems.  That's why I came here.   I
used to call my church sister.  I'd spell the word and she would tell me
what answer.  I said, no. I need to be more private with certain things. 
 And now it's better.  Her homework is taken care of and she goes to
school every day.  She have an excellent red medal thing from shook--
Best Attendance for the Year  medal. So from when she start school, she
didn't stop..  She has to go to school because I believe people have to
go to school.

 Tutor Reflections

A student used to always bring me her daughter  report card or progress
in how she was doing before going to a teachers meeting.  Today she had a
parent-teacher conference.  I asked how was it.  She said her report card
was good. She had read it herself.  So when she can do that, she's going
to be more likely to pick up something else and read it.  That's a
wonderful thing. 

The group is they has such a feeling of community with each other that
when one sees another succeeding, they also think, I can do it, too. I
mean, they share in each other's accomplishments. And that gives them a
boost.

Right now we are working on Freedom to Me.  That's a book of 25 short
stories in it from some adults that have taken literacy in Canada. 
Basically, they're telling their little story on what freedom means to
them.  Basically, they don't feel free till they know how to read and
write.  Basically, that's what their topic is about.  But each one worded
it a little different, form their own perspective.  You know, the
students can relate to it because, right now, they don't feel like
they're free if they don't understand what they're doing.
 
The ... Family Resource Center gives them the opportunity to have the
class here, which they love.  But it also gives them the opportunity to
know other resources in the community.  It's there for them and the staff
here let them know if there's things going on that they need to know or
if they'd like to get involved in. It's different things that opens the
doors for them to get them involved.

 I think the main thing here is everybody gets to know each other as
friends and get support from coming here, not just in the literacy world,
in their whole lives.  Many of the people who come here have a lot of
problems we can help them with.  The other thing is they help each other
very much and give great support to each other.


________________________________________________________________
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


From Rose.Tilghman at ed.gov  Mon Mar 18 15:52:48 2002
From: Rose.Tilghman at ed.gov (Tilghman, Rose)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:52:48 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/21/02
Message-ID: <5DCA49BDD2B0D41186CE00508B6BEBD006D372DC@wdcrobexc01.ed.gov>

Thursday Notes
>From the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
Editor: Sarah Newcomb
Production: Rose Tilghman

March 21, 2002				
___________________________________


Assistant Secretary 
To Testify on 
Workforce Transition

Assistant Secretary Carol D'Amico is slated to testify at House FY '03
appropriations hearings based on the theme The High School and Transition
into the Workforce April 25. In a groundbreaking step, also testifying with
her will be the Assistant Secretaries representing the Offices of Elementary
and Secondary Education, Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, and
Postsecondary Education as well as Education Research and Improvement.
Following her appearance, Dr. D'Amico's testimony will be posted on our new
website at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/AdultEd/index.html

DOL Policy to Revise 
Performance Targets

States can revise agreed upon performance levels during the year in which
they apply under certain conditions, according to a new policy set by the US
Department of Labor. Under the new policy, a Governor may request a revision
in one or more agreed upon performance levels at any time before the end of
the program year for which the revised levels would apply. Unanticipated
circumstances that could support such a change include changes in economic
conditions, participant characteristics, and service delivery design. The
rigorous review process for requests is outlined at http://www.doleta.gov
OVAE is working on a similar policy for current-year revisions.  

Language Assistance
Beneficial, Expensive

The Office of Management and Budget's new report on the cost-benefit of
language assistance for limited English-speaking persons (LEPs) says that
assistance does expand access to programs for these individuals--but it can
be expensive. Language assistance can help make the distribution of
government services to LEPs more effective, especially in public health and
safety programs, the report says. It recommends an emphasis on assistance
for Spanish-speakers, the majority of LEPs. Clear federal standards for
providing services are key to cost control, the report indicates. See
http://www.omb.gov/inforeg/regpol.html  Scroll down to Report to Congress.

Do Adults Have
To Get Old?

Recent research shows that degeneration once thought to be inevitable in
"old age" may not be so inevitable after all. There's evidence that many of
aging's negative consequences actually may be the result of poor choices we
made earlier in life, not the result of disease. So there's hope to control
them. One thing to do, according to a Newsweek recap of research--is learn!
Education has been shown to protect against cognitive decline in people
under 65 and may stave off mental decline even later. See
http://www.msnbc.com/news/621399.asp


____________________________________________________________________________
___________________
A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
OVAE Homepage http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020318/8654d8c0/attachment.html>

From tsticht at aznet.net  Mon Mar 18 21:26:53 2002
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:26:53 -0700
Subject: [NLA] The Kennedy AELS/USA Act
Message-ID: <3C96A1EA.219@aznet.net>

March 18, 2002

The Kennedy Adult Education and Literacy System 
of the United States of America Act (AELS/USA)

Just prior to his tragic death in 1993, President John F. Kennedy
established the Task Force on Manpower Conservation.  With Daniel
Patrick Moynihan as staff director of the Task Force, a report was
prepared for President Lyndon Johnson on January 1st, 1964. Later, in
May of that year, President Johnson launched the "Great Society"
initiative  that led to the passage of Public law 88-452, the Economic
Opportunity Act. The EOA included Title II: The Adult Basic Education
program. In 1966, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was
amended to include the ABE program renamed the Adult Education Act of
1966. 

The Adult Education Act of 1966 became the basis for a unique education
system within the United States made up of a partnership between the
federal and all 50 state governments and U. S. territories. I call this
system the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States of
America (AELS/USA-AELS for short). 

I believe that it is a poignant circumstance that we can trace the AELS
from the concerns for adult development that President Kennedy had in
1963 to the concerns that his last surviving brother, Senator Edward
Kennedy, has today for conserving and further developing our nation?s
adult citizens through his strong belief in the power of life long
learning in overcoming social exclusion of many kinds. 

In recognition of this commitment of the two Kennedy brothers to adult
learning and development, and to name and recognize the unique education
system that has evolved since President Kennedy established the Task
Force on Manpower Conservation, I am suggesting that the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 be amended to remove Title 2: The Adult Education
and Family Literacy Act from that law and that a new law be passed
establishing 

The Kennedy Adult Education and Literacy System 
of the United States of America Act. 

In major developed nations, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and
others there exist recognized, publicly funded, adult education systems
for life long learning, called further education systems in the two 
nations mentioned,  in addition to the publicly funded K-12 and higher
education systems. And,indeed, in the U.S. there exists such a system
but it has not been formally recognized as such. The Annual Review of
Adult Learning and Literacy Volume 3 (Jossey-Bass, 2002) includes a
chapter that traces the history of the Adult Education and Literacy
System of the United States from Colonial days to the 21st century. 

The long history in the  U. S. to the commitment of providing education
for adults which has resulted in the rise of the AELS, and the fact that
in the last decade of the 20th century close to 40 million adult
enrollments were registered by the AELS, provide strong arguments for
moving the AELS from the margins to the mainstream of publicly funded
education in the United States, just as it is in other developed
nations.  

I hope that others on the NLA list will take some time to discuss the
vision of The Kennedy Adult Education and Literacy System of the United
States of America Act. The reauthorization of the Workforce Investment
Act offers an opportunity to extract the AELS from that limited context
and to broaden adult education and literacy development to include not
just workforce development, but active, life long learning for adults as
they strive to cope with the exigencies of the fast-paced, complex,
ever-changing, modern world of the 21st century.  

No time is better than the present to make this vision a reality.

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


From vmeyer at siue.edu  Tue Mar 19 17:40:53 2002
From: vmeyer at siue.edu (Dr. Valerie Meyer)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:40:53 -0600
Subject: [NLA] Ricki Lake and adult literacy
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020319163822.009d1640@siue.edu>

Does anyone know how I may obtain a copy of the February 8th Ricki Lake 
show?  The topic was adult literacy.  I have tried her web site and have 
called 1-800-GO RICKI with no luck.

Please respond directly to me at vmeyer at siue.edu

Thanks, in advance, for any suggestions.

_______________________________________________
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


From resctr2 at ix.netcom.com  Tue Mar 19 21:14:47 2002
From: resctr2 at ix.netcom.com (Gloria Gillette)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:14:47 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net> <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking>
Message-ID: <00f501c1cfb5$02e9ee00$4bc13218@oemcomputer>

Catherine,
I have tried to keep an open mind through your postings, but  honestly when you say things such as:
        In some situations and to some folks,
     educating adults is counter-productive to their
     financial, and so their political, concerns
        This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
     policy makers are influenced by those among us who
     consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
     as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
     concerns.

Do you really think "corporate-business concerns" sit around and conspire against literacy? 
I'm quite democratic in my concern for good writing. Even the most pedantic diatribe can lack critical thinking skills.
Gloria Gillette

--- Original Message ----- 
From: Catherine King <cb.king at verizon.net>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


> Colleagues:
> 
> Robert Pinhero points to how educational people
> (like us) differ from many business people who
> employ undereducated adults (not all, of course).
> 
> The "skills gap" (and what we mean by it) may
> actually exist in some fronts in the USA; but as Dr.
> Pinhero points out, between nations at present we
> also suffer from a "socio-economic-political gap"
> where low-skilled workers are preferred over high-
> skilled workers. In some situations and to some folks,
> educating adults is counter-productive to their
> financial, and so their political, concerns.
> 
> This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
> policy makers are influenced by those among us who
> consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
> as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
> concerns.
> 
> While all will give lip-service to the Constitution and
> notions of political "equality" and freedom for all, our
> policy makers continue to ignore or to throw up false
> barriers to programs that will educate the under-
> educated electorate among us--programs that
> in fact "free" our adults to know their voices and their
> franchise and therefore have them, and create an
> equality of voice that just might become equipped to
> change things.  Heaven forbid.
> 
> But perhaps the thought for some doesn't even
> extend to the political but rather becomes political
> merely because AE doesn't serve the bottom line at
> present.
> 
> Examples of AE's barriers are: calls for endless studies
> that will show need based in changing ideas of how that
> need is grounded in (1) business concerns (?) and (2) a
> kind of data-standard impossible to attain (factory-like);
> calls for post-facto program "achievement" ill defined, as if
> AE programs had bought something and needed to pay
> for it; an over-focus on children where we are sent
> scrambling to check backgrounds of board members;
> a view of AE as some sort of welfare program; a view
> of government's relationship to AE as philanthropic
> rather than constitutive; as view of adults' right to an
> education as qualified by an adult's economic status
> (whether they can pay for it or not), etc., etc.
> 
> Against the political forces made up of such ideas,
> AE will always remain politically powerless and
> scrambling for funds.  Efforts to counter such
> negligence and the motivated forces behind them
> will continue to be haphazard and even futile under
> the present scenario where more understanding of
> adults' needs makes for less, not more, support,
> though I am sure some "edge-funds" will continue to
> flow here and there as they have in the past.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Catherine King
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Pinhero <irrobert at swbell.net>
> To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:43 AM
> Subject: RE: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
> 
> 
> > David's comment regarding the severely under funded adult education system
> > is certainly valid. Magazines, newspapers, surveys and research continue
> to
> > point this out, yet not much gets translated into greater investment in
> the
> > system.
> >
> > However I disagree with his take on  the root cause of the exodus of
> > manufacturing jobs. It seems to me that the nations that are the
> > beneficiaries of these manufacturing jobs are those where there is little
> or
> > no access to formal adult education as compared to the US...Manufacturers
> > choose China, Mexico , Ecuador, Taiwan etc....because it is CHEAPER to
> have
> > the products made there even after factoring in shipping costs. There is a
> > certain irony in this because increasing the skills of US workers carries
> > with it the expectation of higher wages which may actually result in even
> > more manufacturing jobs leaving our shores.
> >
> > My experience in the manufacturing sector is that many times ( not
> always )
> > the requirement of a GED or HS Diploma is actually quite artificial when
> the
> > actual job tasks are analyzed. I certainly do not intend this to mean that
> I
> > don't see a value in acquiring these credentials, however the reality of
> our
> > capitalistic system continues to insure that employers will always want to
> > "get the most and pay the least " whenever possible. So as long as labor
> and
> > production facilities remain cheaper and accessible elsewhere I believe
> our
> > manufacturers will continue to search for the best bottom line deals.
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken the # 1 category of reasons why employers rejected
> > applicants  was related to work ethics...showing up on time...good
> > attendance...etc....
> >
> > Skills are a lot easier to teach than ethics and good work habits!
> >
> > I just recently surveyed a sampling of 120 manufacturing production
> workers
> > from two companies and one of the questions basically asked them to state
> > what they felt was the skill they needed the most help with to be
> successful
> > in their current job and possibly advance to a higher position. 42 percent
> > of the responses ( 42 out of 120 ) dealt with people skills and conflict
> > resolution. Only 14 mentioned more knowledge about their job...only 9
> > mentioned computer skills.....just tossing this out here as a point of
> > interest
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert M. Pinhero
> > Education & Training Consultant
> > PO Box 684031
> > Austin, Texas 78768-4031
> > Voice: 512-236-1052
> > Fax: 512-478-8208
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org
> > [mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org]On Behalf Of David Joost
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM
> > To: nla at lists.literacytent.org; Texas Adult Educator
> > Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
> >
> >
> > The "Skills Gap" report from NAM advises that adult literacy should be
> > made a top priority but at the same time suggests that no additional
> > funding is necessary to impact the 90 million Americans in need of
> > greater literacy skills. It is outrageous to suggest that the adult
> > literacy problem will be meaningfully impacted by level or reduced
> > funding and expecting "home study" and "e-learning" to save the day.
> > Without a reliable adult education and literacy system that is fulltime,
> > year-round and professionally organized, our national will never achieve
> > the adult literacy levels of its international competitor nations. This
> > is the same kind of "spend-nothing-do-nothing-and-it-will-all-work-out"
> > "head-in-the-sand" thinking that has caused the torrential exodus of
> > manufacturing jobs from out this country.
> >
> > David Joost
> > President
> > Texas Council for Adult Education Cooperative Directors
> >
> > > "Tilghman, Rose" wrote:
> > >
> > >                      From the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
> > >
> > >                               Office of Vocational and Adult Education
> > >
> > > Editor: Sarah Newcomb
> > > Production: Rose Tilghman
> > >
> > > March 14, 2002
> > > ___________________________________
> > >
> > > 2000 Data Drive
> > > EL/Civics
> > >
> > > The Immigration and Naturalization Service has posted its 2000
> > > state-by-state analysis of immigration patterns, making that data
> > > available for calculating states' English Literacy/Civics (EL/Civics)
> > > allotments for July 1. The new data affect the states' allotments by
> > > updating current immigrant populations and recent increases in
> > > immigration. These elements drive formula funding for states'
> > > EL/Civics programs. Congress set aside the funds in appropriations
> > > legislation over the last several years. See
> > >
> >
> http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/IMM00yrbk/ExcIMM00/Tab
> > le17.xls
> > >
> > > NAM: We Need
> > > Adult Literacy,
> > > English Literacy
> > >
> > > The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) recommends that
> > > improving adults' literacy skills be a national priority. A NAM
> > > survey, The Skills Gap: 2001, reports a continuing gap in workers'
> > > skill levels. What's missing for both job applicants and employees?
> > > Employability skills such as attendance, timeliness, work ethic and
> > > other qualities are lacking; with reading, communication and math
> > > skills ranking second. Other NAM recommendations include immigration
> > > policies incorporating initiatives to meet cultural and language skill
> > > needs of immigrants. Immigrants are the main source of labor growth.
> > > See
> > >
> >
> http://www.nam.org/Docs/CenterforWorkforceSuccess/23975_NAMSkillsGapforPress
> > .pdf
> > >
> > > Money Smarts
> > > For Free
> > >
> > > How much do your learners know about finances? The Money Smart
> > > Training Program can help. It includes lesson plans, overheads and
> > > materials for students--and it's free from the Federal Deposit
> > > Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Material is written at the sixth grade
> > > level. Ten units on bank services, consumer rights, saving, credit,
> > > home ownership and more can be ordered from the FDIC. See
> > > http://www.fdic.gov/news/publications/moneysmart  Download order form
> > > and fax to 202/942-3098. Allow three weeks to ship.
> > >
> > > DAEL Jobs
> > > Now Available
> > >
> > > Join us! We're recruiting for two key positions: a Chief for the
> > > Program Improvement Branch; and a Program Specialist to lead the
> > > Community Technology Centers (CTC) program.
> > >
> > > ?The branch chief manages development and implementation of policies
> > > and strategies that improve access to--and quality of--adult education
> > > services. The branch chief provides guidance and leadership to a team
> > > of Program Specialists, as well as to staff of both the Community
> > > Technology Centers Program and English Literacy/Civics Demonstration
> > > Program. The branch handles issues such as adults with disabilities,
> > > family literacy, English language instruction, and program
> > > improvement.
> > >
> > > ?The CTC lead position provides expertise in evaluating CTC programs
> > > at the federal, state and local levels. He or she will manage all
> > > phases of the competitive grant process as well as technical
> > > assistance, policy analysis and a cross-Department team. For more, see
> > > http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1048.HTM and
> > > http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1039.HTM respectively.
> > >
> > >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> > ___________________
> > >
> > >     A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
> > >
> > >                Office of Vocational and Adult Education
> > >
> > >              OVAE Homepage http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020319/d1d41bc5/attachment.html>

From arthur at ellijay.com  Wed Mar 20 08:15:27 2002
From: arthur at ellijay.com (Art LaChance)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 08:15:27 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net>
 <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking>
 <00f501c1cfb5$02e9ee00$4bc13218@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <3C988B6F.1B9433AB@ellijay.com>

Gloria,

For what it's worth, I think Catherine is right on the mark with her
comments re: the threat of socially/politically aware, and educated,
masses as seen by the corporate-business-political world.  There are two
completely different agendas there and one does counter the other in
terms of philosophy of life.

IF that were not true we wouldn't have the problems we have today in the
corporate-business world (Enron is visible only because somebody
slipped) and the untold numbers of "voters" who are functionally
illiterate.  What we need to do is realize this is a fact of life and
prepare to correct it, which I believe is being taken to task by the
current administration with a "do-something!" knee-jerk response.  I
could be wrong, but I also realize fully that what we've accomplished in
these arenas so far is not working real well - for all - as prescribed
by the constitution.

Art

Art LaChance
Gilmer Learning Center
Ellijay GA


Gloria Gillette wrote:

