[NLA] NLA: New NCSALL Publication

[comingjo]

NCSALL has just put up a new report (#23 “The First Five Years”) on our 
website (http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu). This report summarizes the first five 
years of our work. Tom Sticht has recently criticized some wording on our 
Website’s homepage, and so I thought I would try to set out how this new 
report fits into our communications effort.

The Website homepage statement is a promotional piece that draws on our 
research but is meant to interest a non-research audience in what we do.

Report #23 is a summary for non-researchers that describes the first five 
years of our research and other activities and then puts the knowledge gained 
into lessons learned. The lessons learned section is something that 
practitioners and other non-researchers have been asking us to do: to state 
what we thing our research says about the goals of our system, the people we 
serve, ways to improve practice, and ways to improve the system. Report #23 
explains the general statement made on the Website homepage.

Report #23, though, is a summary drawn from many different reports and journal 
articles.  Researchers and interested practitioners are urged to read those 
documents to gain a fuller understanding of what we learned and how we learned 
it.

Tom criticized the estimate of the size of our target population and the 
statement about goals for our system.

The 42% of the working age cohort (18-64 years of age) came from both the NALS 
and other sources.  We got to 42% by identifying that 5% of the cohort do not 
speak English well, 17% speak English well but do not have a high school 
diploma or a GED, and 20% speak English well and have a high school diploma or 
GED but have literacy and math skills are at NALS level 1 and 2. We chose the 
age range and the three groups by working with a labor economist. We started 
with an age cohort that included most of the workers in the US and then looked 
at which subgroups were not competing well for good paying jobs with benefits.
 The studies we looked at supported our position that in the US, workers need 
to speak English well, have a high school diploma or GED, complete two years 
of postsecondary education or training, and have NALS Level 1 or 2 skills if 
they want to do well.  We noted the criticism of the NALS put forward by Tom 
Sticht and Andy Kolstad, but the NALS levels were set by an expert panel and 
the existing research employed those levels.  The National Academy of Science 
is convening an expert panel to revisit the NALS levels. They may reaffirm or 
change the NALS levels, but for now we have to work with what we have.  Of 
course there are workers who are over the age of 64 and under the age of 18, 
ut, our labor economist urged us to focus on the 18-64 because it makes a 
stronger case. Also, there are workers who don’t speak English, who are high 
school dropouts or who have NALS Level 1 and 2 skills who have good jobs, but 
most do not and improving their skills and acquiring credentials will help 
them compete for better jobs.

We wanted to broaden the definition of impact past income to other aspects of 
life and so looked at the available evidence on the other EFF-defined roles of 
family member and citizen/community member.  We found evidence that supported 
the contention that people who fall into those three groups are at a 
disadvantage in these roles as well. NCSALL is putting forth a position that 
these three groups should have access to educational services that will help 
them learn to speak English well, acquire a GED (or its equivalent), improve 
their literacy and math skills to NALS Level 3, acquire or improve the other 
skills identified by EFF, SCANS, and Murnane and Levy’s “New Basic Skills” and 
prepare to be successful in postsecondary education and training programs. We 
are saying that this should be the goal of our system. This is a higher goal 
than being employed.

On the homepage we say "reach their full potential" to acknowledge that adults 
students decide what they want to learn and that education has valuable 
outcomes that don't fall into our narrow definition.  "
reach their full 
potential" is a metaphor.

Rather than an argument about NALS Levels, I would be interested in hearing 
whether or not the vision set forth in the "lessons learned" section of Report 
#23 makes sense to NLA participants.  If not, could you suggest a better way 
to describe the goals of the system and the populations we are trying to 
serve.  Keep in mind that what we put forward is not a complete description 
but a way of describing what our field of education does in language that is 
easily understood, accurate, and encompasses most of what we do but not 
everything. I would also be interested to hear if the rest of the Lessons 
Learned section makes sense to you and hear alternative ways to look at the 
findings from our studies.

I have been speaking to the health establishment and the business 
establishment using the language of this report, and I get a favorable 
response.  Health and business leaders say that their professional experience 
supports our position. These two groups are willing to support educational 
services for our students. However, they want us to describe the services, and 
they want solid proof that those services work.  NCSALL is now ready to turn 
more of its attention to giving them this proof. I believe it is possible to 
provide solid proof for several subgroups of our students.

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