From jrandall at fedstrategics.com Tue Oct 1 09:28:56 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:28:56 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Re: NIFL Letter/One or Two Choices? Message-ID: <000401c2694e$7ebaeba0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Last Sunday evening, George Demetrion suggested that our efforts to recommend that the next NIFL Director have some background in adult education begs a question about his/her direction-setting based on theoretical underpinnings (for lack of a better way to sum it up). While I do not disagree with the importance of this issue, in his posting George assumes the current programs will still exist in an Institute run by one of the folks on the Administration's short list. That may not be the case -- things may become as different as day and night at the Institute when a permanent director is installed. We have heard that both candidates may focus exclusively on reading, as the Department seems to be doing now. The possible candidates could phase out existing programs, like EFF and Bridges to Practice or they could terminate them on Day 1. I must emphasize though that this is a worst-case scenario based on conjecture. They could simply refocus them. This letter writing effort sends a message to the Administration and to the Congress. The adult literacy field values the Institute and wants to ensure that the agency continue its important work in adult literacy. In the worst of all possible worlds, the "consensus framework" as George describes EFF, may soon become irrelevant - unless we all send this message. I should point out that George (and possibly others in Hartford) delivered Rep. John Larson as a co-signer of the letter in the House. Way to go George! Folks in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, and Rhode Island can help us get a letter started in the Senate. If just one Republican Senator -- Specter, DeWine, Frist or Chafee - agrees to join Senator Breaux in taking the lead on the Senate letter we'll be good to go. If your Congressperson hasn't agreed to sign the Sawyer-Walsh letter, speak with his/her education LA (legislative assistant) and urge that his/her boss do so. Hang onto the letter to your Congressperson. As soon as we have lead sponsors for a Senate letter, you can readdress it and send it to both your Senators. Stay tuned and keep up the good work! Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 jrandall at fedstrategics.com Tue Oct 1 12:19:28 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:19:28 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- 33 Co-signers and Counting Message-ID: <001801c26966$515179f0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> This morning, John Tierney (D-MA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Karen McCarthy (D-MO) all agreed to sign the letter regarding the National Institute for Literacy. NIFL Letter in the House, Co-signers (33) California ... Sam Farr; Bob Filner; Barbara Lee; Juanita Millendar-McDonald; George Miller Connecticut ... John Larson Illinois ... Lane Evans; TIM JOHNSON; RAY LAHOOD Kentucky ... ANNE NORTHRUP Massachusetts ... Michael Capuano; Barney Frank; Edward Markey; John Tierney Maryland ... Albert Wynn Michigan ... Dale Kildee Missouri ... Karen McCarthy New Jersey ... Rush Holt New York ... JOHN MCHUGH; Edolphus Towns; JAMES WALSH*; Anthony Weiner Ohio ... Sherrod Brown; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Thomas Sawyer*; Ted Strickland Pennsylvania ... William Coyne; Mike Doyle; Joseph Hoeffel Rhode Island ... James Langevin; ROB SIMMONS Texas ... Max Sandlin Washington ... Rick Larsen * Sponsors of this group letter to the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and HHS This is great! Keep it up! Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.com _______________________________________________ NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy http://literacytent.org From jrandall at fedstrategics.com Tue Oct 1 12:30:11 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:30:11 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- Education LA's Message-ID: <001a01c26967$d095a050$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Reps. Sawyer and Walsh will email the offices of Congresspersons you all have contacted, based on your feedback. To facilitate this, I sent them a list of the education LA's (legislative assistants) for each of the offices. In case you haven't followed up yet, here's who to call. (The Capitol Switchboard number is 202.224.3121) Education LA name is in parenthesis after each Congressperson. Republican Congresspersons are in all caps. California ... RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM (Erin Strawn); Susan Davis (Donna Smith); Anna Eshoo(Megan O'Reiley); DUNCAN HUNTER (Tom Porter); DARRELL ISSA (David Tebbe) Georgia ... JOHNNY ISAKSON (Glee Smith); John Lewis (Tammy Boyd); JOHN LINDER (Heather Bailey); Cynthia McKinney (Eric Lausten) Illinois ... Mark Kirk (Sage Lansing); John Shimkus (Bill Olson) Iowa ... TOM LATHAM (Kevin Berents) Louisiana ... William Jefferson (Lionel Collins); DAVID VITTER (Greg Facchiano) Maine ... Thomas Allen (Anne Nadzo); John Baldacci (Ashley Martinage) Massachusetts ... Stephen Lynch (Kerry McGinn); James McGovern (Cindy Buhl); Marty Meehan (Suzanne DuMont); Richard Neal (Dan Houton); JOHN OLVER (Matt Gillmeister) Maryland ... Benjamin Cardin (Amy Daiger) Minnesota ... Martin Sabo (Lisa Tomlinson) Missouri ... TODD AKIN (April Foster); ROY BLUNT (Annissa McDonald); Richard Gephardt (Matt Davis) Montana ... DENNIS REHBERG (Amy Astin) New Hampshire ... CHARLES BASS (James Martin) New Jersey ... Steve Rothman (Rob Zucker); JIM SAXTON (Elise Kenderian) New Mexico ... Thomas Udall (Minnie Frias) North Carolina ... David Price (Susan Carr) Ohio ... JOHN BOEHNER (John Dobrozsi); STEVE CHABOT (Amy Spolrich); DAVID HOBSON (Ryan Guag); ROB PORTMAN (Jan Oliver); DEBORAH PRYCE (Brian Quintenz); RALPH REGULA (Lori Rowley); PAT TIBERI (John Keeling) Oregon ... Earl Blumenhauer Freya Thoreson); David Wu (Brian Branton) Pennsylvania ... Robert Brady (Teri Morgan); Frank Mascara (Libby Adray; DON SHERWOOD (Teresa Baker) Rhode Island ... Patrick Kennedy (Brain Vigue) South Dakota ... JOHN THUNE (Rhett Butler) Tennessee ... JOHN DUNCAN (Scott Fischer) Texas ... HENRY BONILLA (Mary Pearson); LARRY COMBEST (Lisa Turner); Lloyd Doggett (Ron Eritano); Gene Green (Sharon Scribner); Sheila Jackson Lee (Sophia King); Silvestre Reyes (Phillip LoPiccolo) Vermont ... Bernie Sanders (Michael Behan) I spoke with a few of these folks myself, but there's substitute for call from a constituent! Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 jrandall at fedstrategics.com Tue Oct 1 16:26:40 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:26:40 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- We're Up to 37! Message-ID: <003301c26988$da94f8a0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> The latest cosigners include: Stephen Lynch (D-MA), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD); William Jefferson (D-LA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). Fantastic folks! Who thought 44 wasn't doable yesterday?! If your Congressperson isn't on the list below, continue to make those follow up phone calls. NIFL Letter in the House, Co-signers (37) California ... Sam Farr; Bob Filner; Barbara Lee; Juanita Millendar-McDonald; George Miller Connecticut ... John Larson Illinois ... Lane Evans; TIM JOHNSON; RAY LAHOOD Kentucky ... ANNE NORTHRUP Louisiana ... William Jefferson Massachusetts ... Michael Capuano; Barney Frank; Stephen Lynch; Edward Markey; John Tierney Maryland ... Benjamin Cardin; Albert Wynn Michigan ... Dale Kildee Missouri ... Karen McCarthy New Jersey ... Rush Holt New York ... JOHN MCHUGH; Edolphus Towns; JAMES WALSH*; Anthony Weiner Ohio ... Sherrod Brown; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Thomas Sawyer*; Ted Strickland Oregon ... Earl Blumenauer Pennsylvania ... William Coyne; Mike Doyle; Joseph Hoeffel Rhode Island ... James Langevin; ROB SIMMONS Texas ... Max Sandlin Washington ... Rick Larsen * Sponsors of this group letter to the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and HHS Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 MTAIT at laubach.org Tue Oct 1 17:20:03 2002 From: MTAIT at laubach.org (MTAIT) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:20:03 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Press Release: The Merger of Laubach Literacy and LVA Message-ID: CONTACT: Bethel House Kogut, (bkogut at proliteracy.org) (315) 422-9121, Ext. 353 OR: Tracy Carman (tcarman at proliteracy.org) (315) 422-9121, Ext. 374 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE LITERACY GIANTS MERGE TO FORM PROLITERACY WORLDWIDE SYRACUSE, NEW YORK, October 1, 2002-The merger of the world's two largest adult volunteer literacy organizations is complete and Laubach Literacy International and Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc. have become ProLiteracy Worldwide. ProLiteracy Worldwide has programs in 45 developing countries as well as in the U.S. where it represents some 1,450 adult volunteer literacy organizations. ProLiteracy serves more than 350,000 adult new learners around the world each year. Its purpose is to sponsor educational programs and services to empower adults and their families by assisting them to acquire the literacy practices and skills they need to function more effectively in their daily lives and participate in the transformation of their societies. ProLiteracy's publishing division, New Readers Press, produces and distributes approximately 500 titles of adult educational books and materials to literacy organizations, schools, libraries, and other institutions nationwide. New Readers Press also publishes News for You, a weekly newspaper for adult new readers, which is read by 90,000 adult learners. According to Robert Wedgeworth, president of ProLiteracy Worldwide, "This merger will bring incalculable benefits to the programs and people we serve around the world. Our goals are first and foremost to raise public awareness of the adult literacy cause and -MORE- Literacy Giants Merge to Form ProLiteracy Worldwide -2 to influence public policy and funding. ProLiteracy Worldwide will make a substantial contribution to improving adult literacy during UNESCO's Decade of Literacy, 2003-2012." "A merger of this scale and scope is unprecedented in the literacy field," said Marsha L. Tait, senior vice president of programs and services and former president of Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc. "Until now literacy advocates have not spoken with one voice on behalf of adult learners-either internationally or domestically." In the United States, one in four adults function at the lowest literacy level. Abroad, more than 877 million adults are functionally illiterate. Adults with low literacy skills experience social, economic, and personal challenges that compromise their abilities to support themselves, to help their children in school, and to fully participate in society. Laubach Literacy International was founded in 1955 by world literacy pioneer Dr. Frank C. Laubach and Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc. was founded by Ruth Colvin in Syracuse, New York, in 1962. Marsha L. Tait Senior Vice President of Programs and Services ProLiteracy Worldwide Chair, National Coalition for Literacy 1320 Jamesville Ave. Syracuse, NY 13210 315-422-9121 X322 http://www.proliteracy.