> Catherine,I have tried to keep an open mind through your postings,
> but  honestly when you say things such as:       In some situations
> and to some folks,
>      educating adults is counter-productive to their
>      financial, and so their political, concerns        This situation
> affects AE programs in the USA when
>      policy makers are influenced by those among us who
>      consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
>      as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
>      concerns. Do you really think "corporate-business concerns" sit
> around and conspire against literacy?I'm quite democratic in my
> concern for good writing. Even the most pedantic diatribe can lack
> critical thinking skills.Gloria Gillette --- Original Message
> -----From: Catherine King <cb.king at verizon.net>To:
> <nla at lists.literacytent.org>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:37
> PMSubject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02 > Colleagues:
> >
> > Robert Pinhero points to how educational people
> > (like us) differ from many business people who
> > employ undereducated adults (not all, of course).
> >
> > The "skills gap" (and what we mean by it) may
> > actually exist in some fronts in the USA; but as Dr.
> > Pinhero points out, between nations at present we
> > also suffer from a "socio-economic-political gap"
> > where low-skilled workers are preferred over high-
> > skilled workers. In some situations and to some folks,
> > educating adults is counter-productive to their
> > financial, and so their political, concerns.
> >
> > This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
> > policy makers are influenced by those among us who
> > consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
> > as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
> > concerns.
> >
> > While all will give lip-service to the Constitution and
> > notions of political "equality" and freedom for all, our
> > policy makers continue to ignore or to throw up false
> > barriers to programs that will educate the under-
> > educated electorate among us--programs that
> > in fact "free" our adults to know their voices and their
> > franchise and therefore have them, and create an
> > equality of voice that just might become equipped to
> > change things.  Heaven forbid.
> >
> > But perhaps the thought for some doesn't even
> > extend to the political but rather becomes political
> > merely because AE doesn't serve the bottom line at
> > present.
> >
> > Examples of AE's barriers are: calls for endless studies
> > that will show need based in changing ideas of how that
> > need is grounded in (1) business concerns (?) and (2) a
> > kind of data-standard impossible to attain (factory-like);
> > calls for post-facto program "achievement" ill defined, as if
> > AE programs had bought something and needed to pay
> > for it; an over-focus on children where we are sent
> > scrambling to check backgrounds of board members;
> > a view of AE as some sort of welfare program; a view
> > of government's relationship to AE as philanthropic
> > rather than constitutive; as view of adults' right to an
> > education as qualified by an adult's economic status
> > (whether they can pay for it or not), etc., etc.
> >
> > Against the political forces made up of such ideas,
> > AE will always remain politically powerless and
> > scrambling for funds.  Efforts to counter such
> > negligence and the motivated forces behind them
> > will continue to be haphazard and even futile under
> > the present scenario where more understanding of
> > adults' needs makes for less, not more, support,
> > though I am sure some "edge-funds" will continue to
> > flow here and there as they have in the past.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Catherine King
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Robert Pinhero <irrobert at swbell.net>
> > To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:43 AM
> > Subject: RE: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
> >
> >
> > > David's comment regarding the severely under funded adult
> education system
> > > is certainly valid. Magazines, newspapers, surveys and research
> continue
> > to
> > > point this out, yet not much gets translated into greater
> investment in
> > the
> > > system.
> > >
> > > However I disagree with his take on  the root cause of the exodus
> of
> > > manufacturing jobs. It seems to me that the nations that are the
> > > beneficiaries of these manufacturing jobs are those where there is
> little
> > or
> > > no access to formal adult education as compared to the
> US...Manufacturers
> > > choose China, Mexico , Ecuador, Taiwan etc....because it is
> CHEAPER to
> > have
> > > the products made there even after factoring in shipping costs.
> There is a
> > > certain irony in this because increasing the skills of US workers
> carries
> > > with it the expectation of higher wages which may actually result
> in even
> > > more manufacturing jobs leaving our shores.
> > >
> > > My experience in the manufacturing sector is that many times ( not
>
> > always )
> > > the requirement of a GED or HS Diploma is actually quite
> artificial when
> > the
> > > actual job tasks are analyzed. I certainly do not intend this to
> mean that
> > I
> > > don't see a value in acquiring these credentials, however the
> reality of
> > our
> > > capitalistic system continues to insure that employers will always
> want to
> > > "get the most and pay the least " whenever possible. So as long as
> labor
> > and
> > > production facilities remain cheaper and accessible elsewhere I
> believe
> > our
> > > manufacturers will continue to search for the best bottom line
> deals.
> > >
> > > If I'm not mistaken the # 1 category of reasons why employers
> rejected
> > > applicants  was related to work ethics...showing up on time...good
>
> > > attendance...etc....
> > >
> > > Skills are a lot easier to teach than ethics and good work habits!
>
> > >
> > > I just recently surveyed a sampling of 120 manufacturing
> production
> > workers
> > > from two companies and one of the questions basically asked them
> to state
> > > what they felt was the skill they needed the most help with to be
> > successful
> > > in their current job and possibly advance to a higher position. 42
> percent
> > > of the responses ( 42 out of 120 ) dealt with people skills and
> conflict
> > > resolution. Only 14 mentioned more knowledge about their
> job...only 9
> > > mentioned computer skills.....just tossing this out here as a
> point of
> > > interest
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert M. Pinhero
> > > Education & Training Consultant
> > > PO Box 684031
> > > Austin, Texas 78768-4031
> > > Voice: 512-236-1052
> > > Fax: 512-478-8208
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org
> > > [mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org]On Behalf Of David Joost
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM
> > > To: nla at lists.literacytent.org; Texas Adult Educator
> > > Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
> > >
> > >
> > > The "Skills Gap" report from NAM advises that adult literacy
> should be
> > > made a top priority but at the same time suggests that no
> additional
> > > funding is necessary to impact the 90 million Americans in need of
>
> > > greater literacy skills. It is outrageous to suggest that the
> adult
> > > literacy problem will be meaningfully impacted by level or reduced
>
> > > funding and expecting "home study" and "e-learning" to save the
> day.
> > > Without a reliable adult education and literacy system that is
> fulltime,
> > > year-round and professionally organized, our national will never
> achieve
> > > the adult literacy levels of its international competitor nations.
> This
> > > is the same kind of
> "spend-nothing-do-nothing-and-it-will-all-work-out"
> > > "head-in-the-sand" thinking that has caused the torrential exodus
> of
> > > manufacturing jobs from out this country.
> > >
> > > David Joost
> > > President
> > > Texas Council for Adult Education Cooperative Directors
> > >
> > > > "Tilghman, Rose" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >                      >From the Division of Adult Education and
> Literacy
> > > >
> > > >                               Office of Vocational and Adult
> Education
> > > >
> > > > Editor: Sarah Newcomb
> > > > Production: Rose Tilghman
> > > >
> > > > March 14, 2002
> > > > ___________________________________
> > > >
> > > > 2000 Data Drive
> > > > EL/Civics
> > > >
> > > > The Immigration and Naturalization Service has posted its 2000
> > > > state-by-state analysis of immigration patterns, making that
> data
> > > > available for calculating states' English Literacy/Civics
> (EL/Civics)
> > > > allotments for July 1. The new data affect the states'
> allotments by
> > > > updating current immigrant populations and recent increases in
> > > > immigration. These elements drive formula funding for states'
> > > > EL/Civics programs. Congress set aside the funds in
> appropriations
> > > > legislation over the last several years. See
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/IMM00yrbk/ExcIMM00/Tab
>
> > > le17.xls
> > > >
> > > > NAM: We Need
> > > > Adult Literacy,
> > > > English Literacy
> > > >
> > > > The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) recommends that
> > > > improving adults' literacy skills be a national priority. A NAM
> > > > survey, The Skills Gap: 2001, reports a continuing gap in
> workers'
> > > > skill levels. What's missing for both job applicants and
> employees?
> > > > Employability skills such as attendance, timeliness, work ethic
> and
> > > > other qualities are lacking; with reading, communication and
> math
> > > > skills ranking second. Other NAM recommendations include
> immigration
> > > > policies incorporating initiatives to meet cultural and language
> skill
> > > > needs of immigrants. Immigrants are the main source of labor
> growth.
> > > > See
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.nam.org/Docs/CenterforWorkforceSuccess/23975_NAMSkillsGapforPress
>
> > > .pdf
> > > >
> > > > Money Smarts
> > > > For Free
> > > >
> > > > How much do your learners know about finances? The Money Smart
> > > > Training Program can help. It includes lesson plans, overheads
> and
> > > > materials for students--and it's free from the Federal Deposit
> > > > Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Material is written at the sixth
> grade
> > > > level. Ten units on bank services, consumer rights, saving,
> credit,
> > > > home ownership and more can be ordered from the FDIC. See
> > > > http://www.fdic.gov/news/publications/moneysmart  Download order
> form
> > > > and fax to 202/942-3098. Allow three weeks to ship.
> > > >
> > > > DAEL Jobs
> > > > Now Available
> > > >
> > > > Join us! We're recruiting for two key positions: a Chief for the
>
> > > > Program Improvement Branch; and a Program Specialist to lead the
>
> > > > Community Technology Centers (CTC) program.
> > > >
> > > > ?The branch chief manages development and implementation of
> policies
> > > > and strategies that improve access to--and quality of--adult
> education
> > > > services. The branch chief provides guidance and leadership to a
> team
> > > > of Program Specialists, as well as to staff of both the
> Community
> > > > Technology Centers Program and English Literacy/Civics
> Demonstration
> > > > Program. The branch handles issues such as adults with
> disabilities,
> > > > family literacy, English language instruction, and program
> > > > improvement.
> > > >
> > > > ?The CTC lead position provides expertise in evaluating CTC
> programs
> > > > at the federal, state and local levels. He or she will manage
> all
> > > > phases of the competitive grant process as well as technical
> > > > assistance, policy analysis and a cross-Department team. For
> more, see
> > > > http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1048.HTM and
> > > > http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1039.HTM respectively.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> > > ___________________
> > > >
> > > >     A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and
> Literacy
> > > >
> > > >                Office of Vocational and Adult Education
> > > >
> > > >              OVAE Homepage http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020320/574a7c03/attachment.html>

From hforster at strato.net  Wed Mar 20 09:09:20 2002
From: hforster at strato.net (Harry Forster)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:09:20 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net> <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking> <00f501c1cfb5$02e9ee00$4bc13218@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <3C989810.2040300@strato.net>

Gloria Gillette wrote:

> Catherine,
>
> I have tried to keep an open mind through your postings, but  honestly 
> when you say things such as:
>
> /       In some situations and to some folks,
>      educating adults is counter-productive to their
>      financial, and so their political, concerns/
>
> /        This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
>      policy makers are influenced by those among us who
>      consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
>      as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
>      concerns./
>
>  
>
> Do you really think "corporate-business concerns" sit around and 
> conspire *against *literacy?
>
> I'm quite democratic in my concern for good writing. Even the most 
> pedantic diatribe can lack critical thinking skills.
>
> Gloria Gillette
>
I am not sure that "against" is the correct term but there are some 
realities that I think are necessary for policy planners to understand. 
  I have some personal experiences that are difficult to comprehend. 
 They make Catherine look benign.  Below is part of an email that I sent 
to Catherine.  It comes from a report sent in a Thursday Notes:  "Using 
Electronic Assessment to Measure Student Performance"


"The Commission on Technology and Adult Learning, (Who is this group? 
 What do they do? How are you related to them?) sponsored by the 
American Society for Training and Development and the National Governors 
Association, has expressed a similar sentiment. ?The commission . . . 
encourages governors, CEOs and other leaders ( Why does it not 
explicitly indicate educators or adult educators?  It is ommissions of 
this type that raise questions in my mind.   I see this often.) to make 
e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled 
workforce for America?s digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning 
in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this 
mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new 
era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans.  (Do you 
think that this is the panacea that they say it is?)?  
[ page 2]

I believe that this does not show an active aggression "against" 
 education,  but there is an exclusion of education policy makers, for a 
matter that is in the education field.   Idealism is a good property, 
however, idealism must recognize that the greater forces are not paying 
attention to your ideals.  They are concerned with  politics 
(governors), business (CEOs), and other leaders (what ever that means). 
 Here is a "Commission on Technology and Adult Learning"  and it can not 
even find a term for AE planners unless it is the very bland "other 
leaders".  I tell you that you will get the  respect indicated above 
until your ideals can be a market for technology.  Believe me this 
repulses me as much as it does you.  This is one of the reason that I 
can not give you a title for my position.  Ask Catherine.  

Harry Forster







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020320/525a62fe/attachment.html>

From sophocles5 at juno.com  Wed Mar 20 12:12:54 2002
From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:12:54 -0800
Subject: [NLA] flying behind radar
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net> <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking>
Message-ID: <20020320.091328.9262.2.sophocles5@juno.com>

Colleagues:

Has anyone from MA or elsewhere heard from Senator Kennedy's office about
the field's concerns on the NIFL board nominees?  The sense that I'm
getting is that this is a non-issue for the Health, Education, and Human
Services Committee, if I have its name right, perhaps the most liberal
committee in the Senate that include the likes of Dodd, Wellstone,
Harkin, and Clinton.

If that is the case, that would be most unfortunate.  My sense is that
Kennedy brokered a compromise deal with Bush on education to get some of
what he wanted, financial resources for impoverished urban schools. 
Perhaps the Committee, not necessarily looking in depth at the underlying
presuppositions of the Bush-led USDOE, have missed some of the
ideological undertones of the Department's pronouncements on
"evidence-based" research, phonics, character education, and the
promotion of "traditional" U.S. history.  

Perhaps the Committee had also missed the polemical dismissal of
educational scholarship in placing scientists in supervisory positions
over educational proposals seeking funding.  Thus, perhaps the Committee
only views the compromise as simply agreeing to compulsory standardized
testing and have missed some of the more deeply rooted Rightward turnings
of the USDOE. 

 Perhaps the Committee has missed that the great transformation proposed
by and for the USDOE reflects a potent neo-conservative ideology
reflective of the view of Lynn Cheney, .E.D. Hirsch, Jr. and others.

In any event, perhaps the Committee is missing the connection between
these factors and the NIFL board nominees, to say nothing of the
appointment of the next NIFL Director.

A final observation.  

Part of the "ideology" that neo-conservative educational policy makers
critique is that of constructivism.  They do not view the positivistic
empirical research tradition as ideology but as legitimate (the only
legitimate) science. Constructivism is not viewed as a legitimate
research/theoretical position, but a form of  value laden subjectivism
which has infected the progressive educational establishment. 
Neo-conservative ideologues seek to eradicate or marginalize such
influence from public education.  To what exact degree the current USDOE
is operating under these neo-conservative precepts, I do not know, but in
reading the documents and reading between the lines, it is reasonable to
assume that the neo-conservative influence is strong.

In short, what is up for challenge with the NIFL appointees (Board and
Director) is the very viability of constructivist-based education, which
in our field can be codified in three short letters, EFF.

Though I'm assuming that the Committee members are not necessarily
informed about these more subtle field concerns, it is important that
they look beyond the issue of test scores in scrutinizing the ideological
implications of the Department's proposed great transformation. 

 It is also important that the Committee take a close look at the
concerns of the field that NIFL remain focused on adult literacy and
lifelong learning and that "literacy" does not become defined as
"reading," but as learning and knowledge that includes a strong focus on
reading and writing pedagogy, particularly as promoted in the balanced
theories of reading articulated by Victoria Purcell-Gates and others.

Of all the committees in the Senate, Senator' Kennedy's should be the
last one that is hoodwinked by the ideological right parading itself as
"bi-partisan.".

George Demetrion
Sophocles5 at juno.com


________________________________________________________________
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


From LitNetJose at aol.com  Wed Mar 20 09:15:57 2002
From: LitNetJose at aol.com (LitNetJose at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:15:57 EST
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
Message-ID: <83.18532dcd.29c9f39d@aol.com>

Gloria and partners--

I don't believe that corporatations and corporate interests sit around and 
"conspire against literacy."  I don't think they have to.  We have more than 
a sufficient number of adults in the nation who have to take jobs that don't 
pay.  These individuals lack basic literacy skills...for various 
reasons...but mostly, by my observations and information, because of 
socio-economically based conditions....which tie into cycles of illiteracy 
and lack of role models and lack of family pioneers who somehow managed to 
break out of the cycle, went to college, succeeded in becoming educated, took 
jobs that paid more than $6.50 an hour, and made sure that they read to their 
children every night.

I live near the Mexican border.  I can see here how "under-education" pays 
for some.  And there is such a thing as "institutional racism".  From my 
viewpoint (and the viewpoint of my next door neighbors who never went to 
college and studied political science and economics and theories of 
education), in my part of the country, percentage wise, given individual 
ethnic groups, it primarily falls upon under-educated, low income ethnic 
minorities (and many, many low-income Whites), to do jobs that pay for 
farmers, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, etc....and to fill our 
prisons...which are real money makers...for some.  When things are 
institutional, no one has to conspire towards anything.  This all his origins 
from long ago...and all of us are working together to fix it...the best that 
we can.  My education teachers in college made it clear to me that there were 
two eduational systems to fill different kinds of jobs.  How consciously is 
this being done? Who knows?  All I know is that, we have a freeway that cuts 
across the center of the city called  I-8.  How odd, but consistent, that the 
best schools...with the most  resources and highest achieving students and 
teachers are north of I-8.

And who lives south of I-8?  And who lives north of I-8

You know.  

Is this a strategically planned and verbalized conspiracy?  Probably 
not...but it sure looks like it.

Jose Cruz
Network Director
California Literacy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020320/7fc5a51c/attachment.html>

From sultsch at hs.oob.k12.me.us  Wed Mar 20 11:20:56 2002
From: sultsch at hs.oob.k12.me.us (sharon ultsch)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:20:56 -0500
Subject: [NLA] The Kennedy AELS/USA Act
In-Reply-To: <3C96A1EA.219@aznet.net>
Message-ID: <B8BE1DB8.5C2%sultsch@hs.oob.k12.me.us>

> Where can I get information on what is being done in UK and Australia
regarding life long learning?

Also, is anyone aware of any exchange programs with either of those
countries to see first hand how life long learning is supported?

Thank you 




March 18, 2002
> 
> The Kennedy Adult Education and Literacy System
> of the United States of America Act (AELS/USA)
> 
> Just prior to his tragic death in 1993, President John F. Kennedy
> established the Task Force on Manpower Conservation.  With Daniel
> Patrick Moynihan as staff director of the Task Force, a report was
> prepared for President Lyndon Johnson on January 1st, 1964. Later, in
> May of that year, President Johnson launched the "Great Society"
> initiative  that led to the passage of Public law 88-452, the Economic
> Opportunity Act. The EOA included Title II: The Adult Basic Education
> program. In 1966, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was
> amended to include the ABE program renamed the Adult Education Act of
> 1966. 
> 
> The Adult Education Act of 1966 became the basis for a unique education
> system within the United States made up of a partnership between the
> federal and all 50 state governments and U. S. territories. I call this
> system the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States of
> America (AELS/USA-AELS for short).
> 
> I believe that it is a poignant circumstance that we can trace the AELS
> from the concerns for adult development that President Kennedy had in
> 1963 to the concerns that his last surviving brother, Senator Edward
> Kennedy, has today for conserving and further developing our nation?s
> adult citizens through his strong belief in the power of life long
> learning in overcoming social exclusion of many kinds.
> 
> In recognition of this commitment of the two Kennedy brothers to adult
> learning and development, and to name and recognize the unique education
> system that has evolved since President Kennedy established the Task
> Force on Manpower Conservation, I am suggesting that the Workforce
> Investment Act of 1998 be amended to remove Title 2: The Adult Education
> and Family Literacy Act from that law and that a new law be passed
> establishing 
> 
> The Kennedy Adult Education and Literacy System
> of the United States of America Act.
> 
> In major developed nations, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and
> others there exist recognized, publicly funded, adult education systems
> for life long learning, called further education systems in the two
> nations mentioned,  in addition to the publicly funded K-12 and higher
> education systems. And,indeed, in the U.S. there exists such a system
> but it has not been formally recognized as such. The Annual Review of
> Adult Learning and Literacy Volume 3 (Jossey-Bass, 2002) includes a
> chapter that traces the history of the Adult Education and Literacy
> System of the United States from Colonial days to the 21st century.
> 
> The long history in the  U. S. to the commitment of providing education
> for adults which has resulted in the rise of the AELS, and the fact that
> in the last decade of the 20th century close to 40 million adult
> enrollments were registered by the AELS, provide strong arguments for
> moving the AELS from the margins to the mainstream of publicly funded
> education in the United States, just as it is in other developed
> nations.  
> 
> I hope that others on the NLA list will take some time to discuss the
> vision of The Kennedy Adult Education and Literacy System of the United
> States of America Act. The reauthorization of the Workforce Investment
> Act offers an opportunity to extract the AELS from that limited context
> and to broaden adult education and literacy development to include not
> just workforce development, but active, life long learning for adults as
> they strive to cope with the exigencies of the fast-paced, complex,
> ever-changing, modern world of the 21st century.
> 
> No time is better than the present to make this vision a reality.
> 
> 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


Sharon Ultsch
40 EE Cummings blvd
oob. me 04064

Adult Education Director
207-934-7922 phone,  fax  934-3705
sultsch @hs.oob.k12.me.us


_______________________________________________
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


From cb.king at verizon.net  Wed Mar 20 12:03:08 2002
From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine King)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:03:08 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net> <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking> <00f501c1cfb5$02e9ee00$4bc13218@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <002c01c1d031$e1c762c0$b1f72a3f@cbking>

Hello Gloria:

I said "in some situations and to some folks."  
Perhaps I am wrong to think that everyone doesn't
want social justice as many good and committed
teachers do? 

But there are, of course, also some well-heeled folks 
who are quite interested in building communities
and including everyone, e.g., Bill Gates and George
Soros, and many, many more. 

But portraying my posts as implying that some
people "sit around and conspire against literacy"
is hardly an accurate or critical restatement of
what I have said in different ways at different 
times here:  that some of us who claim to love
republican principles and who freely live in a 
democracy with all its freedoms, do not, through
their acts, support a development of our electorate 
and continue to take incremental steps to unhinge 
the intimate relationship between education and 
democracy.   

In the short term, this unhingement may seem 
benign and serve some interests well.  But in the 
long term, it is a disastrous set of steps. 

Also, companies are not moving from the USA to other
countries because they are interested in educating
the people who work for them.  But of course capitalism 
doesn't necessarily mean greed--IF it is balanced with
communitarian-democratic principles; and capitalist 
principles need not encroach on the principles of 
commonwealth that underpin education and democracy 
in general.  

But many in our land, it seems, including many in 
education, don't seem to understand the difference 
and, therefore, fail to recognize it when that 
encroachment works itself out in the details of their-our 
programming and policy.    

The tension between (1) capitalist-corporate and 
(2) community-commonwealth principles lives a daily
existence in the hearts of our corporate executives and 
government policy makers.   Their decisions reveal their
understanding and commitment to one or the other.  Those
who are committed to corporate development regardless
of its effect on the larger context (including others in their
communities) make decisions that reveal that 

"educating adults is counter-productive to their
financial, and so their political, concerns.   This situation 
affects AE programs in the USA when policy makers are 
influenced by those among us who consider educated or 
socially-politically aware adults as a dangerous threat to 
their corporate-business concerns."
 
I agree with you, Gloria, that to think the whole world is a
conspiracy against literacy would be extreme and would not
deserve your ear of the ear of NLA subscribers.  But it is 
also naive to think everyone feels about adult education 
as we do, or that under-educated, under-funded, under-
politicized adults should not have their political voices
organized into a cohesive group who can speak for their
interests, and concomitantly for the real-politic interests 
of development of a maturing democratic electorate.      

Regards,

Catherine King
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gloria Gillette 
  To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


  Catherine,
  I have tried to keep an open mind through your postings, but  honestly when you say things such as:
         In some situations and to some folks,
       educating adults is counter-productive to their
       financial, and so their political, concerns
          This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
       policy makers are influenced by those among us who
       consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
       as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
       concerns.
   
  Do you really think "corporate-business concerns" sit around and conspire against literacy? 
  I'm quite democratic in my concern for good writing. Even the most pedantic diatribe can lack critical thinking skills.
  Gloria Gillette

  --- Original Message ----- 
  From: Catherine King <cb.king at verizon.net>
  To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
  Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


