[NLA] Fall From the Summit Continues

[Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council]

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