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 From jrandall at fedstrategics.com Tue Oct 1 19:02:28 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:02:28 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- We end this day with 38! Message-ID: <003b01c2699e$9def7360$6401a8c0@cp186366c> We've got until the end of the day Thursday to add to this total. James McGovern (D-MA) is the latest to sign on. Thanks to those from Connecticut who rescued a wayward Rob Simmons. He belonged in Connecticut, but I had him lost in Rhode Island on the list in my previous posting! :) NIFL Letter in the House, Co-signers (38) California ... Sam Farr; Bob Filner; Barbara Lee; Juanita Millendar-McDonald; James McGovern; George Miller Connecticut ... John Larson; ROB SIMMONS Illinois ... Lane Evans; TIM JOHNSON; RAY LAHOOD Kentucky ... ANNE NORTHRUP Louisiana ... William Jefferson Massachusetts ... Michael Capuano; Barney Frank; Stephen Lynch; Edward Markey; John Tierney Maryland ... Benjamin Cardin; Albert Wynn Michigan ... Dale Kildee Missouri ... Karen McCarthy New Jersey ... Rush Holt New York ... JOHN MCHUGH; Edolphus Towns; JAMES WALSH*; Anthony Weiner Ohio ... Sherrod Brown; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Thomas Sawyer*; Ted Strickland Oregon ... Earl Blumenauer Pennsylvania ... William Coyne; Mike Doyle; Joseph Hoeffel Rhode Island ... James Langevin Texas ... Max Sandlin Washington ... Rick Larsen * Sponsors of this group letter to the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and HHS Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 Oct 1 22:34:11 2002 From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:34:11 -0700 Subject: [NLA] Re: NIFL Letter/One or Two Choices? References: <000401c2694e$7ebaeba0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Message-ID: <20021001.193420.6870.0.sophocles5@juno.com> Jon and others: The effort in CT's First Congressional District was a collective effort. Carl Guerriere, Director of the Literacy Council of Greater Hartford got the word out to various programs. Thanks to Carl's advocacy in particular, Rep. Larson heard from several people and responded appropriately. On EFF as a consensus framework, that's not my perception, but the stated purpose of EFF as articulated by EFF developers and NIFL's former director throughout the 1990s. I could cite chapter and verse, but will refrain. To argue otherwise would be an egregious form of revisionist history. Whether EFF should serve that purpose is another matter. However, any denial on the stated purpose of EFF in the goal of bringing unity to the field through a quest for an agreed upon consensus based upon the Role Maps and the Standards would be an exercise in bad faith. If there is any instability it is that of the incapacity of carrying forth policy from one administration to the next and not in the EFF framework or of the intention of its framers and developers. I would simply add that it is unconscionable for an agency like NIFL to boldly proclaim an initiative like EFF as the means by which to bring national unity to a fragmented field and then to marginalize or negate that claim as the political climate in DC changes. Far be it from me to be the spokesperson about this. Perhaps we can hear a voice of clarity from the chief architect of the EFF project On a related point, is the concern that whoever the new director is to be, the focus of NIFL will be exclusively on reading. That represents not only a profound reduction on how literacy has been defined by a broad array of scholarship stemming back to Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed (sorry for mentioning this text in our quest for national unity on the verge of a Presidential act of aggression on the sovereign state of Iraq) and Sticht's research on workplace literacy extending back to the late 1960s. Such scholarship and other literature has influenced a profound school of adult literacy studies during the 1980s and 1990s, including the work of Allan Quigley, Susan Lytle, Hanna Fingeret, Elsa Auerbach, Tom Valentine, Hal Beder, Juliet Merrifield and others much of which has enfused the operative assumptions of the EFF project. How soon we forget! More fundamentally, how that which has been viewed as valid and legitimate scholarship on adult literacy education gets marginalized by a neo-conservative onslaught on the verge of reducing literacy to reading and defining reading as fundamentally an act of phonemic mastery. All in the name of science rather than, say, politics. Thus, when you say, "things may become as different as day and night at the Institute when a permanent director is installed," you've said a mouthful. This is not just a matter of internal managerial reorganization, but of a profound political reconstruction of the politics of adult literacy in the United States of America in an administration on the verge of waging a preemptive war against a two-bit dictator, for reasons that are far from clear or noble. Things may be different indeed, during the next NIFL administration, perhaps including a challenge of the constructivist learning principles that have grounded the EFF project since its inception and the impact of such learning on an array of complex family. workplace, and community settings