  > Colleagues:
  > 
  > Robert Pinhero points to how educational people
  > (like us) differ from many business people who
  > employ undereducated adults (not all, of course).
  > 
  > The "skills gap" (and what we mean by it) may
  > actually exist in some fronts in the USA; but as Dr.
  > Pinhero points out, between nations at present we
  > also suffer from a "socio-economic-political gap"
  > where low-skilled workers are preferred over high-
  > skilled workers. In some situations and to some folks,
  > educating adults is counter-productive to their
  > financial, and so their political, concerns.
  > 
  > This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
  > policy makers are influenced by those among us who
  > consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
  > as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
  > concerns.
  > 
  > While all will give lip-service to the Constitution and
  > notions of political "equality" and freedom for all, our
  > policy makers continue to ignore or to throw up false
  > barriers to programs that will educate the under-
  > educated electorate among us--programs that
  > in fact "free" our adults to know their voices and their
  > franchise and therefore have them, and create an
  > equality of voice that just might become equipped to
  > change things.  Heaven forbid.
  > 
  > But perhaps the thought for some doesn't even
  > extend to the political but rather becomes political
  > merely because AE doesn't serve the bottom line at
  > present.
  > 
  > Examples of AE's barriers are: calls for endless studies
  > that will show need based in changing ideas of how that
  > need is grounded in (1) business concerns (?) and (2) a
  > kind of data-standard impossible to attain (factory-like);
  > calls for post-facto program "achievement" ill defined, as if
  > AE programs had bought something and needed to pay
  > for it; an over-focus on children where we are sent
  > scrambling to check backgrounds of board members;
  > a view of AE as some sort of welfare program; a view
  > of government's relationship to AE as philanthropic
  > rather than constitutive; as view of adults' right to an
  > education as qualified by an adult's economic status
  > (whether they can pay for it or not), etc., etc.
  > 
  > Against the political forces made up of such ideas,
  > AE will always remain politically powerless and
  > scrambling for funds.  Efforts to counter such
  > negligence and the motivated forces behind them
  > will continue to be haphazard and even futile under
  > the present scenario where more understanding of
  > adults' needs makes for less, not more, support,
  > though I am sure some "edge-funds" will continue to
  > flow here and there as they have in the past.
  > 
  > Regards,
  > 
  > Catherine King
  > 
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: Robert Pinhero <irrobert at swbell.net>
  > To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
  > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:43 AM
  > Subject: RE: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
  > 
  > 
  > > David's comment regarding the severely under funded adult education system
  > > is certainly valid. Magazines, newspapers, surveys and research continue
  > to
  > > point this out, yet not much gets translated into greater investment in
  > the
  > > system.
  > >
  > > However I disagree with his take on  the root cause of the exodus of
  > > manufacturing jobs. It seems to me that the nations that are the
  > > beneficiaries of these manufacturing jobs are those where there is little
  > or
  > > no access to formal adult education as compared to the US...Manufacturers
  > > choose China, Mexico , Ecuador, Taiwan etc....because it is CHEAPER to
  > have
  > > the products made there even after factoring in shipping costs. There is a
  > > certain irony in this because increasing the skills of US workers carries
  > > with it the expectation of higher wages which may actually result in even
  > > more manufacturing jobs leaving our shores.
  > >
  > > My experience in the manufacturing sector is that many times ( not
  > always )
  > > the requirement of a GED or HS Diploma is actually quite artificial when
  > the
  > > actual job tasks are analyzed. I certainly do not intend this to mean that
  > I
  > > don't see a value in acquiring these credentials, however the reality of
  > our
  > > capitalistic system continues to insure that employers will always want to
  > > "get the most and pay the least " whenever possible. So as long as labor
  > and
  > > production facilities remain cheaper and accessible elsewhere I believe
  > our
  > > manufacturers will continue to search for the best bottom line deals.
  > >
  > > If I'm not mistaken the # 1 category of reasons why employers rejected
  > > applicants  was related to work ethics...showing up on time...good
  > > attendance...etc....
  > >
  > > Skills are a lot easier to teach than ethics and good work habits!
  > >
  > > I just recently surveyed a sampling of 120 manufacturing production
  > workers
  > > from two companies and one of the questions basically asked them to state
  > > what they felt was the skill they needed the most help with to be
  > successful
  > > in their current job and possibly advance to a higher position. 42 percent
  > > of the responses ( 42 out of 120 ) dealt with people skills and conflict
  > > resolution. Only 14 mentioned more knowledge about their job...only 9
  > > mentioned computer skills.....just tossing this out here as a point of
  > > interest
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > Robert M. Pinhero
  > > Education & Training Consultant
  > > PO Box 684031
  > > Austin, Texas 78768-4031
  > > Voice: 512-236-1052
  > > Fax: 512-478-8208
  > >
  > > -----Original Message-----
  > > From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org
  > > [mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org]On Behalf Of David Joost
  > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM
  > > To: nla at lists.literacytent.org; Texas Adult Educator
  > > Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
  > >
  > >
  > > The "Skills Gap" report from NAM advises that adult literacy should be
  > > made a top priority but at the same time suggests that no additional
  > > funding is necessary to impact the 90 million Americans in need of
  > > greater literacy skills. It is outrageous to suggest that the adult
  > > literacy problem will be meaningfully impacted by level or reduced
  > > funding and expecting "home study" and "e-learning" to save the day.
  > > Without a reliable adult education and literacy system that is fulltime,
  > > year-round and professionally organized, our national will never achieve
  > > the adult literacy levels of its international competitor nations. This
  > > is the same kind of "spend-nothing-do-nothing-and-it-will-all-work-out"
  > > "head-in-the-sand" thinking that has caused the torrential exodus of
  > > manufacturing jobs from out this country.
  > >
  > > David Joost
  > > President
  > > Texas Council for Adult Education Cooperative Directors
  > >
  > > > "Tilghman, Rose" wrote:
  > > >
  > > >                      From the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
  > > >
  > > >                               Office of Vocational and Adult Education
  > > >
  > > > Editor: Sarah Newcomb
  > > > Production: Rose Tilghman
  > > >
  > > > March 14, 2002
  > > > ___________________________________
  > > >
  > > > 2000 Data Drive
  > > > EL/Civics
  > > >
  > > > The Immigration and Naturalization Service has posted its 2000
  > > > state-by-state analysis of immigration patterns, making that data
  > > > available for calculating states' English Literacy/Civics (EL/Civics)
  > > > allotments for July 1. The new data affect the states' allotments by
  > > > updating current immigrant populations and recent increases in
  > > > immigration. These elements drive formula funding for states'
  > > > EL/Civics programs. Congress set aside the funds in appropriations
  > > > legislation over the last several years. See
  > > >
  > >
  > http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/IMM00yrbk/ExcIMM00/Tab
  > > le17.xls
  > > >
  > > > NAM: We Need
  > > > Adult Literacy,
  > > > English Literacy
  > > >
  > > > The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) recommends that
  > > > improving adults' literacy skills be a national priority. A NAM
  > > > survey, The Skills Gap: 2001, reports a continuing gap in workers'
  > > > skill levels. What's missing for both job applicants and employees?
  > > > Employability skills such as attendance, timeliness, work ethic and
  > > > other qualities are lacking; with reading, communication and math
  > > > skills ranking second. Other NAM recommendations include immigration
  > > > policies incorporating initiatives to meet cultural and language skill
  > > > needs of immigrants. Immigrants are the main source of labor growth.
  > > > See
  > > >
  > >
  > http://www.nam.org/Docs/CenterforWorkforceSuccess/23975_NAMSkillsGapforPress
  > > .pdf
  > > >
  > > > Money Smarts
  > > > For Free
  > > >
  > > > How much do your learners know about finances? The Money Smart
  > > > Training Program can help. It includes lesson plans, overheads and
  > > > materials for students--and it's free from the Federal Deposit
  > > > Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Material is written at the sixth grade
  > > > level. Ten units on bank services, consumer rights, saving, credit,
  > > > home ownership and more can be ordered from the FDIC. See
  > > > http://www.fdic.gov/news/publications/moneysmart  Download order form
  > > > and fax to 202/942-3098. Allow three weeks to ship.
  > > >
  > > > DAEL Jobs
  > > > Now Available
  > > >
  > > > Join us! We're recruiting for two key positions: a Chief for the
  > > > Program Improvement Branch; and a Program Specialist to lead the
  > > > Community Technology Centers (CTC) program.
  > > >
  > > > ?The branch chief manages development and implementation of policies
  > > > and strategies that improve access to--and quality of--adult education
  > > > services. The branch chief provides guidance and leadership to a team
  > > > of Program Specialists, as well as to staff of both the Community
  > > > Technology Centers Program and English Literacy/Civics Demonstration
  > > > Program. The branch handles issues such as adults with disabilities,
  > > > family literacy, English language instruction, and program
  > > > improvement.
  > > >
  > > > ?The CTC lead position provides expertise in evaluating CTC programs
  > > > at the federal, state and local levels. He or she will manage all
  > > > phases of the competitive grant process as well as technical
  > > > assistance, policy analysis and a cross-Department team. For more, see
  > > > http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1048.HTM and
  > > > http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1039.HTM respectively.
  > > >
  > > >
  > >
  > ____________________________________________________________________________
  > > ___________________
  > > >
  > > >     A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
  > > >
  > > >                Office of Vocational and Adult Education
  > > >
  > > >              OVAE Homepage http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/
  > > _______________________________________________
  > > 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
  > 
  > _______________________________________________
  > 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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020320/5e6a9620/attachment.html>

From tsticht at aznet.net  Wed Mar 20 13:10:08 2002
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:10:08 -0700
Subject: [NLA] Celebrating 35 years of the AELS
Message-ID: <3C98D07C.3B03@aznet.net>

FY 1967 ? FY 2002: 35 Years of the Adult Education 
and Literacy System of the United States (AELS)

On February 14th I posted a message offering up to four free speeches to
celebrate 35 years of the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of
the United States. My thanks to all who contacted me. Though I couldn?t
accommodate all the invitations received I am pleased to announce the
five listed below with dates, locations and contacts for those who may
be interested in finding out about attending any of the presentations.
I've also included dates for the presentations I'm making in San
Francisco this year at the International Reading Association meeting. I
hope others will join with the organizations below and with me in
celebrating 35 years of the Adult Education and Literacy System of the
United States this year! 
Tom Sticht

The 2002 United States Tour 

Celebrating 35 Years of the Adult Education & Literacy System of the
United States

April 12                
New York, New York 
Ira Yankwitt 
Literacy Assistance Center 
iray at lacnyc.org

April 30-May 1
California, San Francisco
Tom Sticht
International Reading Association
tsticht at aznet.net

June 22                 
New Mexico, Las Cruces
David Godsted
New Mexico Coalition for Literacy
dgodsted at nmcl.org 

August 13               
Minnesota, Breezy Point
Deborah Simmons
St. Thomas University
dasimmons at stthomas.edu

October  11 or 18               
Washington, Seattle
Delight Willing
Seattle University
dwilling at seattleu.edu

October 23              
Massachusetts,  Marlborough
Charlie Houghton
Massachusetts Coalition for Adult Education
charlie at mcae.net

**************************************************
Meeting the education needs of adult learners for 35 years!
The Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States 
**************************************************

Please feel free to cross-post or otherwise  share 
this message with others you think  may be interested.
_______________________________________________
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


From Janet_Isserlis at Brown.edu  Thu Mar 21 09:56:08 2002
From: Janet_Isserlis at Brown.edu (Janet Isserlis)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:56:08 -0500
Subject: [NLA] The Kennedy AELS/USA Act
In-Reply-To: <B8BE1DB8.5C2%sultsch@hs.oob.k12.me.us>
References: <B8BE1DB8.5C2%sultsch@hs.oob.k12.me.us>
Message-ID: <v04210105b8bfa4c1cc8c@[128.148.147.35]>

Sharon and all,

Try starting from here  - a colloquium  (including papers) on life 
long learning presented by the Open University

http://www.open.ac.uk/lifelong-learning/papers/

Janet

> > Where can I get information on what is being done in UK and Australia
>regarding life long learning?
>
>Also, is anyone aware of any exchange programs with either of those
>countries to see first hand how life long learning is supported?
>
>Thank you
>
>
>
>
>March 18, 2002
> >
> > The Kennedy Adult Education and Literacy System
> > of the United States of America Act (AELS/USA)
> >
> > Just prior to his tragic death in 1993, President John F. Kennedy
> > established the Task Force on Manpower Conservation.  With Daniel
> > Patrick Moynihan as staff director of the Task Force, a report was
> > prepared for President Lyndon Johnson on January 1st, 1964. Later, in
> > May of that year, President Johnson launched the "Great Society"
> > initiative  that led to the passage of Public law 88-452, the Economic
> > Opportunity Act. The EOA included Title II: The Adult Basic Education
> > program. In 1966, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was
> > amended to include the ABE program renamed the Adult Education Act of
> > 1966.
> >
> > The Adult Education Act of 1966 became the basis for a unique education
> > system within the United States made up of a partnership between the
> > federal and all 50 state governments and U. S. territories. I call this
> > system the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States of
> > America (AELS/USA-AELS for short).
> >
> > I believe that it is a poignant circumstance that we can trace the AELS
> > from the concerns for adult development that President Kennedy had in
> > 1963 to the concerns that his last surviving brother, Senator Edward
> > Kennedy, has today for conserving and further developing our nation?s
> > adult citizens through his strong belief in the power of life long
> > learning in overcoming social exclusion of many kinds.
> >
> > In recognition of this commitment of the two Kennedy brothers to adult
> > learning and development, and to name and recognize the unique education
> > system that has evolved since President Kennedy established the Task
> > Force on Manpower Conservation, I am suggesting that the Workforce
> > Investment Act of 1998 be amended to remove Title 2: The Adult Education
> > and Family Literacy Act from that law and that a new law be passed
> > establishing
> >
> > The Kennedy Adult Education and Literacy System
> > of the United States of America Act.
> >
> > In major developed nations, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and
> > others there exist recognized, publicly funded, adult education systems
> > for life long learning, called further education systems in the two
> > nations mentioned,  in addition to the publicly funded K-12 and higher
> > education systems. And,indeed, in the U.S. there exists such a system
> > but it has not been formally recognized as such. The Annual Review of
> > Adult Learning and Literacy Volume 3 (Jossey-Bass, 2002) includes a
> > chapter that traces the history of the Adult Education and Literacy
> > System of the United States from Colonial days to the 21st century.
> >
> > The long history in the  U. S. to the commitment of providing education
> > for adults which has resulted in the rise of the AELS, and the fact that
> > in the last decade of the 20th century close to 40 million adult
> > enrollments were registered by the AELS, provide strong arguments for
> > moving the AELS from the margins to the mainstream of publicly funded
> > education in the United States, just as it is in other developed
> > nations.
> >
> > I hope that others on the NLA list will take some time to discuss the
> > vision of The Kennedy Adult Education and Literacy System of the United
> > States of America Act. The reauthorization of the Workforce Investment
> > Act offers an opportunity to extract the AELS from that limited context
> > and to broaden adult education and literacy development to include not
> > just workforce development, but active, life long learning for adults as
> > they strive to cope with the exigencies of the fast-paced, complex,
> > ever-changing, modern world of the 21st century.
> >
> > No time is better than the present to make this vision a reality.
> >
> > 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
>
>
>Sharon Ultsch
>40 EE Cummings blvd
>oob. me 04064
>
>Adult Education Director
>207-934-7922 phone,  fax  934-3705
>sultsch @hs.oob.k12.me.us
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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


From tcarman at literacyvolunteers.org  Thu Mar 21 11:07:06 2002
From: tcarman at literacyvolunteers.org (tcarman)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:07:06 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Ricki Lake and adult literacy
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020319163822.009d1640@siue.edu>
Message-ID: <002201c1d0f2$73097ff0$86ca0acf@LVA6>

The Ricki Lake Show contacted Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc. for
information on adult literacy and to provide a spokesperson. LVA's
Westchester County affiliate executive director, Pat Rajala, appeared on the
show. Please contact me off the list at my e-mail address below, for more
information and copies of the show.

"LVA is committed to innovation, leadership, and quality."

Tracy Carman
Manager, Marketing and Communications
P.O. Box 6506
Syracuse, NY  13217
315-472-0001, ext. 374
315-472-0002 (fax)
tcarman at literacyvolunteers.org

-----Original Message-----
From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org
[mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org]On Behalf Of Dr. Valerie Meyer
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:41 PM
To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
Subject: [NLA] Ricki Lake and adult literacy


Does anyone know how I may obtain a copy of the February 8th Ricki Lake
show?  The topic was adult literacy.  I have tried her web site and have
called 1-800-GO RICKI with no luck.

Please respond directly to me at vmeyer at siue.edu

Thanks, in advance, for any suggestions.

_______________________________________________
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


From miriam at cal.org  Thu Mar 21 11:18:16 2002
From: miriam at cal.org (Miriam Burt)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:18:16 -0500
Subject: [NLA] New from NCLE: Q & A on Health Literacy
Message-ID: <B24038C0D3E160419E320030D92C22DE97080E@hobbes.cal.org>


Lately I've been having trouble with my right knee: it is swollen and painful. In the process of negotiating services from my managed care system about this in the last two weeks I have:
1.	called the clinic 7 times; 
2. 	been seen by two different urgent care specialists; 
3.	had an X-ray at the clinic; 
4. 	had an MRI at the hospital; 
5. 	been put on hold for more than 45 minutes total; 
6. 	read and signed 6 different forms; 
7. 	written 2 checks for my insurance co-pay;
7. 	lost several hours of work time;
8. 	been given the wrong phone number for the specialist;
9.  	been told by one doctor to use heat;
10. 	been told by another to ice the knee; 
11. 	waited in various lobbies and rooms for more than 5 hours; and 
12. 	received services for close to 1 hour (amount of time is artificially high because MRI took 35 minutes).
I will finally see the specialist tomorrow, two weeks after beginning the odyssey.

So what's the point of the above list? The difficulties I have experienced navigating the health care system have required using problem solving, language, and literacy skills. As hard as this has been for me, it would have been so much harder if I couldn't read or write with ease. And what if I couldn't understand what was said to me on the phone in the voice mail system? By the receptionists? By the doctors? By the nurses and technicians? By the guard in the lobby of the hospital? What if I didn't have the English language skills to ask for and get the correct phone number when I have been given the wrong one initially? Or to ask to use the phone when I see that I will be unable to pick up my daughter on time from her after school care and need to get someone else to do it? 

What can we as adult ESL educators do to help learners? The new Q & A from NCLE on Health Literacy and Adult English Language Learners by Kate Singleton. is available from NCLE or on our Web site at http://www.cal.org/ncle/digests/healthlitQA.htm.. It  gives suggestions for improving health literacy instruction for ESL learners and includes a annotated list of resources on the topic. Additional resources are available on NCLE's Web site in the annotated bibliography of health literacy for adult English language learners 
http://www.cal.org/ncle/healthbib.htm
Finally, there is a Web collection, also by Kate Singleton, on using picture stories for adult ESL health literacy. The picture stories and instructions for their use can be downloaded from at http://www.cal.org/ncle/health/

Miriam
**********
Miriam Burt
Associate Director, National Center for ESL Literacy Education (NCLE)
Center for Applied Linguistics
4646 40th Street NW
Washington, DC 20015
(202) 362-0700 (phone)
(202) 363-7204 (fax)
miriam at cal.org
*****************************************
Visit NCLE's Web site at www.cal.org/ncle
*****************************************
A national center devoted to providing technical assistance to those working with adults learning English as a second language.   





 
_______________________________________________
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


From cb.king at verizon.net  Thu Mar 21 12:23:20 2002
From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine King)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:23:20 -0800
Subject: [NLA] flying behind radar
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net> <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking> <20020320.091328.9262.2.sophocles5@juno.com>
Message-ID: <002401c1d0fd$430e52c0$e1f72a3f@cbking>

Colleagues:

I "second" George's comments about the problem of
policy makers not only disregarding EFF, but the
possibility of that disregard being rooted in the 
de-ligitimation of both constructive and liberation
research methods that EFF has its methodological 
feet in.

Though brilliant statistics have their place, they are
modeled on the data of the natural science; whereas
interpretive-constructive and liberation methods are
developed with humans-as-data in mind.

All three methods are appropriate depending on the 
kinds of questions we want answered.  None are worth 
anything without researchers participating in self-critique 
and peer-review from ALL sides.  And "hard" statistics
**used alone** always overlook the human element, as 
well as the researchers' dialogal import on the research
subjects, not to mention overlooking the implicit point of 
view of the researcher--the view that imports on the very 
form and nature of the questions that are being asked of
human data.  Sometimes this doesn't matter; but at other
times, it is devastatingly destructive in the import of its 
oversights. 

For all the good statistics do (and they do), the fuller and
more comprehensive (and therefore more real and true) 
view is represented by EFF, its  methods, and its writers' 
willingness to inquire about the depth and quality of human 
life, as well as the researchers' import on that research.

If unwitting policy-makers are indeed in the older, 
now-considered-naive mind frame with regard to one-horse 
methods, then EFF will be, and probably has been, shut out 
at the starter's gate even by those who have the best 
interests of AELS in mind.

Regards,

Catherine King
----- Original Message ----- 
From: George E. Demetrion <sophocles5 at juno.com>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:12 AM
Subject: [NLA] flying behind radar


> Colleagues:
> 
> Has anyone from MA or elsewhere heard from Senator Kennedy's office about
> the field's concerns on the NIFL board nominees?  The sense that I'm
> getting is that this is a non-issue for the Health, Education, and Human
> Services Committee, if I have its name right, perhaps the most liberal
> committee in the Senate that include the likes of Dodd, Wellstone,
> Harkin, and Clinton.
> 
> If that is the case, that would be most unfortunate.  My sense is that
> Kennedy brokered a compromise deal with Bush on education to get some of
> what he wanted, financial resources for impoverished urban schools. 
> Perhaps the Committee, not necessarily looking in depth at the underlying
> presuppositions of the Bush-led USDOE, have missed some of the
> ideological undertones of the Department's pronouncements on
> "evidence-based" research, phonics, character education, and the
> promotion of "traditional" U.S. history.  
> 
> Perhaps the Committee had also missed the polemical dismissal of
> educational scholarship in placing scientists in supervisory positions
> over educational proposals seeking funding.  Thus, perhaps the Committee
> only views the compromise as simply agreeing to compulsory standardized
> testing and have missed some of the more deeply rooted Rightward turnings
> of the USDOE. 
> 
>  Perhaps the Committee has missed that the great transformation proposed
> by and for the USDOE reflects a potent neo-conservative ideology
> reflective of the view of Lynn Cheney, .E.D. Hirsch, Jr. and others.
> 
> In any event, perhaps the Committee is missing the connection between
> these factors and the NIFL board nominees, to say nothing of the
> appointment of the next NIFL Director.
> 
> A final observation.  
> 
> Part of the "ideology" that neo-conservative educational policy makers
> critique is that of constructivism.  They do not view the positivistic
> empirical research tradition as ideology but as legitimate (the only
> legitimate) science. Constructivism is not viewed as a legitimate
> research/theoretical position, but a form of  value laden subjectivism
> which has infected the progressive educational establishment. 
> Neo-conservative ideologues seek to eradicate or marginalize such
> influence from public education.  To what exact degree the current USDOE
> is operating under these neo-conservative precepts, I do not know, but in
> reading the documents and reading between the lines, it is reasonable to
> assume that the neo-conservative influence is strong.
> 
> In short, what is up for challenge with the NIFL appointees (Board and
> Director) is the very viability of constructivist-based education, which
> in our field can be codified in three short letters, EFF.
> 
> Though I'm assuming that the Committee members are not necessarily
> informed about these more subtle field concerns, it is important that
> they look beyond the issue of test scores in scrutinizing the ideological
> implications of the Department's proposed great transformation. 
> 
>  It is also important that the Committee take a close look at the
> concerns of the field that NIFL remain focused on adult literacy and
> lifelong learning and that "literacy" does not become defined as
> "reading," but as learning and knowledge that includes a strong focus on
> reading and writing pedagogy, particularly as promoted in the balanced
> theories of reading articulated by Victoria Purcell-Gates and others.
> 
> Of all the committees in the Senate, Senator' Kennedy's should be the
> last one that is hoodwinked by the ideological right parading itself as
> "bi-partisan.".
> 
> George Demetrion
> Sophocles5 at juno.com
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
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


From Awilderast at aol.com  Thu Mar 21 13:51:53 2002
From: Awilderast at aol.com (Awilderast at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:51:53 EST
Subject: [NLA] Question about adult lit population
Message-ID: <cc.87def45.29cb85c9@aol.com>

Colleagues:

We know that there is a correlation between parents' level of education 
(particularly mothers') and children's school achievement.

Does this relationship hold true for adult literacy students?
re we gathering info on parents' level of achievement?

I am trying to understand the adult literacy student--are they trying to 
break the mold (the correlation), going onto new ground, OR are they simply 
repeating/reaching for their parents' level of education?  

The above is probably clumsily expressed. If we are starting from our point 
of vierw as literate adults, then the adult literacy student is below our 
standard.  However, maybe that is the wrong measure, and what we should 
reflect on is their literacy work in relation to the educational levels of 
their parents in their family of origin.  

Thanks.

Andrea
_______________________________________________
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


From resctr2 at ix.netcom.com  Thu Mar 21 18:41:19 2002
From: resctr2 at ix.netcom.com (Gloria Gillette)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:41:19 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net> <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking> <00f501c1cfb5$02e9ee00$4bc13218@oemcomputer> <3C989810.2040300@strato.net>
Message-ID: <005201c1d131$e7520780$4bc13218@oemcomputer>

Harry,
The American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) and the National Governors Associations are not exactly unknowns, nor do these words offend me in any way:
(.. to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans).
 
What the ASTD does not do, is say that education is the exclusive domain of "educators" and that what the field of training and education (by the way, that's us) has failed to do is adequately express or convince the business world of the importance of education. It is the inability of "educators"  to collaborate and cross the divide into the realm of business (such as Catherine's post ) that stymies much of of our work. 

