[NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02

Fri Mar 22 18:10:03 EST 2002

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.htm