as articulated in the Key Activities of each of the Role Maps. Are these complex dimensions of contextual literacy learning off the table now to keep the focus of NIFL sharply attuned to reading based on the narrow definition of the phonemic first perspective? This is more than a passing concern. It goes to the core of how adult literacy education has been portrayed in a wide body of scholarly literature over the past thirty years. Is this scholarship now to be off the table too, in the new era of scientific research? One can draw that conclusion in the USDoE's Strategic Plan in the section on research and its three-sentence dismissal of 100 years of educational research. One also wonders about Lincs and of the listservsvs themselves? Are they, too, up for radical change or even elimination in the new era of enlightened reform and scientific-based research in the need to keep focused on the new priority, reading? Discriminating minds want to know. How should the field respond to the new era, one voice or several? I recommend the latter. While it is more than reasonable among those who seek to effect immediate policy change to accept the dominant paradigm articulated by the Administration, it becomes more imperative than ever that a more radical voice speak unfettered as well in the capacity to challenge (where warranted) the most fundamental assumptions of the current DC vision. Thirty years of scholarship and informed practice demand no less. Dialogue and serious engagement with the views of the Administration where warranted. Direct challenge, advocacy, and counterargument where that is warranted as well. Can the democracy of the United States of America stand such a level of public discourse as the land of literacy enters a new era or will censorship, revisionist history, and newspeak prevail to bring silence or conformity to that land? Ms. or Mr. Director, whoever you may be, are you ready to engage the field with serious discussion or will propaganda and neo-conservative logic prevail? Though my speech is sharp and polemic in this message, I am more than willing to engage in serious engagement at the level of honest, open discourse and of the probing of the broad range of scholarship that marks the field of adult literacy education. 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 sophocles5 at juno.com Wed Oct 2 09:21:20 2002 From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 06:21:20 -0700 Subject: [NLA] A clarifying note References: <000401c2694e$7ebaeba0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> <20021001.193420.6870.0.sophocles5@juno.com> Message-ID: <20021002.062120.6398.0.sophocles5@juno.com> Nothing I said in last night's message is meant to dismiss the important work of advocacy that Jon Randall is leading. I raise issues, to be sure, issues which may well characterize the politics of adult literacy for several years to come as the neo-conservative educational vision of the Bush administration begins to shape federal policy in our field. Nonetheless, the choice of directors very well may be a choice that matters and even if not, the mobilization that Jon has inspired is an important psychic victory in showing the field's capacity to move when appropriately inspired, or more often, challenged to its core with extinctioon or marginalization. So, with Jon and others, I encourage all to do what they can to influence Congress in putting pressure on the Administration to select as director the candidate with adult literacy/education experience. The ideological and political concerns I raise, are major, in my view, but they can be addressed over time. 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 eileeneckert at hotmail.com Wed Oct 2 09:15:59 2002 From: eileeneckert at hotmail.com (Eileen Eckert) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:15:59 +0000 Subject: [NLA] A clarifying note Message-ID: Jon and David's efforts to lead an advocacy campaign are turning into a learning experience for me. As we move closer to the possibility of sweeping changes at NIFL and to a war that no one--Republican or Democrat--I've talked to agrees with (but polls say we support!), I'd like to share my reflections (tiresome and trite though they are). When does a democracy cease to be a democracy? When people stop participating? Is it still a government of the people--a democracy--if people are reluctant for any reason to tell their representatives what to do? There are 432 members of the House of Representatives, and less than 10% of them have signed on to the dear colleague letter. It's not a controversial letter. My Republican representative had no trouble signing on to it; it was just a matter of bringing it to the attention of the legislative aide in D.C. and checking back to see if he'd signed on yet. I can't help but think that in many cases, representatives haven't signed on because they don't know about the letter. And they don't know--in some cases--because despite the rhetoric about participatory democracy, many of us are reluctant to contact them (I'm pretty sure there are NLA members in other districts of my state than the 2 whose reps have signed on). When I asked a friend to send an e-mail, she balked. She said she didn't want to stand up and be counted, draw attention to herself (she did it anyway, and our rep. signed on). I felt that reluctance too; I don't understand it, but I felt it. But THEY represent us; this is not a relationship of supplicant to lord. We chose them to act on our behalf, and we need to let them know what we want them to do! And when they do it, or even if they do not, we