Read ASTD's white paper "Profit from Learning: Do Firm's Investments in Education and Training Pay Off?"
In it they say:
"Although it is now commonly understood that the acquisition of knowledge is central to the competitive advantage of individuals and organizations in today's economy, the question of how much to invest in workforce education and training has long confounded business executives and managers alike.The problem:firms have never had good information...."

As an adullt educator what does that tell you?

It tells me that we are not very good at communicating, at crossing the divide,
at making our point. Diatribes on how we are marginalized and whoa is us, and us against them only diminish our work and our importance. 
If we've failed to let the business world understand and know our importance, if we've failed to learn their vocabulary and to communicate, who's bad is it? 
Gloria Gillette


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Harry Forster 
  To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:09 AM
  Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


  Gloria Gillette wrote:

    Catherine,
    I have tried to keep an open mind through your postings, but  honestly when you say things such as:
           In some situations and to some folks,
         educating adults is counter-productive to their
         financial, and so their political, concerns
            This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
         policy makers are influenced by those among us who
         consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
         as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
         concerns.

    Do you really think "corporate-business concerns" sit around and conspire against literacy? 
    I'm quite democratic in my concern for good writing. Even the most pedantic diatribe can lack critical thinking skills.
    Gloria Gillette
  I am not sure that "against" is the correct term but there are some realities that I think are necessary for policy planners to understand.   I have some personal experiences that are difficult to comprehend.  They make Catherine look benign.  Below is part of an email that I sent to Catherine.  It comes from a report sent in a Thursday Notes:  "Using Electronic Assessment to Measure Student Performance"


  "The Commission on Technology and Adult Learning, (Who is this group?  What do they do? How are you related to them?) sponsored by the American Society for Training and Development and the National Governors Association, has expressed a similar sentiment. "The commission . . . encourages governors, CEOs and other leaders ( Why does it not explicitly indicate educators or adult educators?  It is ommissions of this type that raise questions in my mind.   I see this often.) to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans.  (Do you think that this is the panacea that they say it is?)"  
  [ page 2]

  I believe that this does not show an active aggression "against"  education,  but there is an exclusion of education policy makers, for a matter that is in the education field.   Idealism is a good property, however, idealism must recognize that the greater forces are not paying attention to your ideals.  They are concerned with  politics (governors), business (CEOs), and other leaders (what ever that means).  Here is a "Commission on Technology and Adult Learning"  and it can not even find a term for AE planners unless it is the very bland "other leaders".  I tell you that you will get the  respect indicated above until your ideals can be a market for technology.  Believe me this repulses me as much as it does you.  This is one of the reason that I can not give you a title for my position.  Ask Catherine.  

  Harry Forster








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020321/108f1dc9/attachment.html>

From resctr2 at ix.netcom.com  Thu Mar 21 19:08:07 2002
From: resctr2 at ix.netcom.com (Gloria Gillette)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:08:07 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net> <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking> <00f501c1cfb5$02e9ee00$4bc13218@oemcomputer> <002c01c1d031$e1c762c0$b1f72a3f@cbking>
Message-ID: <007401c1d135$a5c35b80$4bc13218@oemcomputer>

Catherine,
Education is social justice. It is the great equalizer.
I don't question the "intimate relationship between education and democracy".
But if we want the full funding to accomplish that, we must also reach out and find ways to establish the "intimate relationship between education and the bottom line".
We know it exists. We just haven't been very good at communicating it.
Gloria Gillette
  ---- Original Message ----- 
  From: Catherine King 
  To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


  Hello Gloria:

  I said "in some situations and to some folks."  
  Perhaps I am wrong to think that everyone doesn't
  want social justice as many good and committed
  teachers do? 

  But there are, of course, also some well-heeled folks 
  who are quite interested in building communities
  and including everyone, e.g., Bill Gates and George
  Soros, and many, many more. 

  But portraying my posts as implying that some
  people "sit around and conspire against literacy"
  is hardly an accurate or critical restatement of
  what I have said in different ways at different 
  times here:  that some of us who claim to love
  republican principles and who freely live in a 
  democracy with all its freedoms, do not, through
  their acts, support a development of our electorate 
  and continue to take incremental steps to unhinge 
  the intimate relationship between education and 
  democracy.   

  In the short term, this unhingement may seem 
  benign and serve some interests well.  But in the 
  long term, it is a disastrous set of steps. 

  Also, companies are not moving from the USA to other
  countries because they are interested in educating
  the people who work for them.  But of course capitalism 
  doesn't necessarily mean greed--IF it is balanced with
  communitarian-democratic principles; and capitalist 
  principles need not encroach on the principles of 
  commonwealth that underpin education and democracy 
  in general.  

  But many in our land, it seems, including many in 
  education, don't seem to understand the difference 
  and, therefore, fail to recognize it when that 
  encroachment works itself out in the details of their-our 
  programming and policy.    

  The tension between (1) capitalist-corporate and 
  (2) community-commonwealth principles lives a daily
  existence in the hearts of our corporate executives and 
  government policy makers.   Their decisions reveal their
  understanding and commitment to one or the other.  Those
  who are committed to corporate development regardless
  of its effect on the larger context (including others in their
  communities) make decisions that reveal that 

  "educating adults is counter-productive to their
  financial, and so their political, concerns.   This situation 
  affects AE programs in the USA when policy makers are 
  influenced by those among us who consider educated or 
  socially-politically aware adults as a dangerous threat to 
  their corporate-business concerns."

  I agree with you, Gloria, that to think the whole world is a
  conspiracy against literacy would be extreme and would not
  deserve your ear of the ear of NLA subscribers.  But it is 
  also naive to think everyone feels about adult education 
  as we do, or that under-educated, under-funded, under-
  politicized adults should not have their political voices
  organized into a cohesive group who can speak for their
  interests, and concomitantly for the real-politic interests 
  of development of a maturing democratic electorate.      

  Regards,

  Catherine King
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Gloria Gillette 
    To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
    Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:14 PM
    Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


    Catherine,
    I have tried to keep an open mind through your postings, but  honestly when you say things such as:
           In some situations and to some folks,
         educating adults is counter-productive to their
         financial, and so their political, concerns
            This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
         policy makers are influenced by those among us who
         consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
         as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
         concerns.
     
    Do you really think "corporate-business concerns" sit around and conspire against literacy? 
    I'm quite democratic in my concern for good writing. Even the most pedantic diatribe can lack critical thinking skills.
    Gloria Gillette

    --- Original Message ----- 
    From: Catherine King <cb.king at verizon.net>
    To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
    Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:37 PM
    Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


    > Colleagues:
    > 
    > Robert Pinhero points to how educational people
    > (like us) differ from many business people who
    > employ undereducated adults (not all, of course).
    > 
    > The "skills gap" (and what we mean by it) may
    > actually exist in some fronts in the USA; but as Dr.
    > Pinhero points out, between nations at present we
    > also suffer from a "socio-economic-political gap"
    > where low-skilled workers are preferred over high-
    > skilled workers. In some situations and to some folks,
    > educating adults is counter-productive to their
    > financial, and so their political, concerns.
    > 
    > This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
    > policy makers are influenced by those among us who
    > consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
    > as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
    > concerns.
    > 
    > While all will give lip-service to the Constitution and
    > notions of political "equality" and freedom for all, our
    > policy makers continue to ignore or to throw up false
    > barriers to programs that will educate the under-
    > educated electorate among us--programs that
    > in fact "free" our adults to know their voices and their
    > franchise and therefore have them, and create an
    > equality of voice that just might become equipped to
    > change things.  Heaven forbid.
    > 
    > But perhaps the thought for some doesn't even
    > extend to the political but rather becomes political
    > merely because AE doesn't serve the bottom line at
    > present.
    > 
    > Examples of AE's barriers are: calls for endless studies
    > that will show need based in changing ideas of how that
    > need is grounded in (1) business concerns (?) and (2) a
    > kind of data-standard impossible to attain (factory-like);
    > calls for post-facto program "achievement" ill defined, as if
    > AE programs had bought something and needed to pay
    > for it; an over-focus on children where we are sent
    > scrambling to check backgrounds of board members;
    > a view of AE as some sort of welfare program; a view
    > of government's relationship to AE as philanthropic
    > rather than constitutive; as view of adults' right to an
    > education as qualified by an adult's economic status
    > (whether they can pay for it or not), etc., etc.
    > 
    > Against the political forces made up of such ideas,
    > AE will always remain politically powerless and
    > scrambling for funds.  Efforts to counter such
    > negligence and the motivated forces behind them
    > will continue to be haphazard and even futile under
    > the present scenario where more understanding of
    > adults' needs makes for less, not more, support,
    > though I am sure some "edge-funds" will continue to
    > flow here and there as they have in the past.
    > 
    > Regards,
    > 
    > Catherine King
    > 
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Robert Pinhero <irrobert at swbell.net>
    > To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
    > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:43 AM
    > Subject: RE: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
    > 
    > 
    > > David's comment regarding the severely under funded adult education system
    > > is certainly valid. Magazines, newspapers, surveys and research continue
    > to
    > > point this out, yet not much gets translated into greater investment in
    > the
    > > system.
    > >
    > > However I disagree with his take on  the root cause of the exodus of
    > > manufacturing jobs. It seems to me that the nations that are the
    > > beneficiaries of these manufacturing jobs are those where there is little
    > or
    > > no access to formal adult education as compared to the US...Manufacturers
    > > choose China, Mexico , Ecuador, Taiwan etc....because it is CHEAPER to
    > have
    > > the products made there even after factoring in shipping costs. There is a
    > > certain irony in this because increasing the skills of US workers carries
    > > with it the expectation of higher wages which may actually result in even
    > > more manufacturing jobs leaving our shores.
    > >
    > > My experience in the manufacturing sector is that many times ( not
    > always )
    > > the requirement of a GED or HS Diploma is actually quite artificial when
    > the
    > > actual job tasks are analyzed. I certainly do not intend this to mean that
    > I
    > > don't see a value in acquiring these credentials, however the reality of
    > our
    > > capitalistic system continues to insure that employers will always want to
    > > "get the most and pay the least " whenever possible. So as long as labor
    > and
    > > production facilities remain cheaper and accessible elsewhere I believe
    > our
    > > manufacturers will continue to search for the best bottom line deals.
    > >
    > > If I'm not mistaken the # 1 category of reasons why employers rejected
    > > applicants  was related to work ethics...showing up on time...good
    > > attendance...etc....
    > >
    > > Skills are a lot easier to teach than ethics and good work habits!
    > >
    > > I just recently surveyed a sampling of 120 manufacturing production
    > workers
    > > from two companies and one of the questions basically asked them to state
    > > what they felt was the skill they needed the most help with to be
    > successful
    > > in their current job and possibly advance to a higher position. 42 percent
    > > of the responses ( 42 out of 120 ) dealt with people skills and conflict
    > > resolution. Only 14 mentioned more knowledge about their job...only 9
    > > mentioned computer skills.....just tossing this out here as a point of
    > > interest
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Robert M. Pinhero
    > > Education & Training Consultant
    > > PO Box 684031
    > > Austin, Texas 78768-4031
    > > Voice: 512-236-1052
    > > Fax: 512-478-8208
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org
    > > [mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org]On Behalf Of David Joost
    > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM
    > > To: nla at lists.literacytent.org; Texas Adult Educator
    > > Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
    > >
    > >
    > > The "Skills Gap" report from NAM advises that adult literacy should be
    > > made a top priority but at the same time suggests that no additional
    > > funding is necessary to impact the 90 million Americans in need of
    > > greater literacy skills. It is outrageous to suggest that the adult
    > > literacy problem will be meaningfully impacted by level or reduced
    > > funding and expecting "home study" and "e-learning" to save the day.
    > > Without a reliable adult education and literacy system that is fulltime,
    > > year-round and professionally organized, our national will never achieve
    > > the adult literacy levels of its international competitor nations. This
    > > is the same kind of "spend-nothing-do-nothing-and-it-will-all-work-out"
    > > "head-in-the-sand" thinking that has caused the torrential exodus of
    > > manufacturing jobs from out this country.
    > >
    > > David Joost
    > > President
    > > Texas Council for Adult Education Cooperative Directors
    > >
    > > > "Tilghman, Rose" wrote:
    > > >
    > > >                      From the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
    > > >
    > > >                               Office of Vocational and Adult Education
    > > >
    > > > Editor: Sarah Newcomb
    > > > Production: Rose Tilghman
    > > >
    > > > March 14, 2002
    > > > ___________________________________
    > > >
    > > > 2000 Data Drive
    > > > EL/Civics
    > > >
    > > > The Immigration and Naturalization Service has posted its 2000
    > > > state-by-state analysis of immigration patterns, making that data
    > > > available for calculating states' English Literacy/Civics (EL/Civics)
    > > > allotments for July 1. The new data affect the states' allotments by
    > > > updating current immigrant populations and recent increases in
    > > > immigration. These elements drive formula funding for states'
    > > > EL/Civics programs. Congress set aside the funds in appropriations
    > > > legislation over the last several years. See
    > > >
    > >
    > http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/IMM00yrbk/ExcIMM00/Tab
    > > le17.xls
    > > >
    > > > NAM: We Need
    > > > Adult Literacy,
    > > > English Literacy
    > > >
    > > > The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) recommends that
    > > > improving adults' literacy skills be a national priority. A NAM
    > > > survey, The Skills Gap: 2001, reports a continuing gap in workers'
    > > > skill levels. What's missing for both job applicants and employees?
    > > > Employability skills such as attendance, timeliness, work ethic and
    > > > other qualities are lacking; with reading, communication and math
    > > > skills ranking second. Other NAM recommendations include immigration
    > > > policies incorporating initiatives to meet cultural and language skill
    > > > needs of immigrants. Immigrants are the main source of labor growth.
    > > > See
    > > >
    > >
    > http://www.nam.org/Docs/CenterforWorkforceSuccess/23975_NAMSkillsGapforPress
    > > .pdf
    > > >
    > > > Money Smarts
    > > > For Free
    > > >
    > > > How much do your learners know about finances? The Money Smart
    > > > Training Program can help. It includes lesson plans, overheads and
    > > > materials for students--and it's free from the Federal Deposit
    > > > Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Material is written at the sixth grade
    > > > level. Ten units on bank services, consumer rights, saving, credit,
    > > > home ownership and more can be ordered from the FDIC. See
    > > > http://www.fdic.gov/news/publications/moneysmart  Download order form
    > > > and fax to 202/942-3098. Allow three weeks to ship.
    > > >
    > > > DAEL Jobs
    > > > Now Available
    > > >
    > > > Join us! We're recruiting for two key positions: a Chief for the
    > > > Program Improvement Branch; and a Program Specialist to lead the
    > > > Community Technology Centers (CTC) program.
    > > >
    > > > ?The branch chief manages development and implementation of policies
    > > > and strategies that improve access to--and quality of--adult education
    > > > services. The branch chief provides guidance and leadership to a team
    > > > of Program Specialists, as well as to staff of both the Community
    > > > Technology Centers Program and English Literacy/Civics Demonstration
    > > > Program. The branch handles issues such as adults with disabilities,
    > > > family literacy, English language instruction, and program
    > > > improvement.
    > > >
    > > > ?The CTC lead position provides expertise in evaluating CTC programs
    > > > at the federal, state and local levels. He or she will manage all
    > > > phases of the competitive grant process as well as technical
    > > > assistance, policy analysis and a cross-Department team. For more, see
    > > > http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1048.HTM and
    > > > http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VW1039.HTM respectively.
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > ____________________________________________________________________________
    > > ___________________
    > > >
    > > >     A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
    > > >
    > > >                Office of Vocational and Adult Education
    > > >
    > > >              OVAE Homepage http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/
    > > _______________________________________________
    > > 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
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > 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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020321/a536e72b/attachment.html>

From hforster at strato.net  Fri Mar 22 00:16:53 2002
From: hforster at strato.net (Harry Forster)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:16:53 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Re Thurs Notes
Message-ID: <3C9ABE44.6EAA9D1A@strato.net>

Gloria

Thank you for your reply and I will look more closely at the white paper
that you referenced.

The NGA is quite obvious.   The ASTD is also familiar.  I see it as a
super group of adult education in that it can include adult education of
the form that the NLA represents and it also can include the training
industry that puts on commercial dog and pony shows (I understand dog
and pony shows because I used to do them when I was in the defense
industry and when I taught electronics at a community college and a
university.).  This latter group does not have the industry structure
with oversight and controls like the AE field has.  I see ASTD as also
representing groups quite different from you.

The question really is who is the The Commission on Technology and Adult
Learning?

E-learning  is a loaded term.  First of all it is not well defined.   I
am not sure that there is an accepted body of research that proves its
effectiveness.  Another thing that bothers me is that I am not sure that
I want to remove human intervention in the testing (and teaching) of
humans.  I am working on the application of computers, linguistics, and
artificial intelligence to teaching and communications systems.   I am
awed at the progress that has been made in all of these areas but I see
technology as a support tool for the educator, not a replacement. The
desires to have assessment and standards can certainly be commended but
in the proposed ideas the devil is in the details (which we are not
being given).

I am afraid that present policies are overlooking the warnings that
already exist.  For example, the increased demands for graduation,
standardized testing, and a monolithic curriculum is driving students
out of public education and into AE.  If we now accept this scenario
then lets look at a possible consequence of the proposed system in light
of some recent events.  If all states are required to put assessment on
the internet then a student goes to the terminal in high school and
takes the test.  The student does not do well, as is the present
result.    Will the student then go to AE?   With actions like we saw in
MA there will not likely be an AE like we now know it.  It will be like
the one that is presently be proposed in which the student "studies" on
the internet (distance learning).  This will likely end with the student
taking the same assessment on the internet that was taken in high school
(as I read the above report) but with minimal human support.

A large portion of what I read on this list is about compassionate
persons who are very sensitive to the personal relationship that they
have with their students.  Where is that relationship in the above
scenario?

What I see is an educational fiasco that is much larger than the new
math fiasco.  There will be a huge investment in technology.  There will
be a total realignment of AE.  From my experience in teaching adults and
working with special ed students that will be your students, there will
be another disaster.


If you are not funded then where will you be?  Where is AE in the new
educational structure of contracted education administration by school
boards (see Philadelphia), school board oversight of charter schools,
public school provision of AE, public schools contracting out education
of students, internet high schools (see Texas),  Community Technology
Centers (see recent position posting in Thurs Notes 3/14/02)?  Are you
working for Edison School's,  are you absorbed into CTCs?  OR....?

Is anything that I say meaningful?  If so how do your present policies
and plans link to it?


Thanks for your reply
Harry

_______________________________________________
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


From PDRNRI at aol.com  Fri Mar 22 08:45:26 2002
From: PDRNRI at aol.com (PDRNRI at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 08:45:26 EST
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
Message-ID: <11d.e141de6.29cc8f76@aol.com>

Gloria,

In your posts you note that businesses cannot agree on what level of 
investment in workforce education would yield the highest return -- in other 
words, what is the least amount necessary to invest to ensure more efficient 
production and (as a result) enhance competitiveness.  I'd like to suggest 
that they don't have those figures because they don't know how to measure it. 
  

What I have seen measured are income gains to individual workers relative to 
their levels of investment, which suggests that business seems willing to pay 
more for better educated individuals.   This is in accord with your quote: 
"... it is now commonly understood that the acquisition of knowledge is 
central to the competitive advantage of individuals and organizations in 
today's economy...".  Obviously today's economy, characterized as it is by 
flexibility, calls for flexibly trained workers -- thus the value of 
education to business.  But what the rest of the quote suggests, in essence, 
is that while business knows and accepts this as common wisdom, it can't 
measure the value with satisfactory precision.  Because it can't measure it, 
it hesitates to overspend.  

It's important to consider the possibility as well that business is 
interested in training more flexible workers and nothing more.  If this is 
the case (and why wouldn't it be -- after all, the struggle here is for 
maximizing return on investment) than regardless if how clearly it is 
demonstrated, business will never invest to the levels that we would like to 
see.   

Unless, that is, if their purposes become our purposes.  

What is troubling to me is your inclination to fault our field for this 
hesitancy, and suggest that we are somehow failing to do our jobs as 
educators because we struggle to convince business of the value of education. 
 If we as a field begin to blame ourselves for failing to align our interests 
with theirs -- when it is abundantly clear that our interests are in many 
ways radically different from theirs -- then we resign ourselves to a 
subservient position.  This is a struggle between two groups which have some 
common interest but, in most ways, are radically different.  To make their 
purposes our purposes in order to continue is to surrender the type of 
struggle Catherine articulates.   

There are people in our field who know at an expert level the vocabulary of 
business and how to communicate.  This is not the cause of the conflict.  The 
interests of education and the interests of business are different.  To be 
sure, there is common ground, and it is upon this common ground that we make 
our main arguments.  But when we begin to make their arguments our arguments, 
we surrender.  

In many very important ways, this is precisely as you say -- "us against 
them".  In my mind, this is not a bad thing.  Nor does it "diminish our 
importance". 

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


From LitNetJose at aol.com  Fri Mar 22 10:51:37 2002
From: LitNetJose at aol.com (LitNetJose at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:51:37 EST
Subject: [NLA] Productivity, People, Skills, and the Future
Message-ID: <b4.88b90c9.29ccad09@aol.com>

Allow me to quote, requote, misquote, or paraphrase Alvin Toffler:

"The literate of the 21st century will not be those who can read and write, 
but, rather, those who can learn, unlearn, and relearn."

There are a few things that can be interpreted from this...and more:

1.  The future comes and goes faster than ever.
2.  It's all about the bottom line. 
3.  It's not about people.
4.  If businesses could do the job without people, or even without people 
having to read and write...they would...and they do.
5.  When corporate America or the corporate world says it needs skilled and 
flexible workers, when or how often is it talking about kitchen workers, 
hotel workers, those who work in sweat shops to make our brand name clothing, 
or the people who end up picking vegetables and fruits for the world?

Jose Cruz
Network Director 
California Literacy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020322/0c76c2aa/attachment.html>

From cb.king at verizon.net  Fri Mar 22 12:36:51 2002
From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine King)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:36:51 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net> <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking> <00f501c1cfb5$02e9ee00$4bc13218@oemcomputer> <3C989810.2040300@strato.net> <005201c1d131$e7520780$4bc13218@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <005801c1d1c8$59074e80$5bf72a3f@cbking>

Gloria:

Your post to Harry reflects some basic differences
in education and business/corporations, on the one
hand, and how both understand their relationship to
a democratic government on the other.  

Basically, for business, workers and their education
are a means for business.  Whereas, for adult 
education, students and their education are, first 
and foremost, an end.  That is, education is not for
someone else, or some business concern, but 
basically for them.  Even though education may
help our students with their work skills, these skills
are not only for business, but are also for our
students themselves--they are the legitimate end
of education, as it were, to improve our quality
of life as such.    

But for many businesses, adults are merely there 
to serve another end, and this is not all bad, of 
course.

