[NLA] Reply to Bob, David, and Sheryl

[Thomas Sticht]

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