have to follow up and hold the new NIFL director accountable to us. Ultimately, we are the boss, we are responsible, and we only lose power when we abdicate and leave a vacuum. George's questions about NIFL's accountability to us are just another facet of the same issue of civic participation. If we consider citizenship or civic participation a goal of literacy education for students, we could give some thought to our own participation or lack thereof. Sorry this turned into a lecture; it's aimed at myself as much as anyone. >From: "George E. Demetrion" >Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org >To: nla at lists.literacytent.org >Subject: [NLA] A clarifying note >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 06:21:20 -0700 > >Nothing I said in last night's message is meant to dismiss the important >work of advocacy that Jon Randall is leading. I raise issues, to be >sure, issues which may well characterize the politics of adult literacy >for several years to come as the neo-conservative educational vision of >the Bush administration begins to shape federal policy in our field. >Nonetheless, the choice of directors very well may be a choice that >matters and even if not, the mobilization that Jon has inspired is an >important psychic victory in showing the field's capacity to move when >appropriately inspired, or more often, challenged to its core with >extinctioon or marginalization. > >So, with Jon and others, I encourage all to do what they can to influence >Congress in putting pressure on the Administration to select as director >the candidate with adult literacy/education experience. The ideological >and political concerns I raise, are major, in my view, but they can be >addressed over time. > >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 _________________________________________________________________ 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 PJohns9662 at aol.com Wed Oct 2 10:28:51 2002 From: PJohns9662 at aol.com (PJohns9662 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:28:51 EDT Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- Education LA's Message-ID: <1bf.f4b5df3.2acc5ca3@aol.com> Hi Jon, Just checking in. I was unable to speak to either Sander's (VT) representative or Saxton's (NJ) representative, but I left explicit voice mails with both and left my phone numbers. Hope this and the letters work. Thanks for coordinating this project. Pat Johnston Chair ProLiteracy America's Governance Council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AWilder106 at aol.com Wed Oct 2 12:21:42 2002 From: AWilder106 at aol.com (AWilder106 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:21:42 EDT Subject: [NLA] A clarifying note Message-ID: <38.2ef0bb53.2acc7716@aol.com> Dear Eileen, I am interested in your observations; however, I find it hard to understand and separate out what you mean from what you don't mean, for example, your remark about your own views as "tired and trite." Could this be a regional/cultural difference that shows up in writing to the list? There are a lot of different writing styles, here, that's for sure, reflecting different backgrounds, ways of expressing ideas, and political/advocacy perspectives. 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 jrandall at fedstrategics.com Wed Oct 2 15:26:39 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:26:39 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- We're up to 43 Message-ID: <001801c26a49$a28aafb0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Early this afternoon, the offices of John Olver (D-MA), Thomas Allen (D-ME), David Phelps (D-IL), Charles Bass (R-NH) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) all agreed to sign the Sawyer-Walsh letter. If your Representative hasn't agreed to sign on yet, there's still time to make that follow-up phone call! Reps. Sawyer and Walsh have sent an email to the education LA's for everyone to whom you reported faxing in a request. That alone won't do it though. They need to be jumpstarted by YOUR follow-up calls. ** By my count there are still 47 Congresspersons that have received constituent requests from NLA subscribers that haven't signed on yet! As a field we don't look that good if only half the people we invite actually show up.** PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO MAKE A FOLLOW UP PHONE CALL TO THEM THIS AFTERNOON AND THEN AGAIN TOMORROW AFTERNOON if you don't see their names reported here by 2PM tomorrow. (Capitol Hill Switchboard: 202-224-3121) Yesterday, I posted the names of the education LA's for every Congressperson reported to the NLA as having received a request to sign the Sawyer-Walsh letter. Here they are again ... California ... RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM (Erin Strawn); Susan Davis (Donna Smith); Anna Eshoo (Megan O'Reiley); DUNCAN HUNTER (Tom Porter); DARRELL ISSA (David Tebbe) Georgia ... JOHNNY ISAKSON (Glee Smith); John Lewis (Tammy Boyd); JOHN LINDER (Heather Bailey); Cynthia McKinney (Eric Lausten) Illinois ... Mark Kirk (Sage Lansing); John Shimkus (Bill Olson) Iowa ... TOM LATHAM (Kevin Berents) Louisiana ... DAVID VITTER (Greg Facchiano) Maine ... John Baldacci (Ashley Martinage) Massachusetts ... James McGovern (Cindy Buhl); Marty Meehan (Suzanne DuMont); Richard Neal (Dan Houton) Minnesota ... Martin Sabo (Lisa Tomlinson) Missouri ... TODD AKIN (April Foster); ROY BLUNT (Annissa McDonald); Richard Gephardt (Matt Davis) Montana ... DENNIS REHBERG (Amy Astin) New Hampshire ... CHARLES BASS (James Martin) New Jersey ... Steve Rothman (Rob Zucker); JIM SAXTON (Elise