Certainly there is nothing to preclude business/
corporate heads from identifying worker-development
as a kind of profit, and there are some movements
going on that are trying to broaden the meaning of
profit in business as we speak.  But unfortunately
many still see workers like horses, or worse, 
machines--all of which find their only worth in 
serving the bottom line of corporate development
regardless of other costs.  

As Harry and others point out, there is a basic 
conflict here that we in education need to keep in 
mind--we need to remember who we are and what 
we are about, and how that differs, and is even in
conflict with, some who are quite involved with
education.  

And if the teachers in my education classes are any 
indication, many educators really have no clue about 
these basic conflicts and, therefore, seem to be 
unaware when the fox walks right into chicken house
with a pretty checkbook and a napkin around its neck?    

But though I see much in your note about the relationship
of education to business and how educators shouldn't
raise such questions but be more amenable to business
concerns (of course this is not a kind of prostitution even
though it might look that way to some), you don't mention
how government relates to either.  

But the relationship of powerful business concerns to
government policy makers is THE issue, not just in
education, but across the board at present.   Harry has
suggested that corporate concerns are a large political
force behind the swing towards charter schools, where 
those who make and market computers/software are 
able to develop their lucrative markets in a way they 
haven't found possible in the public-school arena.     

In your note you seem to assume the dialogue is only
between business and education.  But where are our
government policy makers, and who among them are
only influenced by business without a critical inspection
of either motivations or real outcomes?  And who 
among them have either individual adults in mind as 
a "fourth branch of government," or the good of a 
mature democracy where education of adults in a
complex world is a value all by itself, regardless
of business concerns? 

Harry and you quote "Embracing e-learning in our 
states . . . to improve competitiveness" by our 
National Governor's Association.  Are our governors, 
as state officials, working only for the bottom line? 
It also says: "unprecedented growth and 
opportunity for all Americans."   

Do they mean what we might mean by that? And 
where does educating the adult as someone not 
necessarily working at a corporate site fit in here? 
 Or does it anymore?  And if not, what happened 
to educating the polity to safeguard democratic 
practices in a complex world?  Do we just hope
that rides in subterraneously on overt business
motivations?

And about crossing lines between business and
education.  Which business heads, especially inter-
national corporate powers, understand themselves 
as part of a  democratic political entity beholding to
"the people;" and which see the corporation as a 
part of that larger fabric "of, for and by the people"?  
Have they enamoured us all with their glitz and
communicative power?

Certainly there are authentic business-education
partnerships.    But they are only authentic when both
educators and business people understand themselves
as involved in common concerns under a common 
democratic-republican political arena and do nothing
to decay and destroy those common concerns.   

And this is the failure of many educators who, of all 
people, should be excruciatingly aware of the political
dimension of all teaching, and how that may come into
conflict in all our relationships with business concerns.
  
I don't see the conflict ultimately as between "business
and education."  It's really between people in powerful
positions who often have no regard for those who have 
no power, and who fail to see their complicity in their
own crises in the long run if not the short.  Ultimately it 
is quite a personal matter of moral-political self-
definition and vision, and understanding or not.

But when a lack of political consciousness on the part of
powerful people is endorsed by educators through a 
lack of political understanding, something incredibly 
important is lost in the world.

Regards,

Catherine King 

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gloria Gillette 
  To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
  Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


  Harry,
  The American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) and the National Governors Associations are not exactly unknowns, nor do these words offend me in any way:
  (.. to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans).
   
  What the ASTD does not do, is say that education is the exclusive domain of "educators" and that what the field of training and education (by the way, that's us) has failed to do is adequately express or convince the business world of the importance of education. It is the inability of "educators" to collaborate and cross the divide into the realm of business (such as Catherine's post ) that stymies much of of our work. 

  Read ASTD's white paper "Profit from Learning: Do Firm's Investments in Education and Training Pay Off?"
  In it they say:
  "Although it is now commonly understood that the acquisition of knowledge is central to the competitive advantage of individuals and organizations in today's economy, the question of how much to invest in workforce education and training has long confounded business executives and managers alike.The problem:firms have never had good information...."

  As an adullt educator what does that tell you?

  It tells me that we are not very good at communicating, at crossing the divide,
  at making our point. Diatribes on how we are marginalized and whoa is us, and us against them only diminish our work and our importance. 
  If we've failed to let the business world understand and know our importance, if we've failed to learn their vocabulary and to communicate, who's bad is it? 
  Gloria Gillette


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Harry Forster 
    To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
    Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:09 AM
    Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


    Gloria Gillette wrote:

      Catherine,
      I have tried to keep an open mind through your postings, but  honestly when you say things such as:
             In some situations and to some folks,
           educating adults is counter-productive to their
           financial, and so their political, concerns
              This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
           policy makers are influenced by those among us who
           consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
           as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
           concerns.

      Do you really think "corporate-business concerns" sit around and conspire against literacy? 
      I'm quite democratic in my concern for good writing. Even the most pedantic diatribe can lack critical thinking skills.
      Gloria Gillette
    I am not sure that "against" is the correct term but there are some realities that I think are necessary for policy planners to understand.   I have some personal experiences that are difficult to comprehend.  They make Catherine look benign.  Below is part of an email that I sent to Catherine.  It comes from a report sent in a Thursday Notes:  "Using Electronic Assessment to Measure Student Performance"


    "The Commission on Technology and Adult Learning, (Who is this group?  What do they do? How are you related to them?) sponsored by the American Society for Training and Development and the National Governors Association, has expressed a similar sentiment. "The commission . . . encourages governors, CEOs and other leaders ( Why does it not explicitly indicate educators or adult educators?  It is ommissions of this type that raise questions in my mind.   I see this often.) to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans.  (Do you think that this is the panacea that they say it is?)"  
    [ page 2]

    I believe that this does not show an active aggression "against"  education,  but there is an exclusion of education policy makers, for a matter that is in the education field.   Idealism is a good property, however, idealism must recognize that the greater forces are not paying attention to your ideals.  They are concerned with  politics (governors), business (CEOs), and other leaders (what ever that means).  Here is a "Commission on Technology and Adult Learning"  and it can not even find a term for AE planners unless it is the very bland "other leaders".  I tell you that you will get the  respect indicated above until your ideals can be a market for technology.  Believe me this repulses me as much as it does you.  This is one of the reason that I can not give you a title for my position.  Ask Catherine.  

    Harry Forster








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020322/7b90e4fb/attachment.html>

From pam at opup.net  Fri Mar 22 12:51:52 2002
From: pam at opup.net (Pam Creighton)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:51:52 -0600
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net> <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking> <00f501c1cfb5$02e9ee00$4bc13218@oemcomputer> <3C989810.2040300@strato.net> <005201c1d131$e7520780$4bc13218@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <000b01c1d1ca$402eea60$738b320a@btnrug1.la.home.com>

Gloria and others of the NLA list:

I am so glad to hear another perspective.  Despite major corporate fiascos like Enron, business is not the bain of all evil as it is sometimes portrayed by people on this list.  I am the product of the Corporate Training Field, and worked many years for a large, conservative international corporation.  The training and experience I received there has been extremely beneficial in my work with a community based literacy organization.  

The ASTD reports may be flawed in some of their writings and summaries, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater.  The organization has produced a number of excellent publications which have been used by educators over the years.  We also must remember how "flawed" some of the research has been in our own field.  

We liberal educators often feel we are the only voice speaking for "the folks."   That may be true, but let's make sure we convey the message without rancor, and with some appreciation of how hard it is to run businesses.  Let's walk in their shoes for awhile before we blame and dismiss the business community.

Pam Creighton
pam at opup.net
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gloria Gillette 
  To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
  Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 5:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


  Harry,
  The American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) and the National Governors Associations are not exactly unknowns, nor do these words offend me in any way:
  (.. to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans).

  What the ASTD does not do, is say that education is the exclusive domain of "educators" and that what the field of training and education (by the way, that's us) has failed to do is adequately express or convince the business world of the importance of education. It is the inability of "educators" to collaborate and cross the divide into the realm of business (such as Catherine's post ) that stymies much of of our work. 

  Read ASTD's white paper "Profit from Learning: Do Firm's Investments in Education and Training Pay Off?"
  In it they say:
  "Although it is now commonly understood that the acquisition of knowledge is central to the competitive advantage of individuals and organizations in today's economy, the question of how much to invest in workforce education and training has long confounded business executives and managers alike.The problem:firms have never had good information...."

  As an adullt educator what does that tell you?

  It tells me that we are not very good at communicating, at crossing the divide,
  at making our point. Diatribes on how we are marginalized and whoa is us, and us against them only diminish our work and our importance. 
  If we've failed to let the business world understand and know our importance, if we've failed to learn their vocabulary and to communicate, who's bad is it? 
  Gloria Gillette


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Harry Forster 
    To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
    Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:09 AM
    Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


    Gloria Gillette wrote:

      Catherine,
      I have tried to keep an open mind through your postings, but  honestly when you say things such as:
             In some situations and to some folks,
           educating adults is counter-productive to their
           financial, and so their political, concerns
              This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
           policy makers are influenced by those among us who
           consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
           as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
           concerns.

      Do you really think "corporate-business concerns" sit around and conspire against literacy? 
      I'm quite democratic in my concern for good writing. Even the most pedantic diatribe can lack critical thinking skills.
      Gloria Gillette
    I am not sure that "against" is the correct term but there are some realities that I think are necessary for policy planners to understand.   I have some personal experiences that are difficult to comprehend.  They make Catherine look benign.  Below is part of an email that I sent to Catherine.  It comes from a report sent in a Thursday Notes:  "Using Electronic Assessment to Measure Student Performance"


    "The Commission on Technology and Adult Learning, (Who is this group?  What do they do? How are you related to them?) sponsored by the American Society for Training and Development and the National Governors Association, has expressed a similar sentiment. "The commission . . . encourages governors, CEOs and other leaders ( Why does it not explicitly indicate educators or adult educators?  It is ommissions of this type that raise questions in my mind.   I see this often.) to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans.  (Do you think that this is the panacea that they say it is?)"  
    [ page 2]

    I believe that this does not show an active aggression "against"  education,  but there is an exclusion of education policy makers, for a matter that is in the education field.   Idealism is a good property, however, idealism must recognize that the greater forces are not paying attention to your ideals.  They are concerned with  politics (governors), business (CEOs), and other leaders (what ever that means).  Here is a "Commission on Technology and Adult Learning"  and it can not even find a term for AE planners unless it is the very bland "other leaders".  I tell you that you will get the  respect indicated above until your ideals can be a market for technology.  Believe me this repulses me as much as it does you.  This is one of the reason that I can not give you a title for my position.  Ask Catherine.  

    Harry Forster








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020322/75f9dd19/attachment.html>

From cb.king at verizon.net  Fri Mar 22 14:51:05 2002
From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine King)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:51:05 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net> <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking> <00f501c1cfb5$02e9ee00$4bc13218@oemcomputer> <3C989810.2040300@strato.net> <005201c1d131$e7520780$4bc13218@oemcomputer> <000b01c1d1ca$402eea60$738b320a@btnrug1.la.home.com>
Message-ID: <00a301c1d1db$14c6cb20$5bf72a3f@cbking>

Hello Pam:

No one on this list, including myself, has swept all
of business under a "bain of all evil" label or
advocated to throw out all business (the baby) 
because of bad business practices (the water).

On the contrary, I have been suggesting we make
clear the distinction between good and bad
business, good and bad intentions, good and bad
policy, and finding the right relationship between
capitalist and commonwealth principles with regard
to education policy.  A critical reading of all past 
posts will show this distinction is at work, and not 
the misguided idea that all business or 
corporations are "evil" as you suggest they do.

Granted, this distinction flies in the fact of over-
generalizations and cliches, but there it is.  

But I see nothing in your post about good business
that conflicts with what I have been saying along, 
save equating argument with "rancor," and a 
misreading of the distinctions I and others have 
made in every NLA post between some businesses
and corporations and others.  

Like you, I want to keep the baby (capitalism). 
 I just want it to stay clean and know its place in a 
democratic-commonwealth political 
environment where "the people" are not 
overlooked, forgotten, or politically erased by
great hubric powers who may do these things 
at will.  By the way, who do you suppose is
closing down our medical privacy laws?

Regards,

Catherine King
  

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Pam Creighton 
  To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
  Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:51 AM
  Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


  Gloria and others of the NLA list:
   
  I am so glad to hear another perspective.  Despite major corporate fiascos like Enron, business is not the bain of all evil as it is sometimes portrayed by people on this list.  I am the product of the Corporate Training Field, and worked many years for a large, conservative international corporation.  The training and experience I received there has been extremely beneficial in my work with a community based literacy organization.  
   
  The ASTD reports may be flawed in some of their writings and summaries, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater.  The organization has produced a number of excellent publications which have been used by educators over the years.  We also must remember how "flawed" some of the research has been in our own field.  
   
  We liberal educators often feel we are the only voice speaking for "the folks."   That may be true, but let's make sure we convey the message without rancor, and with some appreciation of how hard it is to run businesses.  Let's walk in their shoes for awhile before we blame and dismiss the business community.
   
  Pam Creighton
  pam at opup.net
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Gloria Gillette 
    To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
    Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 5:41 PM
    Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


    Harry,
    The American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) and the National Governors Associations are not exactly unknowns, nor do these words offend me in any way:
    (.. to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans).
     
    What the ASTD does not do, is say that education is the exclusive domain of "educators" and that what the field of training and education (by the way, that's us) has failed to do is adequately express or convince the business world of the importance of education. It is the inability of "educators" to collaborate and cross the divide into the realm of business (such as Catherine's post ) that stymies much of of our work. 

    Read ASTD's white paper "Profit from Learning: Do Firm's Investments in Education and Training Pay Off?"
    In it they say:
    "Although it is now commonly understood that the acquisition of knowledge is central to the competitive advantage of individuals and organizations in today's economy, the question of how much to invest in workforce education and training has long confounded business executives and managers alike.The problem:firms have never had good information...."

    As an adullt educator what does that tell you?

    It tells me that we are not very good at communicating, at crossing the divide,
    at making our point. Diatribes on how we are marginalized and whoa is us, and us against them only diminish our work and our importance. 
    If we've failed to let the business world understand and know our importance, if we've failed to learn their vocabulary and to communicate, who's bad is it? 
    Gloria Gillette


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Harry Forster 
      To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
      Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:09 AM
      Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


      Gloria Gillette wrote:

        Catherine,
        I have tried to keep an open mind through your postings, but  honestly when you say things such as:
               In some situations and to some folks,
             educating adults is counter-productive to their
             financial, and so their political, concerns
                This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
             policy makers are influenced by those among us who
             consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
             as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
             concerns.

        Do you really think "corporate-business concerns" sit around and conspire against literacy? 
        I'm quite democratic in my concern for good writing. Even the most pedantic diatribe can lack critical thinking skills.
        Gloria Gillette
      I am not sure that "against" is the correct term but there are some realities that I think are necessary for policy planners to understand.   I have some personal experiences that are difficult to comprehend.  They make Catherine look benign.  Below is part of an email that I sent to Catherine.  It comes from a report sent in a Thursday Notes:  "Using Electronic Assessment to Measure Student Performance"


      "The Commission on Technology and Adult Learning, (Who is this group?  What do they do? How are you related to them?) sponsored by the American Society for Training and Development and the National Governors Association, has expressed a similar sentiment. "The commission . . . encourages governors, CEOs and other leaders ( Why does it not explicitly indicate educators or adult educators?  It is ommissions of this type that raise questions in my mind.   I see this often.) to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans.  (Do you think that this is the panacea that they say it is?)"  
      [ page 2]

      I believe that this does not show an active aggression "against"  education,  but there is an exclusion of education policy makers, for a matter that is in the education field.   Idealism is a good property, however, idealism must recognize that the greater forces are not paying attention to your ideals.  They are concerned with  politics (governors), business (CEOs), and other leaders (what ever that means).  Here is a "Commission on Technology and Adult Learning"  and it can not even find a term for AE planners unless it is the very bland "other leaders".  I tell you that you will get the  respect indicated above until your ideals can be a market for technology.  Believe me this repulses me as much as it does you.  This is one of the reason that I can not give you a title for my position.  Ask Catherine.  

      Harry Forster








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020322/e8766208/attachment.html>

From resctr2 at ix.netcom.com  Fri Mar 22 18:10:03 2002
From: resctr2 at ix.netcom.com (Gloria Gillette)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:10:03 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net> <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking> <00f501c1cfb5$02e9ee00$4bc13218@oemcomputer> <3C989810.2040300@strato.net> <005201c1d131$e7520780$4bc13218@oemcomputer> <005801c1d1c8$59074e80$5bf72a3f@cbking>
Message-ID: <009d01c1d1f6$b5a78820$4bc13218@oemcomputer>

Catherine,
  For this adult educator I see adult education  as means, not an end.
  I consider it a means to community involvement, advancement in the workplace
  a means to family enrichment.
  Of course I hope that my former students are now reading for the joy of it, but that is my hope, not necessarily theirs. I hope that the education they found was the beginning not the end to whatever it was they sought.

  If we continue to view education for education's sake, then we will be marginalized because not many people are willing to fund that noble idea.

  Instead I am suggesting that we tap into the business of business that has built this country. Of course business wants a return on their investment. I am simply saying that does not contradict our purposes. We know that an educated person
  enhances all of us, as a country as a society. Business is grappling with the issue of education and of course they see it in terms of the bottom line. 
  But in some way, we (both camps) are saying the same thing. Education is a good thing whether it is measured in ROI or on social activism.
  Quite frankly, I don't care who funds education-as long as it gets funded.

  I think there is at times a bias on this list that creates the idea that we are in opposition. I simply don't see it that way. I don't read it that way in many business publications, nor do I think it is productive to continue that divide. I read far more support in business for education than I read support or understanding for business in the education world. And to me, that is close minded on our part.

  I think every teacher ought to take a few courses from the business school to have a broad view of the world. There is a logic in business-it is good if it supports the bottom line. We know without question that education does just that. 
  I think our energies are better spent finding common ground.
  Gloria Gillette
   ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Catherine King 
  To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
  Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 12:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


  Gloria:

  Your post to Harry reflects some basic differences
  in education and business/corporations, on the one
  hand, and how both understand their relationship to
  a democratic government on the other.  

  Basically, for business, workers and their education
  are a means for business.  Whereas, for adult 
  education, students and their education are, first 
  and foremost, an end.  That is, education is not for
  someone else, or some business concern, but 
  basically for them.  Even though education may
  help our students with their work skills, these skills
  are not only for business, but are also for our
  students themselves--they are the legitimate end
  of education, as it were, to improve our quality
  of life as such.    

  But for many businesses, adults are merely there 
  to serve another end, and this is not all bad, of 
  course.

  Certainly there is nothing to preclude business/
  corporate heads from identifying worker-development
  as a kind of profit, and there are some movements
  going on that are trying to broaden the meaning of
  profit in business as we speak.  But unfortunately
  many still see workers like horses, or worse, 
  machines--all of which find their only worth in 
  serving the bottom line of corporate development
  regardless of other costs.  

  As Harry and others point out, there is a basic 
  conflict here that we in education need to keep in 
  mind--we need to remember who we are and what 
  we are about, and how that differs, and is even in
  conflict with, some who are quite involved with
  education.  

  And if the teachers in my education classes are any 
  indication, many educators really have no clue about 
  these basic conflicts and, therefore, seem to be 
  unaware when the fox walks right into chicken house
  with a pretty checkbook and a napkin around its neck?    

  But though I see much in your note about the relationship
  of education to business and how educators shouldn't
  raise such questions but be more amenable to business
  concerns (of course this is not a kind of prostitution even
  though it might look that way to some), you don't mention
  how government relates to either.  

  But the relationship of powerful business concerns to
  government policy makers is THE issue, not just in
  education, but across the board at present.   Harry has
  suggested that corporate concerns are a large political
  force behind the swing towards charter schools, where 
  those who make and market computers/software are 
  able to develop their lucrative markets in a way they 
  haven't found possible in the public-school arena.     

  In your note you seem to assume the dialogue is only
  between business and education.  But where are our
  government policy makers, and who among them are
  only influenced by business without a critical inspection
  of either motivations or real outcomes?  And who 
  among them have either individual adults in mind as 
  a "fourth branch of government," or the good of a 
  mature democracy where education of adults in a
  complex world is a value all by itself, regardless
  of business concerns? 

  Harry and you quote "Embracing e-learning in our 
  states . . . to improve competitiveness" by our 
  National Governor's Association.  Are our governors, 
  as state officials, working only for the bottom line? 
  It also says: "unprecedented growth and 
  opportunity for all Americans."   

  Do they mean what we might mean by that? And 
  where does educating the adult as someone not 
  necessarily working at a corporate site fit in here? 
   Or does it anymore?  And if not, what happened 
  to educating the polity to safeguard democratic 
  practices in a complex world?  Do we just hope
  that rides in subterraneously on overt business
  motivations?

  And about crossing lines between business and
  education.  Which business heads, especially inter-
  national corporate powers, understand themselves 
  as part of a  democratic political entity beholding to
  "the people;" and which see the corporation as a 
  part of that larger fabric "of, for and by the people"?  
  Have they enamoured us all with their glitz and
  communicative power?

  Certainly there are authentic business-education
  partnerships.    But they are only authentic when both
  educators and business people understand themselves
  as involved in common concerns under a common 
  democratic-republican political arena and do nothing
  to decay and destroy those common concerns.   

  And this is the failure of many educators who, of all 
  people, should be excruciatingly aware of the political
  dimension of all teaching, and how that may come into
  conflict in all our relationships with business concerns.
    
  I don't see the conflict ultimately as between "business
  and education."  It's really between people in powerful
  positions who often have no regard for those who have 
  no power, and who fail to see their complicity in their
  own crises in the long run if not the short.  Ultimately it 
  is quite a personal matter of moral-political self-
  definition and vision, and understanding or not.

  But when a lack of political consciousness on the part of
  powerful people is endorsed by educators through a 
  lack of political understanding, something incredibly 
  important is lost in the world.

  Regards,

  Catherine King 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Gloria Gillette 
    To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
    Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:41 PM
    Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


    Harry,
    The American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) and the National Governors Associations are not exactly unknowns, nor do these words offend me in any way:
    (.. to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans).
     
    What the ASTD does not do, is say that education is the exclusive domain of "educators" and that what the field of training and education (by the way, that's us) has failed to do is adequately express or convince the business world of the importance of education. It is the inability of "educators" to collaborate and cross the divide into the realm of business (such as Catherine's post ) that stymies much of of our work. 

    Read ASTD's white paper "Profit from Learning: Do Firm's Investments in Education and Training Pay Off?"
    In it they say:
    "Although it is now commonly understood that the acquisition of knowledge is central to the competitive advantage of individuals and organizations in today's economy, the question of how much to invest in workforce education and training has long confounded business executives and managers alike.The problem:firms have never had good information...."

    As an adullt educator what does that tell you?

    It tells me that we are not very good at communicating, at crossing the divide,
    at making our point. Diatribes on how we are marginalized and whoa is us, and us against them only diminish our work and our importance. 
    If we've failed to let the business world understand and know our importance, if we've failed to learn their vocabulary and to communicate, who's bad is it? 
    Gloria Gillette


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Harry Forster 
      To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
      Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:09 AM
      Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


      Gloria Gillette wrote:

        Catherine,
        I have tried to keep an open mind through your postings, but  honestly when you say things such as:
               In some situations and to some folks,
             educating adults is counter-productive to their
             financial, and so their political, concerns
                This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
             policy makers are influenced by those among us who
             consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
             as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
             concerns.

        Do you really think "corporate-business concerns" sit around and conspire against literacy? 
        I'm quite democratic in my concern for good writing. Even the most pedantic diatribe can lack critical thinking skills.
        Gloria Gillette
      I am not sure that "against" is the correct term but there are some realities that I think are necessary for policy planners to understand.   I have some personal experiences that are difficult to comprehend.  They make Catherine look benign.  Below is part of an email that I sent to Catherine.  It comes from a report sent in a Thursday Notes:  "Using Electronic Assessment to Measure Student Performance"


      "The Commission on Technology and Adult Learning, (Who is this group?  What do they do? How are you related to them?) sponsored by the American Society for Training and Development and the National Governors Association, has expressed a similar sentiment. "The commission . . . encourages governors, CEOs and other leaders ( Why does it not explicitly indicate educators or adult educators?  It is ommissions of this type that raise questions in my mind.   I see this often.) to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans.  (Do you think that this is the panacea that they say it is?)"  
      [ page 2]

      I believe that this does not show an active aggression "against"  education,  but there is an exclusion of education policy makers, for a matter that is in the education field.   Idealism is a good property, however, idealism must recognize that the greater forces are not paying attention to your ideals.  They are concerned with  politics (governors), business (CEOs), and other leaders (what ever that means).  Here is a "Commission on Technology and Adult Learning"  and it can not even find a term for AE planners unless it is the very bland "other leaders".  I tell you that you will get the  respect indicated above until your ideals can be a market for technology.  Believe me this repulses me as much as it does you.  This is one of the reason that I can not give you a title for my position.  Ask Catherine.  

      Harry Forster








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020322/0c456bfd/attachment.html>

From hforster at strato.net  Fri Mar 22 23:22:21 2002
From: hforster at strato.net (Harry Forster)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:22:21 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Congratulations to a well founded list
Message-ID: <3C9C02FD.57560D0@strato.net>

To all

I am very pleased with the quality of the responses that I have seen on
this list.  It is because of the breadth of membership and their depth
of understanding in their areas that problems will be solved and
hopefully your cause will move forward.

I hope to hear much more from all of you because I want to learn from
you.   I feel that I should respond to Pam as she has introduced in new
perspective that should be supported.  I will confess to all of you a
secret that I am sure you will keep.   I have a capitalist streak.

Many years ago I with others formed a new corporation.   The company was
eventually taken public and listed on a board, probably one in a fence
of a back yard.  Pam is absolutely right.  It is not easy to deal with
the pressures and problems of a corporate leader.   I did not feel
adequate and sought partners from the business world.  Without their
help the company could not have survived.

The situation raised such conflicts in me that I chose not to ever do
that again.   The source of the problems do not end at the board room.
It goes well beyond that to the basic structure of the business system,
as Enron is showing us again after the savings and loan lesson, and the
junk bond problems and ....

Pam has introduced another vital element to this discussion.  The minor
roles I have taken on the business side and the education side makes me
sensitive to many issues.   That is the reason I am unhappy when I see
decisions and reports being made without obvious and explicit
interaction of all sides of the issue.   This is not an "open market"
process.  How do we (educator hat) get this interaction to occur in a
healthy and fair manner.

Another secret that I am sure you will keep.  I think I am on the track
toward starting another company in a few years.

Thanks to all

Harry


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020322/689231e4/attachment.html>

From cb.king at verizon.net  Sat Mar 23 12:54:56 2002
From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine King)
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:54:56 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02
References: <NEBBKBOMAKCNCJAIJOGKMEPLCJAA.irrobert@swbell.net> <002101c1cc50$94b626e0$e1f72a3f@cbking> <00f501c1cfb5$02e9ee00$4bc13218@oemcomputer> <3C989810.2040300@strato.net> <005201c1d131$e7520780$4bc13218@oemcomputer> <005801c1d1c8$59074e80$5bf72a3f@cbking> <009d01c1d1f6$b5a78820$4bc13218@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <001101c1d294$9afc3fe0$77f72a3f@cbking>

Hello Gloria:

In my past life, I owned and operated a small
3-shop chain of florists started from a 
partnership, a mall location, and finally into
a seven-year successful business experience
with employees, customers, chamber of commerce
involvement, the whole working CEO thing.  I finally 
burned out, wanted to spend more time with my 
family, and went to college at 32 where I fell in love 
with it and philosophy.  

So, like Harry, I am an entrepreneur at heart and 
consider these threads extremely creative forces
in our culture from the point of view of having
experienced it.   

It is from this view that I can understand why it is
legitimate in some sense, as you say, for business 
people to look at their employees as a means to an 
end.   In an optimum environment, everyone works for
the same goal of excellence and everyone benefits 
by and from that work. 

The educator, on the other hand, needs to look beyond
this view and to understand the full gamut of what 
education is about and how it relates to our social-
political foundations, including that the learner is also 
an end-in-ourselves, beyond our-his-her work capacity
or how we-he-she fits into a means-corporate situation.
And then there are those who cannot work, or do not
work, or who are just people who live in this culture and
want to educate and improve themselves.   These are
all our clients regardless of how businesses relate to
them.  

This broader understanding is more, not less, true for
educators when many others do not understand this 
fullness, including many business-corporate people, and 
more importantly, our policy makers who are supposed 
to be involved with **the people** as individuals in our
 commonwealth regardless of capitalist issues.   We
don't have to pay or work to get in.

Certainly there are many creative and legitimate 
corporate-education situations.  No one is saying there 
is not.  I for one agree with you on this.  

But as teachers we must not allow the real good of these 
relationships to negate the socio-political context that these
relationships rest in--or to obscure the great harm that has 
been done in many systematic situations, and is continuing 
to be done, in the name of:

(1) myopic and self-serving ignorance of **intemperate** 
capitalist power (greed) and its pervasive and sometimes
covert (to those who fail to see) negative effects, or 

(2) a well-heeled conscious effort to  determine and 
maintain systematic policy to, in fact, shut out certain 
"peculiar" groups of people, or to maintain systems that 
oppress many by "roadblocking," diversions, half-truths,
and especially by conning teachers and sugar-coating 
political murder or by making it seem like suicide.    

There is no neutral political ground where education is 
concerned.

If teachers do not have the "big picture" about the liberating
and-or oppressing dimensions of education, or about the
realities of **some** quite large corporate interests being
served at the continued detriment of our clients, then we
are de facto involved in that oppression--even though we 
are not aware of it and even though we see many good 
things going on in the corporate-education relationship.  
The bad in any case rarely is open to the light but hides
itself in a thicket of diversions.  If this is true, then keeping
well-meaning teachers naive is an important part of this 
diversion.

Not all that glitters is gold.  And corporations as a general
rule have the best handle that I know of on glitterati.  Like 
you, I don't mind the glitter at all--as an out-of-the closet 
entrepreneur, I love it.  I just don't want to have it on me,
as an educator or as an entrepreneur, if it smells.

Regards,

Catherine King 

 



---- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gloria Gillette 
  To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
  Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


  Catherine,
    For this adult educator I see adult education  as means, not an end.
    I consider it a means to community involvement, advancement in the workplace
    a means to family enrichment.
    Of course I hope that my former students are now reading for the joy of it, but that is my hope, not necessarily theirs. I hope that the education they found was the beginning not the end to whatever it was they sought.

    If we continue to view education for education's sake, then we will be marginalized because not many people are willing to fund that noble idea.

    Instead I am suggesting that we tap into the business of business that has built this country. Of course business wants a return on their investment. I am simply saying that does not contradict our purposes. We know that an educated person
    enhances all of us, as a country as a society. Business is grappling with the issue of education and of course they see it in terms of the bottom line. 
    But in some way, we (both camps) are saying the same thing. Education is a good thing whether it is measured in ROI or on social activism.
    Quite frankly, I don't care who funds education-as long as it gets funded.

    I think there is at times a bias on this list that creates the idea that we are in opposition. I simply don't see it that way. I don't read it that way in many business publications, nor do I think it is productive to continue that divide. I read far more support in business for education than I read support or understanding for business in the education world. And to me, that is close minded on our part.

    I think every teacher ought to take a few courses from the business school to have a broad view of the world. There is a logic in business-it is good if it supports the bottom line. We know without question that education does just that. 
    I think our energies are better spent finding common ground.
    Gloria Gillette
     ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Catherine King 
    To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
    Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 12:36 PM
    Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


    Gloria:

    Your post to Harry reflects some basic differences
    in education and business/corporations, on the one
    hand, and how both understand their relationship to
    a democratic government on the other.  

    Basically, for business, workers and their education
    are a means for business.  Whereas, for adult 
    education, students and their education are, first 
    and foremost, an end.  That is, education is not for
    someone else, or some business concern, but 
    basically for them.  Even though education may
    help our students with their work skills, these skills
    are not only for business, but are also for our
    students themselves--they are the legitimate end
    of education, as it were, to improve our quality
    of life as such.    

    But for many businesses, adults are merely there 
    to serve another end, and this is not all bad, of 
    course.

    Certainly there is nothing to preclude business/
    corporate heads from identifying worker-development
    as a kind of profit, and there are some movements
    going on that are trying to broaden the meaning of
    profit in business as we speak.  But unfortunately
    many still see workers like horses, or worse, 
    machines--all of which find their only worth in 
    serving the bottom line of corporate development
    regardless of other costs.  

    As Harry and others point out, there is a basic 
    conflict here that we in education need to keep in 
    mind--we need to remember who we are and what 
    we are about, and how that differs, and is even in
    conflict with, some who are quite involved with
    education.  

    And if the teachers in my education classes are any 
    indication, many educators really have no clue about 
    these basic conflicts and, therefore, seem to be 
    unaware when the fox walks right into chicken house
    with a pretty checkbook and a napkin around its neck?    

    But though I see much in your note about the relationship
    of education to business and how educators shouldn't
    raise such questions but be more amenable to business
    concerns (of course this is not a kind of prostitution even
    though it might look that way to some), you don't mention
    how government relates to either.  

    But the relationship of powerful business concerns to
    government policy makers is THE issue, not just in
    education, but across the board at present.   Harry has
    suggested that corporate concerns are a large political
    force behind the swing towards charter schools, where 
    those who make and market computers/software are 
    able to develop their lucrative markets in a way they 
    haven't found possible in the public-school arena.     

    In your note you seem to assume the dialogue is only
    between business and education.  But where are our
    government policy makers, and who among them are
    only influenced by business without a critical inspection
    of either motivations or real outcomes?  And who 
    among them have either individual adults in mind as 
    a "fourth branch of government," or the good of a 
    mature democracy where education of adults in a
    complex world is a value all by itself, regardless
    of business concerns? 

    Harry and you quote "Embracing e-learning in our 
    states . . . to improve competitiveness" by our 
    National Governor's Association.  Are our governors, 
    as state officials, working only for the bottom line? 
    It also says: "unprecedented growth and 
    opportunity for all Americans."   

    Do they mean what we might mean by that? And 
    where does educating the adult as someone not 
    necessarily working at a corporate site fit in here? 
     Or does it anymore?  And if not, what happened 
    to educating the polity to safeguard democratic 
    practices in a complex world?  Do we just hope
    that rides in subterraneously on overt business
    motivations?

    And about crossing lines between business and
    education.  Which business heads, especially inter-
    national corporate powers, understand themselves 
    as part of a  democratic political entity beholding to
    "the people;" and which see the corporation as a 
    part of that larger fabric "of, for and by the people"?  
    Have they enamoured us all with their glitz and
    communicative power?

    Certainly there are authentic business-education
    partnerships.    But they are only authentic when both
    educators and business people understand themselves
    as involved in common concerns under a common 
    democratic-republican political arena and do nothing
    to decay and destroy those common concerns.   

    And this is the failure of many educators who, of all 
    people, should be excruciatingly aware of the political
    dimension of all teaching, and how that may come into
    conflict in all our relationships with business concerns.
      
    I don't see the conflict ultimately as between "business
    and education."  It's really between people in powerful
    positions who often have no regard for those who have 
    no power, and who fail to see their complicity in their
    own crises in the long run if not the short.  Ultimately it 
    is quite a personal matter of moral-political self-
    definition and vision, and understanding or not.

    But when a lack of political consciousness on the part of
    powerful people is endorsed by educators through a 
    lack of political understanding, something incredibly 
    important is lost in the world.

    Regards,

    Catherine King 

    ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Gloria Gillette 
      To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
      Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:41 PM
      Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


      Harry,
      The American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) and the National Governors Associations are not exactly unknowns, nor do these words offend me in any way:
      (.. to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans).
       
      What the ASTD does not do, is say that education is the exclusive domain of "educators" and that what the field of training and education (by the way, that's us) has failed to do is adequately express or convince the business world of the importance of education. It is the inability of "educators" to collaborate and cross the divide into the realm of business (such as Catherine's post ) that stymies much of of our work. 

      Read ASTD's white paper "Profit from Learning: Do Firm's Investments in Education and Training Pay Off?"
      In it they say:
      "Although it is now commonly understood that the acquisition of knowledge is central to the competitive advantage of individuals and organizations in today's economy, the question of how much to invest in workforce education and training has long confounded business executives and managers alike.The problem:firms have never had good information...."

      As an adullt educator what does that tell you?

      It tells me that we are not very good at communicating, at crossing the divide,
      at making our point. Diatribes on how we are marginalized and whoa is us, and us against them only diminish our work and our importance. 
      If we've failed to let the business world understand and know our importance, if we've failed to learn their vocabulary and to communicate, who's bad is it? 
      Gloria Gillette


        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Harry Forster 
        To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
        Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:09 AM
        Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


        Gloria Gillette wrote:

          Catherine,
          I have tried to keep an open mind through your postings, but  honestly when you say things such as:
                 In some situations and to some folks,
               educating adults is counter-productive to their
               financial, and so their political, concerns
                  This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
               policy makers are influenced by those among us who
               consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
               as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
               concerns.

          Do you really think "corporate-business concerns" sit around and conspire against literacy? 
          I'm quite democratic in my concern for good writing. Even the most pedantic diatribe can lack critical thinking skills.
          Gloria Gillette
        I am not sure that "against" is the correct term but there are some realities that I think are necessary for policy planners to understand.   I have some personal experiences that are difficult to comprehend.  They make Catherine look benign.  Below is part of an email that I sent to Catherine.  It comes from a report sent in a Thursday Notes:  "Using Electronic Assessment to Measure Student Performance"


        "The Commission on Technology and Adult Learning, (Who is this group?  What do they do? How are you related to them?) sponsored by the American Society for Training and Development and the National Governors Association, has expressed a similar sentiment. "The commission . . . encourages governors, CEOs and other leaders ( Why does it not explicitly indicate educators or adult educators?  It is ommissions of this type that raise questions in my mind.   I see this often.) to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans.  (Do you think that this is the panacea that they say it is?)"  
        [ page 2]

        I believe that this does not show an active aggression "against"  education,  but there is an exclusion of education policy makers, for a matter that is in the education field.   Idealism is a good property, however, idealism must recognize that the greater forces are not paying attention to your ideals.  They are concerned with  politics (governors), business (CEOs), and other leaders (what ever that means).  Here is a "Commission on Technology and Adult Learning"  and it can not even find a term for AE planners unless it is the very bland "other leaders".  I tell you that you will get the  respect indicated above until your ideals can be a market for technology.  Believe me this repulses me as much as it does you.  This is one of the reason that I can not give you a title for my position.  Ask Catherine.  

        Harry Forster








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020323/9ffdf9e3/attachment.html>

From sophocles5 at juno.com  Sun Mar 24 21:29:17 2002
From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 18:29:17 -0800
Subject: [NLA] E.D  Hirsch Mathematically Correct
Message-ID: <20020324.182918.8790.0.sophocles5@juno.com>

Colleagues:

Perhaps the following extract from E.D. Hirsch's presentation to the
California State Board of Education might be of interest given the
current conservative swing of the U.S. Department of Education under
Bush/Paige et al.  Along with William Bennet,  Lynne Cheney and others,
Hirsch has been an icon of neo-conservative educators.  

While it may be a bit difficult to discern the exact relationship among
these three conservative educators and the current USDoE, it is more than
a reasonable hypothesis to assume their intellectual influence has a
strong impact on current policy thinking.  This hypothesis at least in my
mind has been strengthened by the recent USDoE draft and now completed
strategic plan.  

Other commentary by Rod Paige consigning whole language reading theory to
the dust bin of history and the promotion of "American values" and
"traditional American history" in the classrooms in the Department's
documents as well as in various public presentations by key
spokespersons, further confirms this strong ideological conservative
direction.  This is to say nothing about the reduction of literacy to
reading, the reduction of reading to phonemic awareness as a foundational
grounding point rather than simply important,and  the impending NIFL
appointments (Board and Director).

In the following extracts of Hirsch's talk, keep in mind the following:

a)  Hirsch acknowledges that almost all educational practice is research
based.

b)  The challenge from his point of view is to "discriminate between
reliable and unreliable research."

c)  Policy should be based on the most "scientifically reliable
research."

d)  " At the core of each discipline, there develops a consensus of the
learned, and this consensus is highly dependable."  (One wonders what the
"consensus" research would be in the highly contentious field of US
history since the most reputable scholars in the field are saying
different things.  One wonders if historical scholarship needs to be
supervised by the scientists to assure methodological rigor or by various
patriotic groups to assure that dissenting perspectives on the state of
democracy in US history do not infect the high purposes of the new
classrooms under the Department's proposed great transformation designed
to instill patriotism and American values in civics and US history
classes).

e)  "Out at the edge, on the frontier of the discipline, there is a lot
of disagreement, and we can't tell for sure which rival theory is right.
When lawmakers say that education policy should be based on research, the
spirit of the law implies reliable, consensus research. Any other
interpretation would mean, and has meant, carrying out unwarranted human
experimentation on our own children. "  There is very little room here
for critical or alternative perspectives and a view of education as
mastery of the received tradition.

f)  (Listen up, EFFers)  "In the field of psychology, which is the key
field for education research, much of what is accepted within the
educational community has been required to conform to a so-called
"constructivist" ideology that does not represent the consensus in
mainstream psychology, and is almost certainly incorrect." (Though we've
heard nothing from official headquarters on the USDoE, DAEL's or OVAE's
position on EFF, from a consistent ideological perspective one might draw
a reasonable conclusion that the current Department of Education would
not look favorably on such "constructvist," "metacognitive" projects like
EFF.  Is this worth a discussion?)

Though I do not know exactly what the influence of such neo-conservative
tending educators  thinkers as E.D. Hirsch (he claims to be a liberal),
William Bennett, B.V. Manno, and Lynne Cheney are having on current USDoE
 thinking, a perusal of the documents and an attunement of various
pronouncements and television presentations leads one (me) to believe
that the collective influence of these thinkers is substantial. 

 What makes their influence particularly pernicious, in my opinion, is
that so much of this is happening below the radar screen where the likes
of constructivism and other progressive educational concepts are being
dismissed as ideology and faddism, while neo-conservative educational
thought is being equated with objective science.  There is an eeirie
Orwellian abuse of language in operation that marginalizes critical
thought with governmental propaganda that the good Senators of Senator
Kennedy's Committee just may not be in a position to see or to act upon
to which they must be held to account.

There's a lot at stake in the current direction of the UDDoE under Bush,
Paige.

Ralph Nader, is there really no difference between Gore and Bush?

George Demetrion
Sophocles5 at juno.com
________________________________________________________

Mathematically Correct

Address to California State Board of Education
April 10, 1997
by E. D. Hirsch, Jr.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mathman/edh2cal.htm

The enormous problem faced in basing policy on research is that it is
almost impossible to make educational policy that is not based on
research. 
Almost every educational practice that has ever been pursued has been
supported with data by somebody. I don't know a single failed policy,
ranging from the naturalistic teaching of reading, to the open classroom,
to the teaching of abstract set-theory in third-grade math that hasn't
been research-based. Experts have advocated almost every conceivable
practice short of inflicting permanent bodily harm. 

So we need to discriminate between reliable and unreliable research. And
of course my recommendation is going to be that only reliable research
should guide policy. Now it is possible to give some rules of thumb for
determining scientific reliability, but there is no formula adequate to
all situations. The distinguished sociologist of science, Stephen Cole in
his Harvard Press book, called Making Science has found a continuous
spectrum of reliability in most of the natural and social sciences. At
the core 
of each discipline, there develops a consensus of the learned, and this
consensus is highly dependable. It is close enough to being right that
you can bet your life and your children's lives on that core. But out at
the edge, on the frontier of the discipline, there is a lot of
disagreement, and we can't tell for sure which rival theory is right.
When lawmakers say that education policy should be based on research, the
spirit of the law implies reliable, consensus research. Any other
interpretation would mean, and has meant, carrying out unwarranted human
experimentation on our own children. 
If this distinction between core and non-core research is rightly
understood, and if its implications are followed in California, then I
think the days of faddism, guruism, partisanship, and unwarranted
experimentation may be numbered. I'm not saying that research can decide
the aims of education. In a democracy, those are decided by the people.
But core science can determine how best to achieve them. Take reading. As
a people we have decided that we want all our children to read well.
Mainstream research has been saying for some years that a naturalistic
approach cannot achieve that goal for all children. The reasons why that
core research was not heeded is a subject for intellectual and social
history, some of which I traced in my recent book, The Schools We Need &
Why We Don't Have Them. 

I was forced to conclude that in the field of psychology, which is the
key field for education research, much of what is accepted within the
educational community has been required to conform to a so-called
"constructivist" ideology that does not represent the consensus in
mainstream psychology, and is almost certainly incorrect. One
distinguished psychologist who receives grants from the education
division of the National Science Foundation (NSF) expressed dismay at the
ideological, anti-empirical sermons, as he called them, which he hears at
the education division of NSF meet
ings in psychology. 

Insistence upon ideological conformity makes for unreliable science. It
hinders the best research from getting disseminated to the education
world -- to journalists, policy makers, publishers, teachers, and
administrators. As a result, there is an information gap regarding the
findings of mainstream psychology as applied to education.



________________________________________________________________
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


From tsticht at aznet.net  Sun Mar 24 21:43:17 2002
From: tsticht at aznet.net (Thomas Sticht)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:43:17 -0700
Subject: [NLA] When Your Working Days Are Over
Message-ID: <3C9E8EC2.3B58@aznet.net>

Research Note                  March 24, 2002
Tom Sticht

When Your Working Days Are Over..What?s The Sense of Literacy? 

Is there a reason for governments to support literacy education once a
person?s working days are over? After all, where?s the return on
investment? In 1861, Harriet  A. Jacobs wrote her book, "Incidents in
the life of a slave girl written by herself." In it she tells the story
of her work to help an older black man, a slave like her, learn to read,
not for improving his productivity at work, but to reach for a greater
reward for himself at the end of his life. In Jacob?s own words, which
includes her renderings of dialect, she describes an incident that
occured around 1850: 

Quote: "I knew an old black man, whose piety and childlike trust in God
were beautiful to witness. At fifty-three years old he joined the
Baptist church. He had a most earnest desire to learn to read. He
thought he should know how to serve God better if he could only read the
Bible. He came to me, and begged me to teach him. He said he could not
pay me, for he had no money; but he would bring me nice fruit when the
season for it came. I asked him if he didn?t know it was contrary to
law; and that slaves were whipped and imprisoned for teaching each other
to read. This brought the tears into his eyes. "Don?t be troubled, Uncle
Fred," said I. "I have no thoughts of refusing to teach you. I only told
you of the law, that you might know the danger, and be on your guard."

He thought he could plan to come three times a week without its being
suspected. I selected a quiet nook, where no intruder was likely to
penetrate, and there I taught him his A, B, C. Considering his age, his
progress was astonishing. As soon as he could spell in two syllables he
wanted to spell out words in the Bible. The happy smile that illuminated
his face put joy into my heart. After spelling out a few words he
paused, and said, "Honey, it ?pears when I can read dis good book I
shall be nearer to God. White man is got all de sense. He can larn easy.
It ain?t easy for ole black man like me. I only want to read dis book,
dat I may know how to live; den I hab no fear ?bout dying." 

I tried to encourage him by speaking of the rapid progress he had made.
"Hab patience, child," he replied. "I larns slow." At the end of six
months he had read through the New Testament, and could find any text in
it.":End Quote

Should a government of the people, by the people, and for the people
deny education and literacy in the 21st century to any adults who, like
Uncle Fred, do not seek to learn to read and write to improve work
skills for productivity, but rather for the simple dignity that comes
from feeling that with improved literacy they "know how to live?" 

Last year we learned that some 10 million of our fellow adult citizens
were so lacking in literacy that they could not even take the National
Adult Literacy Survey. This year the President of the United States
asked for no more funding for adult education and literacy development
than we had last year, which amounted to less than $200 per enrollment
in the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States.  

How far have we come in the 150 years since 1850? What would Uncle Fred
say today? Have we learned fast? Have we got all the sense?
_______________________________________________
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


From Freemannola at aol.com  Mon Mar 25 07:15:11 2002
From: Freemannola at aol.com (Freemannola at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:15:11 EST
Subject: [NLA] When Your Working Days Are Over
Message-ID: <108.f7ae553.29d06ecf@aol.com>

Thanks to Tom Sticht for reminding us that we squander the wealth of our 
country when we discount older folks!
Margery Freeman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020325/89417db3/attachment.html>

From cfranc2 at ilstu.edu  Mon Mar 25 08:16:22 2002
From: cfranc2 at ilstu.edu (Chris Francisco)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:16:22 -0600
Subject: [NLA] When Your Working Days Are Over
In-Reply-To: <3C9E8EC2.3B58@aznet.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020325071312.020d2450@mail.ilstu.edu>

Tom,

Thank you for addressing these issues in such a truly touching and 
meaningful way.  We must advocate and continue the struggle in the face of 
a government that can and will cast a blind eye to our students needs.  Be 
well.

peace and love,

Chris Francisco

                                 "The only way out is through"
                                                 Fritz Perls



At 07:43 PM 3/24/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Research Note                  March 24, 2002
>Tom Sticht
>
>When Your Working Days Are Over..What's The Sense of Literacy?
>
>Is there a reason for governments to support literacy education once a
>person's working days are over? After all, where's the return on
>investment? In 1861, Harriet  A. Jacobs wrote her book, "Incidents in
>the life of a slave girl written by herself." In it she tells the story
>of her work to help an older black man, a slave like her, learn to read,
>not for improving his productivity at work, but to reach for a greater
>reward for himself at the end of his life. In Jacob's own words, which
>includes her renderings of dialect, she describes an incident that
>occured around 1850:
>
>Quote: "I knew an old black man, whose piety and childlike trust in God
>were beautiful to witness. At fifty-three years old he joined the
>Baptist church. He had a most earnest desire to learn to read. He
>thought he should know how to serve God better if he could only read the
>Bible. He came to me, and begged me to teach him. He said he could not
>pay me, for he had no money; but he would bring me nice fruit when the
>season for it came. I asked him if he didn't know it was contrary to
>law; and that slaves were whipped and imprisoned for teaching each other
>to read. This brought the tears into his eyes. "Don't be troubled, Uncle
>Fred," said I. "I have no thoughts of refusing to teach you. I only told
>you of the law, that you might know the danger, and be on your guard."
>
>He thought he could plan to come three times a week without its being
>suspected. I selected a quiet nook, where no intruder was likely to
>penetrate, and there I taught him his A, B, C. Considering his age, his
>progress was astonishing. As soon as he could spell in two syllables he
>wanted to spell out words in the Bible. The happy smile that illuminated
>his face put joy into my heart. After spelling out a few words he
>paused, and said, "Honey, it 'pears when I can read dis good book I
>shall be nearer to God. White man is got all de sense. He can larn easy.
>It ain't easy for ole black man like me. I only want to read dis book,
>dat I may know how to live; den I hab no fear 'bout dying."
>
>I tried to encourage him by speaking of the rapid progress he had made.
>"Hab patience, child," he replied. "I larns slow." At the end of six
>months he had read through the New Testament, and could find any text in
>it.":End Quote
>
>Should a government of the people, by the people, and for the people
>deny education and literacy in the 21st century to any adults who, like
>Uncle Fred, do not seek to learn to read and write to improve work
>skills for productivity, but rather for the simple dignity that comes
>from feeling that with improved literacy they "know how to live?"
>
>Last year we learned that some 10 million of our fellow adult citizens
>were so lacking in literacy that they could not even take the National
>Adult Literacy Survey. This year the President of the United States
>asked for no more funding for adult education and literacy development
>than we had last year, which amounted to less than $200 per enrollment
>in the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States.
>
>How far have we come in the 150 years since 1850? What would Uncle Fred
>say today? Have we learned fast? Have we got all the sense?
>_______________________________________________
>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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020325/da571b59/attachment.html>

From e.b.shupe at lycos.com  Mon Mar 25 10:23:30 2002
From: e.b.shupe at lycos.com (Esther)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:23:30 -0800
Subject: [NLA] When Your Working Days Are Over
Message-ID: <LGADGNHCEGMINBAA@mailcity.com>

 In Quigley's book "Rethinking Literacy" he speaks of stereotypes which attempt to narrowly definite illiterate people.  One of the stereotypes he mentions is the "Simple African American".  It seems like the story you presented in your posting might be viewed as typical of this stereotype.  I have been a silent observor on this listserv for about a year and I know from your previous posts that your depth of understanding with regard to literacy is far reaching.  I wonder however what you think of Quigley's research and how these stereotypes relate to literacy funding? e.b.s. 
--



2,000,000,000 Web Pages--you only need 1. Save time with My Lycos.
http://my.lycos.com
_______________________________________________
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


From PDRNRI at aol.com  Mon Mar 25 11:18:36 2002
From: PDRNRI at aol.com (PDRNRI at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:18:36 EST
Subject: [NLA] When Your Working Days Are Over
Message-ID: <a9.24e26986.29d0a7dc@aol.com>

Tom, 

Your elegant example brings some much needed clarity to the discussion.  
Thanks.


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


From petersonnh at billings.k12.mt.us  Mon Mar 25 23:22:02 2002
From: petersonnh at billings.k12.mt.us (Norene Peterson)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:22:02 -0700
Subject: [NLA] When Your Working Days Are Over
References: <3C9E8EC2.3B58@aznet.net>
Message-ID: <020901c1d47d$c7ea34e0$8f80e30c@attbi.com>

Thank you, Tom!  I needed this!  It reminds me why I have been doing this
job for the past 28 years. Not always am I teaching to help someone get a
job or to help a person move "up a level."  Sometimes they are even better
reasons.    NP =)

Norene Peterson
Adult Education Center
415 North 30th
Billings, MT 59101
406-247-3720
petersonnh at billings.k12.mt.us

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Sticht" <tsticht at aznet.net>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Cc: <tsticht at aznet.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 7:43 PM
Subject: [NLA] When Your Working Days Are Over


> Research Note                  March 24, 2002
> Tom Sticht
>
> When Your Working Days Are Over..What's The Sense of Literacy?
>
> Is there a reason for governments to support literacy education once a
> person's working days are over? After all, where's the return on
> investment? In 1861, Harriet  A. Jacobs wrote her book, "Incidents in
> the life of a slave girl written by herself." In it she tells the story
> of her work to help an older black man, a slave like her, learn to read,
> not for improving his productivity at work, but to reach for a greater
> reward for himself at the end of his life. In Jacob's own words, which
> includes her renderings of dialect, she describes an incident that
> occured around 1850:
>
> Quote: "I knew an old black man, whose piety and childlike trust in God
> were beautiful to witness. At fifty-three years old he joined the
> Baptist church. He had a most earnest desire to learn to read. He
> thought he should know how to serve God better if he could only read the
> Bible. He came to me, and begged me to teach him. He said he could not
> pay me, for he had no money; but he would bring me nice fruit when the
> season for it came. I asked him if he didn't know it was contrary to
> law; and that slaves were whipped and imprisoned for teaching each other
> to read. This brought the tears into his eyes. "Don't be troubled, Uncle
> Fred," said I. "I have no thoughts of refusing to teach you. I only told
> you of the law, that you might know the danger, and be on your guard."
>
> He thought he could plan to come three times a week without its being
> suspected. I selected a quiet nook, where no intruder was likely to
> penetrate, and there I taught him his A, B, C. Considering his age, his
> progress was astonishing. As soon as he could spell in two syllables he
> wanted to spell out words in the Bible. The happy smile that illuminated
> his face put joy into my heart. After spelling out a few words he
> paused, and said, "Honey, it 'pears when I can read dis good book I
> shall be nearer to God. White man is got all de sense. He can larn easy.
> It ain't easy for ole black man like me. I only want to read dis book,
> dat I may know how to live; den I hab no fear 'bout dying."
>
> I tried to encourage him by speaking of the rapid progress he had made.
> "Hab patience, child," he replied. "I larns slow." At the end of six
> months he had read through the New Testament, and could find any text in
> it.":End Quote
>
> Should a government of the people, by the people, and for the people
> deny education and literacy in the 21st century to any adults who, like
> Uncle Fred, do not seek to learn to read and write to improve work
> skills for productivity, but rather for the simple dignity that comes
> from feeling that with improved literacy they "know how to live?"
>
> Last year we learned that some 10 million of our fellow adult citizens
> were so lacking in literacy that they could not even take the National
> Adult Literacy Survey. This year the President of the United States
> asked for no more funding for adult education and literacy development
> than we had last year, which amounted to less than $200 per enrollment
> in the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States.
>
> How far have we come in the 150 years since 1850? What would Uncle Fred
> say today? Have we learned fast? Have we got all the sense?
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From Federico.Salas at nhmccd.edu  Tue Mar 26 12:15:32 2002
From: Federico.Salas at nhmccd.edu (Salas, Federico)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:15:32 -0600
Subject: [NLA] When Your Working Days Are Over
Message-ID: <3B2841711F84D411B58B00A0C9EAA49A01EF360B@doexch1.nhmccd.edu>

Thanks, Tom for your wonderful reminder of the value of literacy for our own
personal dignity as human beings.

With different names and circumstances, over 130 years after Uncle Fred
learned to read, I was privileged to have a student in one of my classes who
showed me the importance of learning to read for her own self esteem no
matter how late in life or how removed from the workforce one might be.
This story changed my life because it made teaching adults my passion, not
just a part-time job:

In the late 1980's I was teaching an ESL I class; most of the students were
false beginners, but there was an elderly Hispanic lady, Hilda, who at 68
was not only the oldest member of the class but also the only one completely
illiterate.  She had been away from school for over 60 years! Hilda would
come to class faithfully every morning, usually being there even before I
arrived.  She was unable to sign her own name, so I printed a card with her
name for her to be able to copy on the sign-in sheet.

I taught her how to hold a pencil, how to form her A, B, C's...  She learnt
to sound out the most basic words of our language, and with an enormous
amount of difficulty slowly started to progress along the first chapters of
the required textbook.
As the year went on everyone progressed toward completion of the level;
Hilda was only able to complete about 20% of the materials in the course.

One day she called me aside telling me she wanted to show me something; we
sat in the back of the classroom where we had a love seat.  Trembling she
opened her purse and produced a small torn piece of white butcher paper.  On
it, scribbled in pencil, were two words:  Jos? and Jesus.  With tears in her
eyes she told me:  "Mr. Salas, I am 68 years old.  My children are grown men
now, but last night for the first time in my life I was able to write their
names.  You don't know how happy that made me!  I owe it all to you."  I
told her she didn't; that she owed it to her own determination to learn, to
her hard work, and perseverance in spite of her age.  She cried.  I cried.
Then she asked me if I would help her write them a birthday card;  it was to
be the first time those men would receive a note from their mother.  That
was her objective.  That became my objective.   

Her story redefined for me what a success story really is; it showed me how
to measure meaningful progress regardless of performance on standardized
tests.  Administrators, policy makers, and many who think our literacy funds
need to be targeted toward the "productive" workforce to the exclusion of
our Uncle Freds and our Hildas, for whom learning is a matter of dignity and
personal pride, do the country a great disservice.  Our strength as a nation
is not only measured in terms of our productivity but also in terms of the
dignity and true freedom of our people.  That freedom can only be real if
people are literate.

federico 

Federico Salas-Isnardi
Director of Adult Education
Corporate and Continuing Education Division
North Harris College
16416 Northchase Dr. #200
Houston, TX 77060
(281) 618-1170 -voice (281) 618-1179 -fax
federico.salas at nhmccd.edu

"Educating Our Global Community"



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Sticht [mailto:tsticht at aznet.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 8:43 PM
To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
Cc: tsticht at aznet.net
Subject: [NLA] When Your Working Days Are Over


Research Note                  March 24, 2002
Tom Sticht

When Your Working Days Are Over..What's The Sense of Literacy? 

Is there a reason for governments to support literacy education once a
person's working days are over? After all, where's the return on
investment? In 1861, Harriet  A. Jacobs wrote her book, "Incidents in
the life of a slave girl written by herself." In it she tells the story
of her work to help an older black man, a slave like her, learn to read,
not for improving his productivity at work, but to reach for a greater
reward for himself at the end of his life. In Jacob's own words, which
includes her renderings of dialect, she describes an incident that
occured around 1850: 

Quote: "I knew an old black man, whose piety and childlike trust in God
were beautiful to witness. At fifty-three years old he joined the
Baptist church. He had a most earnest desire to learn to read. He
thought he should know how to serve God better if he could only read the
Bible. He came to me, and begged me to teach him. He said he could not
pay me, for he had no money; but he would bring me nice fruit when the
season for it came. I asked him if he didn't know it was contrary to
law; and that slaves were whipped and imprisoned for teaching each other
to read. This brought the tears into his eyes. "Don't be troubled, Uncle
Fred," said I. "I have no thoughts of refusing to teach you. I only told
you of the law, that you might know the danger, and be on your guard."

He thought he could plan to come three times a week without its being
suspected. I selected a quiet nook, where no intruder was likely to
penetrate, and there I taught him his A, B, C. Considering his age, his
progress was astonishing. As soon as he could spell in two syllables he
wanted to spell out words in the Bible. The happy smile that illuminated
his face put joy into my heart. After spelling out a few words he
paused, and said, "Honey, it 'pears when I can read dis good book I
shall be nearer to God. White man is got all de sense. He can larn easy.
It ain't easy for ole black man like me. I only want to read dis book,
dat I may know how to live; den I hab no fear 'bout dying." 

I tried to encourage him by speaking of the rapid progress he had made.
"Hab patience, child," he replied. "I larns slow." At the end of six
months he had read through the New Testament, and could find any text in
it.":End Quote

Should a government of the people, by the people, and for the people
deny education and literacy in the 21st century to any adults who, like
Uncle Fred, do not seek to learn to read and write to improve work
skills for productivity, but rather for the simple dignity that comes
from feeling that with improved literacy they "know how to live?" 

Last year we learned that some 10 million of our fellow adult citizens
were so lacking in literacy that they could not even take the National
Adult Literacy Survey. This year the President of the United States
asked for no more funding for adult education and literacy development
than we had last year, which amounted to less than $200 per enrollment
in the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States.  

How far have we come in the 150 years since 1850? What would Uncle Fred
say today? Have we learned fast? Have we got all the sense?
_______________________________________________
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


From Rose.Tilghman at ed.gov  Tue Mar 26 15:08:56 2002
From: Rose.Tilghman at ed.gov (Tilghman, Rose)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:08:56 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/28/02
Message-ID: <5DCA49BDD2B0D41186CE00508B6BEBD006D37306@wdcrobexc01.ed.gov>

Thursday Notes
>From the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
Editor: Sarah Newcomb
Production: Rose Tilghman

March 28, 2002				
___________________________________


WIA Title I
Spending Slow

New figures from the Department of Labor (DOL) show that states have been
slow in spending Title I dollars under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA).
About $5B appears still held for state accounts. This is not good news for
Title I programs. For FY 2002, Congress trimmed DOL's appropriation in
response to slow spending last year, indicating that if funds were not being
spent, they were not needed. Fortunately, Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act (AEFLA) programs are doing better--but it wouldn't hurt to keep
an eye on those unexpended balances. See
http://www.doleta.gov/budget/093001combspend.pdf

Darling to Receive
Humanities Medal

Sharon Darling is slated to receive the 2001 National Humanities Medal from
President and Mrs. Bush April 22 in a White House ceremony. The medal honors
individuals or groups whose work deepens national understanding of the
humanities, broadens citizens' engagement with the humanities, or preserves
and expands Americans' access to important humanities resources. The
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) sponsors the award. Past
recipients include Steven Spielberg, Jim Lehrer, Toni Morrison, Stephen
Ambrose, and many others. Congratulations Sharon! See
http://www.famlit.org/aboutncfl/bios.html

Community College:
Such a Deal!

The appeal of community college educations is about to spike, according to
the Washington Post's financial section. First, community colleges can be
cheap and good, the Post says, with a major savings earned through living at
home and lower tuition. The reason for the spike in interest? Cutbacks in
state spending nationwide can make the cost of four-year institutions much
higher. Although community colleges may share some increases, they'll be an
even better alternative the Post predicts. See http://www.washingtonpost.com
for March 17.

Community College
Students More 
Likely to Work

Nearly three fourths of employees who study--and nearly half of students who
work--go to community colleges rather than four-year institutions, according
to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The Center says
employees may not expect a degree or may want only an Associate's Degree.
Students who work are more likely to be focused on going on to earn a
Bachelor's Degree from a four-year institution. But one caution: this
just-released February 2002 report is based on NCES' 1996/98 data. See
http://nces.ed.gov and search for Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study.


____________________________________________________________________________
___________________
A Fact Sheet from the Division of Adult Education and Literacy
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
OVAE Homepage http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020326/1f61b706/attachment.html>

From deborah at alri.org  Wed Mar 27 14:34:26 2002
From: deborah at alri.org (Deborah Schwartz)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:34:26 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Home-buying Readiness and Money Managment Sourcebook
References: <c5.1efeeef7.29b4fbe8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c1d5c6$6a617fa0$6e00000a@deborah01>


  Hi Friends,

  The Adult Literacy Resource Institute in partnership with the Fannie Mae Foundation has just published a free resource for adult literacy programs. The Money Management and Home-buying Readiness Sourcebook for Teachers of ESOL and ABE walks teachers and program coordinators through the various elements of implementing a housing/homeownership/money management class or unit.

  Complete with case-studies of exisiting home-buying readiness projects (adult literacy/home-buying projects that received support form the Fannie Mae Foundation during 2000 and 2001), teachers' lessons, student writing, fundraising and resource development strategies and Web-based and hard-copy housing and consumer counseling resources, the sourcebook is meant to assist program coordinators and teachers as they integrate the topic of housing and money-management into their exisiting adult literacy classrooms and programs.

  To order a free copy call: 1-800-665-0012.

  And if you have any questions or comments, I would love to hear them!

  Deborah Schwartz
  National Home-buying Readiness Curricula and TA Project
  Adult Literacy Resource Institute
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020327/ce63bdb2/attachment.html>

From andresm.RGCAMPUS.EPCCRG at epcc.edu  Wed Mar 27 16:18:26 2002
From: andresm.RGCAMPUS.EPCCRG at epcc.edu (Andres Muro)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:18:26 -0700
Subject: [NLA] Home-buying Readiness and Money Managment Sourcebook
Message-ID: <sca1d4e1.025@epcc.edu>

...and it looks pretty good. I got my copy a few days ago  :-)

Andres

>>> deborah at alri.org 03/27/02 12:34PM >>>

  Hi Friends,

  The Adult Literacy Resource Institute in partnership with the Fannie Mae Foundation has just published a free resource for adult literacy programs. The Money Management and Home-buying Readiness Sourcebook for Teachers of ESOL and ABE walks teachers and program coordinators through the various elements of implementing a housing/homeownership/money management class or unit.

  Complete with case-studies of exisiting home-buying readiness projects (adult literacy/home-buying projects that received support form the Fannie Mae Foundation during 2000 and 2001), teachers' lessons, student writing, fundraising and resource development strategies and Web-based and hard-copy housing and consumer counseling resources, the sourcebook is meant to assist program coordinators and teachers as they integrate the topic of housing and money-management into their exisiting adult literacy classrooms and programs.

  To order a free copy call: 1-800-665-0012.

  And if you have any questions or comments, I would love to hear them!

  Deborah Schwartz
  National Home-buying Readiness Curricula and TA Project
  Adult Literacy Resource Institute

_______________________________________________
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


From DJRosen at theworld.com  Wed Mar 27 22:03:16 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:03:16 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Info: Updated State, Regional and Urban Literacy Advocacy Coalitions List
Message-ID: <3CA287F4.2040905@theworld.com>


NLA Colleagues,

I have updated the list of state, regional and urban literacy coalitions 
which do adult literacy public policy advocacy. The updates are based on 
information from several members of this list who have checked the accuracy 
of information from their states, and from Edith Gower, Executive Director 
of the National Alliance of Urban Literacy Coalitions, who has updated the 
urban literacy coalitions. Thanks to those who have contacted me.  I am 
concerned, however, that I have only heard from a handful of states.  Does 
this mean that the list is accurate, or that only a few people have checked?  
The list will be found at:

		http://www.alri.org/advocacy.html

*Please* go there and check the information for your state, region 
and/or city, and e-mail me (not the NLA) immediately with any additions, 
deletions or corrections.

An accurate list of advocacy organizations will make it easier for those who 
want to join adult literacy public policy efforts to find like-minded people 
in their states and communities.

Thank you.

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020327/e22d9495/attachment.html>

From DJRosen at theworld.com  Thu Mar 28 12:06:14 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:06:14 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Info: Building Coalitions
Message-ID: <3CA34D86.1010008@theworld.com>


NLA Colleagues,

I would like to call your attention to a Web site which may help you in 
building a local or state adult literacy coalition,

http://www.buildliteracy.org/building-coalitions.htm

 From the Web site:

"The BuildLiteracy.org site answers Frequently Asked Questions about 
adult literacy, libraries, and coalitions. In addition, the web site 
features tips on coalition building, profiles of existing literacy 
coalitions, and a menu of literacy coalition activities.

The web also includes a special section devoted to building literacy @ 
your library. Content for the site was provided by ALA, the National 
Alliance of Urban Literacy Coalitions (NAULC), and the National 
Institute for Literacy (NIFL). The project is funded by Verizon 
Communications and administered through the Office for Literacy and 
Outreach Services (OLOS).


David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator


_______________________________________________
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


From DJRosen at theworld.com  Fri Mar 29 20:11:59 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:11:59 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Info: LINCS News Flashes
Message-ID: <3CA510DF.9010308@theworld.com>

Jaleh Behroozi Soroui
National LINCS Director
National Institute for Literacy
1775 I street, Suite 730
Washington DC, 20006
Phone: 202/233-2039
FAX:   202/233-2050

www.nifl.gov/lincs 

LINCS News Flashes:

http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/whats_new/flash_1_2000.html

Stay ahead and keep informed.  Log on to LINCS News Flashes every Monday
morning before you start your busy week.  Updated weekly, News Flashes on
LINCS bring you the latest literacy news worldwide, including:

-Stories of adult learners' successes 
-Exemplary projects 
-New discoveries in integrating technology with teaching and professional
development 
-New research 
-Major policy initiatives  affecting  literacy and education
-Announcements  of new products, publications, requests for proposals and
software packages,
-and much much more.   

Stories and updates  are gathered from major national newspapers, as well as
from online journals, newsletters, and messages posted on the LINCS
discussion lists.

 
If you are doing research, the archives of News Flashes, available from
November 1997,  can be a great resource for you.

Share the good news about LINCS News Flashes -- send the URL to your
colleagues and  to any distribution lists you are on.   And make your own
contributions to the site.  Send us the latest news and stories from your
program.

Jaleh Behroozi Soroui
National LINCS Director
National Institute for Literacy
1775 I street, Suite 730
Washington DC, 20006
Phone: 202/233-2039
FAX:   202/233-2050

www.nifl.gov/lincs 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nsmail.tmp
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3068 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020329/b91bbf23/attachment.obj>

From DJRosen at theworld.com  Fri Mar 29 22:18:55 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:18:55 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Call for OERI Re-organization  -- How will Adult Education Research  fare?
Message-ID: <3CA52E9F.9030001@theworld.com>

NLA Colleagues,

A March 6th  article in EdWeek 
    http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=25oeri.h21
describes a bill before Congress, introduced by Representative Michael 
Castle, R-Del,  that would overhaul the US DOE's Office of Education 
Research and Improvement (OERI).

Since OERI is the only place in the federal government with specific 
funding for adult education research and a center for that purpose (this 
is where the funding for  the National Center for the Study of Adult 
Literacy and Learning, NCSALL comes from) I am concerned when I see a 
call for a major re-structuring that adult education will be lost in the 
shuffle.

After the Bush Administration's NIFL Board candidates -- none who has 
adult education experience -- I wonder if others see a pattern which 
will cause adult education to lose ground under this administration.  If 
so, isn't it time for some organized fax/letter/e-mail-writing?

Are the National Coalition for Literacy, COABE and AAACE public policy 
committees, state adult education coalitions,  state adult education 
directors and others talking about this?  If so, let's hear about it on 
the NLA list -- and how about a plan for some action?

David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator

_______________________________________________
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


From sophocles5 at juno.com  Sat Mar 30 17:21:22 2002
From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:21:22 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Call for OERI Re-organization  -- How will Adult 
	Education Research  fare?
References: <3CA52E9F.9030001@theworld.com>
Message-ID: <20020330.142123.9510.0.sophocles5@juno.com>

Thanks David:

A few weeks back I had reviewed the USDoE's draft Strategic Plan for
2002-2007.

I downloaded that article you mention.  It's short.  Now after seeing
this proposal to revamp OREI research, the following statement in the
draft stands out quite clear.  On p. 49 of the draft appears the
following:

"The Department's ability to set research priorities, revamp its peer
review process [so scientists can supervise educators], and demand
greater quality and rigor [guess which type] from grantees is limited by
the statutes authorizing the Office of Education and research and
Improvement and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.  We need support from Congress and reauthorized laws to make
the sweeping changes [the proposed USDoE transformation of the
Department] needed."

Low and behold, now we have such a law introduced by Rep. Michael N.
Castle, R-Delaware who chairs the House Education and the Workforce
Committee.

Without having background knowledge of the USDoE Strategic Plan, Castle's
proposed legislation almost seems benign.  Says the Congressman, "I am
seeking to insulate our federal research. evaluation, and statistics
activity from partisan or undue political influences."  Haruumph. 
Continues Castle, "I want quality education research, not fads or
anecdotes to inform educators' decisions."The OREI would be run by a
director and a board appointed by the president with nonvoting status
given to such agencies as the NIHCHD (surprise).  The bill would phase
out smaller research centers the USDoE now sponsors.  The focus would be
on what is dubbed as "scientifically valid" research

Grover Russ Whitehurst, the Department's assistant secretary for
educational research and improvement noted in his testimony before the
subcommittee overseeing this legislation that "taking steps to improve
federal education research operations now could have far-research
consequences" (quote is the reporter's in the Education Week article, not
Whitehurst's."  

Whithurst  went on to say, "We are close to a point where the right
investment in the right structure could get us close to a tipping point,
where education becomes an evidence-based field," noting, "Medicine only
got to that point in the last 75 years."

Interesting, huh?  If I believed in right wing conspiracies, I might
assume that there were some direct connections between the need of the
USDoE to re-write legislation and the submission of Castle's bill, but of
course, I'm much too sophisticated to draw any such conclusions.

I wonder if this proposed legislation will raise any alarm bills in the
Senate, or does the No Child Left behind mantra get a pass?

On a much related note, perhaps some listers saw Molly Ive's latest
editorial titled, "The Texan is Up to Old Tricks."  I liked her first
line, "The evidence just keeps stacking up that this administration
intends to turn the entire country into a giant Texas."  For our
purposes, the following two paragraphs may be of interest:

"Forget the rhetoric from Bush, watch the numbers.  Bush has been
bragging about the great bipartisan compromise he forged with the
'fabulous' (his new favorite word) Se. Ted Kennedy.  Kennedy and the
Bushies slogged through long negotiations-Bush got testing, Kennedy got
more money for the schools, everybody was happy.

Five weeks later, Bush's budget came out.  There's none of the promised
money to repair dilapidated schools or reduce class sizes in poor
districts.  Great, now poor kids can sit in their rotting schools and
take standardized tests to see how well they're learning."

They can also learn about character education, phonics, traditional U.S.
history, and patriotism all under the guise of scientific, evidence-based
research.  Thank God there is no ideology or faddism in operation here,
only truth, science, common sense, patriotism, and the American way of
life.

One final note.  Tonite on one of the C-span stations (8 pm, I believe),
Ralph Nader will be debating Newt Gingrich.  Should prove entertaining.

George Demetrion
Sophocles5 at juno.com


On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:18:55 -0500 "David J. Rosen"
<DJRosen at theworld.com> writes:
>NLA Colleagues,
>
>A March 6th  article in EdWeek 
>    http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=25oeri.h21
>describes a bill before Congress, introduced by Representative Michael 
>
>Castle, R-Del,  that would overhaul the US DOE's Office of Education 
>Research and Improvement (OERI).
>
>Since OERI is the only place in the federal government with specific 
>funding for adult education research and a center for that purpose 
>(this 
>is where the funding for  the National Center for the Study of Adult 
>Literacy and Learning, NCSALL comes from) I am concerned when I see a 
>call for a major re-structuring that adult education will be lost in 
>the 
>shuffle.
>
>After the Bush Administration's NIFL Board candidates -- none who has 
>adult education experience -- I wonder if others see a pattern which 
>will cause adult education to lose ground under this administration.  
>If 
>so, isn't it time for some organized fax/letter/e-mail-writing?
>
>Are the National Coalition for Literacy, COABE and AAACE public policy 
>
>committees, state adult education coalitions,  state adult education 
>directors and others talking about this?  If so, let's hear about it 
>on 
>the NLA list -- and how about a plan for some action?
>
>David J. Rosen
>NLA List Moderator
>
>_______________________________________________
>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


________________________________________________________________
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


From comingjo at gse.harvard.edu  Sun Mar 31 10:03:37 2002
From: comingjo at gse.harvard.edu (comingjo)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:03:37 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Call for OERI Re-organization  -- How will Adult Education
 Research  fare?
Message-ID: <3C875D7A@webmail>

The House version of the OERI legislation has passed in its committee and 
though I haven't read it through yet, I'm told that it does continue support 
for the R&D Centers program that funds NCSALL.  The Senate committee will take 
this up on April 30th in hearings.  I think Kennedy will support the R&D 
Centers.  OERI does need reorganization and when it is reorganized, it will 
probably receive more funding, and so we should support reorganization.

My concern is this: The new structure will have separate "Institutes" for 
research, dissemination, evaluation, and education statistics (like NALS). The 
head of each institute will be a k-12 researcher. ABE will get little or no 
attention.  The only reason OERI is funding NCSALL (and NCAL before us) is 
because two Congressmen (Goodling and Sawyer) told them they had to do it. 
Goodling, Sawyer, and Kennedy have weighed in several times to look after our 
interests over the last 10+ years.  Goodling is now gone.  I feel we need some 
language in the bill that identifies ABE, adult ESOL, and ASE programs and 
students as a required area of OERI's work and that each "institute" must have 
a staff person who has experience and expertise in our field. If there is no 
ABE person, the institute will not pay attention to our concerns.

I don't think OERI will hire four ABE researchers and if they do, they will be 
one voice in each of four separate institutes.  Of course the institutes will 
be required to work together, but that kind of cooperation is rare in federal 
agencies. I think our field needs an integrated OERI institute in which 
research, dissemination, evaluation, and statistics are linked together.  This 
goes against the existing House bill, but I just don't see a structure run by 
K-12 researchers working for us.

I would, of course, like the R&D Centers program to continue, but the field's 
concern should be "How will the ABE/ESOL/ASE field get the attention it 
deserves in OERI."  I think it will only get that attention if OERI hires 
several researchers whose careers are in our field and that, for our field, 
research, dissemination, evaluation, and statistics are coordinated, which in 
a federal agency means that one person would be in charge of them.

>===== Original Message From nla at lists.literacytent.org =====
>NLA Colleagues,
>
>A March 6th  article in EdWeek
>    http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=25oeri.h21
>describes a bill before Congress, introduced by Representative Michael
>Castle, R-Del,  that would overhaul the US DOE's Office of Education
>Research and Improvement (OERI).
>
>Since OERI is the only place in the federal government with specific
>funding for adult education research and a center for that purpose (this
>is where the funding for  the National Center for the Study of Adult
>Literacy and Learning, NCSALL comes from) I am concerned when I see a
>call for a major re-structuring that adult education will be lost in the
>shuffle.
>
>After the Bush Administration's NIFL Board candidates -- none who has
>adult education experience -- I wonder if others see a pattern which
>will cause adult education to lose ground under this administration.  If
>so, isn't it time for some organized fax/letter/e-mail-writing?
>
>Are the National Coalition for Literacy, COABE and AAACE public policy
>committees, state adult education coalitions,  state adult education
>directors and others talking about this?  If so, let's hear about it on
>the NLA list -- and how about a plan for some action?
>
>David J. Rosen
>NLA List Moderator
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

John Comings, Director
National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy
Harvard Graduate School of Education
7 Appian Way
Cambridge MA 02138
(617) 496-0516, voice
(617) 495-4811, fax
john_comings at harvard.edu
http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu

_______________________________________________
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


From DJRosen at theworld.com  Sun Mar 31 12:07:18 2002
From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:07:18 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Info: Troubling Signs of Groups Being Left Behind
Message-ID: <3CA74246.7080004@theworld.com>

NLA Colleagues,

The National Center for Education Statistics released a report in 
February on participation rates in adult education from 1991-1999. The 
good news is that, overall, participation increased, but take a look at 
the summary below, especially the last sentence. There is troubling news 
for those who serve Latinos, adults with lower levels of education, 
and/or adults who are low-income.

Summary

The increase in participation in adult education found in this report is 
not new. What is new is evidence
of the breadth of this increase. Virtually every group of adults 
examined increased their participation in
adult education between 1991 and 1999, often in ways that reduced 
disparities in participation that had
existed in 1991. But a closer look at participation in specific 
activities reveals some troubling signs of
groups being left behind--especially Hispanics, those with lower levels 
of education, those with lower
status jobs, and those who are employed part time. Even after accounting 
for other factors, all of these
groups have relatively low rates of participation in work-related 
courses, an adult education activity
that is likely to have economic payoffs. Adults with lower levels of 
education also are less likely than
those with higher levels of education to participate in nonwork-related 
courses, after accounting for
other factors. Thus, although the widespread increase in participation 
in adult education has been accompanied
by an elimination of some inequities, in many cases the highly educated 
and high status
groups that have been the traditional beneficiaries of adult education 
remain the main beneficiaries
today."

Participation Trends and Patterns
in Adult Education: 1991 to 1999
N A T I O N A L C E N T E R F O R E D U C A T I O N STAT I S T I C S
Statistical Analysis Report February 2002
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002119

_______________________________________________
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


From RBickerton at doe.mass.edu  Sun Mar 31 18:40:05 2002
From: RBickerton at doe.mass.edu (Bickerton, Robert P)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:40:05 -0500
Subject: [NLA] Info: Troubling Signs of Groups Being Left Behind
Message-ID: <DE4FCD18CD7FD4118C8C00D0B774DDA405BE789A@doe.mass.edu>

David, et al,

I believe we will need to dig deeper into these numbers before accepting the
explanation that NCES provides.  Several states, including California,
reported reduced numbers of ABE students enrolled in ESOL, literacy to ASE
in program year 2000, but higher numbers of hours of instruction.  Even a
small shift in numbers of students served in California has a pronounced
effect on national totals and averages, particularly among Latino adults.
This list has debated the tension between "quantity" and "quality" of
services in the past.  I believe this may be a major factor in the shift
NCES has detected and am not prepared to lament this change until we can
understand it in more depth.

take care,
bob bickerton, MA director of adult ed

-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Rosen [mailto:DJRosen at theworld.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 12:07 PM
To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
Subject: [NLA] Info: Troubling Signs of Groups Being Left Behind


NLA Colleagues,

The National Center for Education Statistics released a report in 
February on participation rates in adult education from 1991-1999. The 
good news is that, overall, participation increased, but take a look at 
the summary below, especially the last sentence. There is troubling news 
for those who serve Latinos, adults with lower levels of education, 
and/or adults who are low-income.

Summary

The increase in participation in adult education found in this report is 
not new. What is new is evidence
of the breadth of this increase. Virtually every group of adults 
examined increased their participation in
adult education between 1991 and 1999, often in ways that reduced 
disparities in participation that had
existed in 1991. But a closer look at participation in specific 
activities reveals some troubling signs of
groups being left behind--especially Hispanics, those with lower levels 
of education, those with lower
status jobs, and those who are employed part time. Even after accounting 
for other factors, all of these
groups have relatively low rates of participation in work-related 
courses, an adult education activity
that is likely to have economic payoffs. Adults with lower levels of 
education also are less likely than
those with higher levels of education to participate in nonwork-related 
courses, after accounting for
other factors. Thus, although the widespread increase in participation 
in adult education has been accompanied
by an elimination of some inequities, in many cases the highly educated 
and high status
groups that have been the traditional beneficiaries of adult education 
remain the main beneficiaries
today."

Participation Trends and Patterns
in Adult Education: 1991 to 1999
N A T I O N A L C E N T E R F O R E D U C A T I O N STAT I S T I C S
Statistical Analysis Report February 2002
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002119

_______________________________________________
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


From sophocles5 at juno.com  Sun Mar 31 23:16:59 2002
From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:16:59 -0800
Subject: [NLA] Call for OERI Re-organization  -- How will Adult 
	Education Research  fare?
Message-ID: <20020331.201700.6398.0.sophocles5@juno.com>

John and others:

There very well may be a need to support the OERI legislation on grounds
of political expediency, though without further examining the issue I'll
adopt an agnostic position.

Still, it would be one thing if the OERI were going to take a broad
eclectic approach on research traditions and methodologies and allowing
work to be judged on its content merits based upon the canonical
traditions of the various academic disciplines that buttress educational
studies. That is definitely not the case.  Rather, the state is taking a
very reductionist  position on what counts and what doesn't count as
legitimate research.  It is entering into the field of defining
legitimate knowledge. That I view as dangerous.  What I find troubling is
the wholesale repudiation of educational scholarship by the USDoE as
asserted in those three irresponsible sentences in the draft Strategic
Plan which has been carried over into the actual Plan. Recall the
statement by the USDoE:

"Unlike medicine, agriculture, and industrial production, the field of
education operates largely on the basis of ideology and professional
consensus.  As such, it is subject to fads and is incapable of cumulative
progress that follows from the application of the scientific method and
from the systematic collection and use of objective information in policy
making" (p. 48, draft document).

This has been discussed.  What I find pernicious is that the actual
content of said scholarship is not examined, but is brushed aside
wholesale.  It is brushed aside not because it is not based on
substantial scholarship, but because the USDoE doesn't like the politics
from which such scholarship is based.  If not, fine, but critique the
work on its merits.   It is more than a little disingenuous to make such
a wholesale dismissal and to place it in a document that purports to
support evidence-based "rigorous" scientific research.  

One wonders what the "hidden curriculum" is beneath such rhetoric.  I
believe we are entering into an Orwellian state of thought control,
something historically, that Republicans have repudiated.  THis is not
just politics as usual. but politics with a strong ideological mission to
eradicate the influence of the 60s and the progressive legacy upon which
it was based.

To state it in other terms, by ruling out progressive educational
scholarship on the dubious grounds that it is not methodologically
rigorous is an intrusion of the state into areas where it does not
belong.  This is detrimental to the vitality of a vigorous democratic
citizenry as well as to that of sound scholarship and good educational
practice.   It is also placing in jeopardy at least in spirit if not in
letter the 1st Amendment.  This is particularly ironic given the strong
profession of patriotism as an American value that the Bush
administration purports to advocate.  There is much in the USDoE
Strategic Plan that is easily deconstructable, though on scholarship no
longer viewed as sufficiently evidence-based and "rigorous."  Let
scholarship meet scholarship on its own ground without artificial
handicaps from the state.

Which educational scholarship specifically, is being threatened by this
latest effort of the state to define the sphere of legitimate knowledge? 
Broadly speaking, anything to do with constructivism is the target.  One
of the major targets is the notion of  learning as an inquiry process
between the learner, the text, and the content.  Rejecting the notion
that learners are active processors of knowledge, the neoconservative
standard-bearers claim that what students need to do is learn the
received content.  

Thus, objective subject mastery of the received tradition, including
traditionally centered US history is what students need to focus on. 
Never mind diverse and conflicting interpretations over such issues as
slavery, immigration, or other contentious matters.  Never mind the rich
and highly contentious body of scholarship on US history which profoundly
challenges the operative assumptions of "traditional" US history.  

The mastery of the basic facts is what should be focused on and these can
be measured by objective means through standardized test scores. This and
the promotion of patriotism is what US history should be about.  Besides,
our students need heros more than they need the "insights" of contentious
left wing academicians.  Anything else, such as inquiry-based learning
drawing deeply from student knowledge and experience is to succumb to
faddism, guruism and ideology. 

 Some of the major educational figures being repudiated from this point
of view are:

John Dewey.
L.I Vygotsky
Paulo Freire
bell hooks
Robert Kegan
Jack Mezirow
Howard Gardner
Sylvia Scribner

That's quite a body of work represented by these major figures and those
who have been influenced by them.  It is also is a repudiation,
implicitly of much key work in adult literacy education over the past 30
years.

It may or may not be strategically necessary from a policy perspective to
accept the legislation, though on grounds of educational scholarship the
current USDoE needs to be profoundly challenged.  And such criticism
can't be confined to the reservation (aka, the university), but needs to
be made in the public sector.

Notwithstanding its own rhetoric to the contrary, it is the Bush USDoE
that is seeking to destabilize 100 years of cumulative progressive
research extending back to Dewey's Child and the Curriculum.  Allowing
that to happen would be a great travesty.  

George Demetrion
Sophocles5 at juno.com


On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:03:37 -0500 comingjo <comingjo at gse.harvard.edu>
writes:
>The House version of the OERI legislation has passed in its committee 
>and though I haven't read it through yet, I'm told that it does continue

>support  for the R&D Centers program that funds NCSALL.  The Senate
committee 
>will take this up on April 30th in hearings.  I think Kennedy will
support the R&D Centers.  OERI does need reorganization and when it is
reorganized, it will probably receive more funding, and so we should
support reorganization.
>
>My concern is this: The new structure will have separate "Institutes"
for research, dissemination, evaluation, and education statistics (like
NALS). The head of each institute will be a k-12 researcher. ABE will get
little or no attention.  The only reason OERI is funding NCSALL (and NCAL
before us) is because two Congressmen Goodling and Sawyer) told them they
had to do it. 

Goodling, Sawyer, and Kennedy have weighed in several times to look after
our 
>interests over the last 10+ years.  Goodling is now gone.  I feel we
need some language in the bill that identifies ABE, adult ESOL, and ASE
programs and students as a required area of OERI's work and that each
"institute" must have a staff person who has experience and expertise in
our field. If there is no ABE person, the institute will not pay
attention to our concerns.
>
 I think our field needs an integrated OERI institute in which research,
dissemination, evaluation, and statistics are linked together.  This goes
against the existing House bill, but I just don't see a structure run by
K-12 researchers working for us.
>
>I would, of course, like the R&D Centers program to continue, but the
field's concern should be "How will the ABE/ESOL/ASE field get the
attention it deserves in OERI."  I think it will only get that attention
if OERI hires several researchers whose careers are in our field and
that, for our field, research, dissemination, evaluation, and statistics
are coordinated, which in a federal agency means that one person would be
in charge of them.


________________________________________________________________
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