Kenderian) New Mexico ... Thomas Udall (Minnie Frias) North Carolina ... David Price (Susan Carr) Ohio ... JOHN BOEHNER (John Dobrozsi); STEVE CHABOT (Amy Spolrich); DAVID HOBSON (Ryan Guag); ROB PORTMAN (Jan Oliver); DEBORAH PRYCE (Brian Quintenz); RALPH REGULA (Lori Rowley); PAT TIBERI (John Keeling) Oregon ... David Wu (Brian Branton) Pennsylvania ... Robert Brady (Teri Morgan); Frank Mascara (Libby Adray; DON SHERWOOD (Teresa Baker) Rhode Island ... Patrick Kennedy (Brain Vigue) South Dakota ... JOHN THUNE (Rhett Butler) Tennessee ... JOHN DUNCAN (Scott Fischer) Texas ... HENRY BONILLA (Mary Pearson); LARRY COMBEST (Lisa Turner); Lloyd Doggett (Ron Eritano); Gene Green (Sharon Scribner); Sheila Jackson Lee (Sophia King); Silvestre Reyes (Phillip LoPiccolo) NIFL Letter in the House, Co-signers (40) California ... Sam Farr; Bob Filner; Barbara Lee; Juanita Millendar-McDonald; James McGovern; George Miller Connecticut ... John Larson; ROB SIMMONS Illinois ... Lane Evans; TIM JOHNSON; RAY LAHOOD Kentucky ... ANNE NORTHRUP Louisanna ... William Jefferson Maine ... Thomas Allen Massachusetts ... Michael Capuano; Barney Frank; Stephen Lynch; Edward Markey; John Olver; John Tierney Maryland ... Benjamin Cardin; Albert Wynn Michigan ... Dale Kildee Missouri ... Karen McCarthy New Jersey ... Rush Holt New York ... JOHN MCHUGH; Edolphus Towns; JAMES WALSH*; Anthony Weiner Ohio ... Sherrod Brown; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Thomas Sawyer*; Ted Strickland Oregon ... Earl Blumenauer Pennsylvania ... William Coyne; Mike Doyle; Joseph Hoeffel Rhode Island ... James Langevin Texas ... Max Sandlin Washington ... Rick Larsen * Sponsors of this group letter to the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and HHS Thanks to everyone for working on this! You're standing up to be counted and you've convinced your elected officials to do likewise! SUPER! WAY TO GO! Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 resctr2 at ix.netcom.com Wed Oct 2 18:02:26 2002 From: resctr2 at ix.netcom.com (Gloria Gillette) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:02:26 -0400 Subject: [NLA] A clarifying note References: <38.2ef0bb53.2acc7716@aol.com> Message-ID: <002001c26a5f$66205eb0$bc06020a@Gloria> Actually, Andrea, I thought Eileen was quite clear in her writing. Do we practice what we preach when it comes to civic participation? It was a point well taken by me. When does a democracy cease being a democracy? ( a great writing prompt, don't you think?) G. Gillette ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [NLA] A clarifying note > Dear Eileen, > > I am interested in your observations; however, I find it hard to understand > and separate out what you mean from what you don't mean, for example, your > remark about your own views as "tired and trite." Could this be a > regional/cultural difference that shows up in writing to the list? There are > a lot of different writing styles, here, that's for sure, reflecting > different backgrounds, ways of expressing ideas, and political/advocacy > perspectives. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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 AWilder106 at aol.com Thu Oct 3 08:18:10 2002 From: AWilder106 at aol.com (AWilder106 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 08:18:10 EDT Subject: [NLA] A clarifying note Message-ID: Dear Gloria, It is a great writing prompt, especially for an advocacy list. 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 jrandall at fedstrategics.com Thu Oct 3 09:57:21 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:57:21 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- We're up to 45 Message-ID: <000801c26ae4$cbd496b0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> The offices of Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Pat Tiberi (R-OH) this morning agreed to sign the NIFL letter. We're up to 45! NIFL Letter in the House, Co-signers (45) California ... Anna Eshoo; Sam Farr; Bob Filner; Barbara Lee; Juanita Millendar-McDonald; James McGovern; George Miller Connecticut ... John Larson; ROB SIMMONS Illinois ... Lane Evans; TIM JOHNSON; RAY LAHOOD Kentucky ... ANNE NORTHRUP Louisiana ... William Jefferson Maine ... Thomas Allen Massachusetts ... Michael Capuano; Barney Frank; Stephen Lynch; Edward Markey; James McGovern; John Olver; John Tierney Maryland ... Benjamin Cardin; Albert Wynn Michigan ... Dale Kildee Missouri ... Karen McCarthy New Hampshire ... CHARLES BASS New Jersey ... Rush Holt New York ... JOHN MCHUGH; Edolphus Towns; JAMES WALSH*; Anthony Weiner Ohio ... Sherrod Brown; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Thomas Sawyer*; Ted Strickland; PAT TIBERI Oregon ... Earl Blumenauer Pennsylvania ... William Coyne; Mike Doyle; Joseph Hoeffel Rhode Island ... James Langevin Texas ... Max Sandlin Vermont ... Bernie Sanders Washington ... Rick Larsen * Sponsors of this group letter to the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and HHS This is absolutely the last day to get your Congressperson to sign the NIFL letter. If your Congressperson isn't on the list above, please make a follow-up phone call today -- even if you've done so in the last day or two. Thanks to everyone who has helped to deliver the 45 co-signers we do have! Your hard work is greatly appreciated. I just want to push for every last possible co-signer our field can deliver! Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 PJohns9662 at aol.com Thu Oct 3 09:57:47 2002 From: PJohns9662 at aol.com (PJohns9662 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:57:47 EDT Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- We're up to 43 Message-ID: Hi Jon, Latest update. I spoke to Congressman Saxton's office today and they have a call into Walsh's office for more information. Also sent thanks to Congressman Sanders and his aide for signing on. Pat Johnston Chair, Governance Council ProLiteracy America -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KTamarkin at necc.mass.edu Thu Oct 3 10:27:01 2002 From: KTamarkin at necc.mass.edu (Kenneth Tamarkin) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:27:01 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- We're up to 43 References: <001801c26a49$a28aafb0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Message-ID: <004d01c26ae8$f08c5200$9865fea9@INSPIRON8000> I've just called Marty Meehan's office and talked with Suzanne DuMont. She promised to get back to me by the end of the day. Kenny Tamarkin Northeast SABES Lawrence, MA _______________________________________________ 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 jrandall at fedstrategics.com Thu Oct 3 10:39:01 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:39:01 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the Senate -- Chafee is our last hope Message-ID: <000e01c26aea$9dd775b0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Senator Chafee is our last chance. Janet Isserlis and I have been in communication with Chafee's staff. More calls today from RI folks might help. Senator Specter said he'd sign the letter but not take the lead. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) said the same thing weeks ago. Without a Republican joining Senator John Breaux (D-LA) in the lead, there will be no Senate letter. If you're not from RI, keep your fingers crossed. If you are from RI, please call David Morgenstern in Sen. Chafee's office, 202-224-9121. Only calls from RI constituents please. Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 ALCDGG at langate.gsu.edu Thu Oct 3 13:42:47 2002 From: ALCDGG at langate.gsu.edu (Daphne Greenberg) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:42:47 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- Education LA's Message-ID: I have contacted Glee Smith, Johnny Isakson's LA, (GA) and have not been able to get a firm commitment. She knew exactly what I was talking about and that Rep. Isakson has been "thinking it over." I reminded her of the urgency and the time deadline and she promised to call me this afternoon to let me know what he has decided. I will continue to follow-up. Daphne Daphne Greenberg Associate Director Center for the Study of Adult Literacy Georgia State University University Plaza Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 phone: 404-651-0127 fax:404-651-4901 dgreenberg at gsu.edu >>> jrandall at fedstrategics.com 10/01/02 12:30PM >>> Reps. Sawyer and Walsh will email the offices of Congresspersons you all have contacted, based on your feedback. To facilitate this, I sent them a list of the education LA's (legislative assistants) for each of the offices. In case you haven't followed up yet, here's who to call. (The Capitol Switchboard number is 202.224.3121) Education LA name is in parenthesis after each Congressperson. Republican Congresspersons are in all caps. California ... RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM (Erin Strawn); Susan Davis (Donna Smith); Anna Eshoo(Megan O'Reiley); DUNCAN HUNTER (Tom Porter); DARRELL ISSA (David Tebbe) Georgia ... JOHNNY ISAKSON (Glee Smith); John Lewis (Tammy Boyd); JOHN LINDER (Heather Bailey); Cynthia McKinney (Eric Lausten) Illinois ... Mark Kirk (Sage Lansing); John Shimkus (Bill Olson) Iowa ... TOM LATHAM (Kevin Berents) Louisiana ... William Jefferson (Lionel Collins); DAVID VITTER (Greg Facchiano) Maine ... Thomas Allen (Anne Nadzo); John Baldacci (Ashley Martinage) Massachusetts ... Stephen Lynch (Kerry McGinn); James McGovern (Cindy Buhl); Marty Meehan (Suzanne DuMont); Richard Neal (Dan Houton); JOHN OLVER (Matt Gillmeister) Maryland ... Benjamin Cardin (Amy Daiger) Minnesota ... Martin Sabo (Lisa Tomlinson) Missouri ... TODD AKIN (April Foster); ROY BLUNT (Annissa McDonald); Richard Gephardt (Matt Davis) Montana ... DENNIS REHBERG (Amy Astin) New Hampshire ... CHARLES BASS (James Martin) New Jersey ... Steve Rothman (Rob Zucker); JIM SAXTON (Elise Kenderian) New Mexico ... Thomas Udall (Minnie Frias) North Carolina ... David Price (Susan Carr) Ohio ... JOHN BOEHNER (John Dobrozsi); STEVE CHABOT (Amy Spolrich); DAVID HOBSON (Ryan Guag); ROB PORTMAN (Jan Oliver); DEBORAH PRYCE (Brian Quintenz); RALPH REGULA (Lori Rowley); PAT TIBERI (John Keeling) Oregon ... Earl Blumenhauer Freya Thoreson); David Wu (Brian Branton) Pennsylvania ... Robert Brady (Teri Morgan); Frank Mascara (Libby Adray; DON SHERWOOD (Teresa Baker) Rhode Island ... Patrick Kennedy (Brain Vigue) South Dakota ... JOHN THUNE (Rhett Butler) Tennessee ... JOHN DUNCAN (Scott Fischer) Texas ... HENRY BONILLA (Mary Pearson); LARRY COMBEST (Lisa Turner); Lloyd Doggett (Ron Eritano); Gene Green (Sharon Scribner); Sheila Jackson Lee (Sophia King); Silvestre Reyes (Phillip LoPiccolo) Vermont ... Bernie Sanders (Michael Behan) I spoke with a few of these folks myself, but there's substitute for call from a constituent! Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 ALCDGG at langate.gsu.edu Thu Oct 3 14:55:32 2002 From: ALCDGG at langate.gsu.edu (Daphne Greenberg) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 14:55:32 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Isakson says he will sign! Message-ID: I just got a call from Glee. Johnny Isakson has agreed to sign the letter!!!!! Apparently, the letter will arrive in his office tomorrow for his signature. Daphne >>> ALCDGG at langate.gsu.edu 10/03/02 01:42PM >>> I have contacted Glee Smith, Johnny Isakson's LA, (GA) and have not been able to get a firm commitment. She knew exactly what I was talking about and that Rep. Isakson has been "thinking it over." I reminded her of the urgency and the time deadline and she promised to call me this afternoon to let me know what he has decided. I will continue to follow-up. Daphne Daphne Greenberg Associate Director Center for the Study of Adult Literacy Georgia State University University Plaza Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 phone: 404-651-0127 fax:404-651-4901 dgreenberg at gsu.edu >>> jrandall at fedstrategics.com 10/01/02 12:30PM >>> Reps. Sawyer and Walsh will email the offices of Congresspersons you all have contacted, based on your feedback. To facilitate this, I sent them a list of the education LA's (legislative assistants) for each of the offices. In case you haven't followed up yet, here's who to call. (The Capitol Switchboard number is 202.224.3121) Education LA name is in parenthesis after each Congressperson. Republican Congresspersons are in all caps. California ... RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM (Erin Strawn); Susan Davis (Donna Smith); Anna Eshoo(Megan O'Reiley); DUNCAN HUNTER (Tom Porter); DARRELL ISSA (David Tebbe) Georgia ... JOHNNY ISAKSON (Glee Smith); John Lewis (Tammy Boyd); JOHN LINDER (Heather Bailey); Cynthia McKinney (Eric Lausten) Illinois ... Mark Kirk (Sage Lansing); John Shimkus (Bill Olson) Iowa ... TOM LATHAM (Kevin Berents) Louisiana ... William Jefferson (Lionel Collins); DAVID VITTER (Greg Facchiano) Maine ... Thomas Allen (Anne Nadzo); John Baldacci (Ashley Martinage) Massachusetts ... Stephen Lynch (Kerry McGinn); James McGovern (Cindy Buhl); Marty Meehan (Suzanne DuMont); Richard Neal (Dan Houton); JOHN OLVER (Matt Gillmeister) Maryland ... Benjamin Cardin (Amy Daiger) Minnesota ... Martin Sabo (Lisa Tomlinson) Missouri ... TODD AKIN (April Foster); ROY BLUNT (Annissa McDonald); Richard Gephardt (Matt Davis) Montana ... DENNIS REHBERG (Amy Astin) New Hampshire ... CHARLES BASS (James Martin) New Jersey ... Steve Rothman (Rob Zucker); JIM SAXTON (Elise Kenderian) New Mexico ... Thomas Udall (Minnie Frias) North Carolina ... David Price (Susan Carr) Ohio ... JOHN BOEHNER (John Dobrozsi); STEVE CHABOT (Amy Spolrich); DAVID HOBSON (Ryan Guag); ROB PORTMAN (Jan Oliver); DEBORAH PRYCE (Brian Quintenz); RALPH REGULA (Lori Rowley); PAT TIBERI (John Keeling) Oregon ... Earl Blumenhauer Freya Thoreson); David Wu (Brian Branton) Pennsylvania ... Robert Brady (Teri Morgan); Frank Mascara (Libby Adray; DON SHERWOOD (Teresa Baker) Rhode Island ... Patrick Kennedy (Brain Vigue) South Dakota ... JOHN THUNE (Rhett Butler) Tennessee ... JOHN DUNCAN (Scott Fischer) Texas ... HENRY BONILLA (Mary Pearson); LARRY COMBEST (Lisa Turner); Lloyd Doggett (Ron Eritano); Gene Green (Sharon Scribner); Sheila Jackson Lee (Sophia King); Silvestre Reyes (Phillip LoPiccolo) Vermont ... Bernie Sanders (Michael Behan) I spoke with a few of these folks myself, but there's substitute for call from a constituent! Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 _______________________________________________ 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 JATDP at aol.com Thu Oct 3 15:04:45 2002 From: JATDP at aol.com (JATDP at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:04:45 EDT Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- We're up to 43 Message-ID: <51.251cad99.2acdeecd@aol.com> just got word that Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) signed on to the letter this morning. guess this phone calling does work! Judy Titzel Providence. _______________________________________________ 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 jrandall at fedstrategics.com Thu Oct 3 15:11:11 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:11:11 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- 50 and counting! Message-ID: <002901c26b10$a389a1b0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Curt Weldon (R-PA, John Baldacci (D-ME), Gene Green (D-TX), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), and Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) all have agreed to sign on to the Sawyer-Walsh letter. That brings the total up to 50! Way to go folks! Three hours left ... For those of you with Republican Congresspersons, you can tell your Representative's education LA (legislative assistant) that the following Republicans have signed on ... Rob Simmons (CT), Johnny Isakson (GA), Tim Johnson & Ray LaHood (IL), Anne Northrup (KY), Charles Bass (NH), John McHugh & James Walsh (NY), Pat Tiberi (OH), and Curt Weldon (PA) Let's add to this 50 in the remaining hours! Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.com _______________________________________________ NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy http://literacytent.org From jrandall at fedstrategics.com Thu Oct 3 15:27:22 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:27:22 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- We're up to 43 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002c01c26b12$e685ffc0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Thanks Pat, In case you talk to Jim Saxton's office again . Attached is the text of the Sawyer-Walsh letter. Additionally, the following Republicans have agreed to sign the letter thus far: Rob Simmons (CT), Johnny Isakson (GA), Tim Johnson & Ray LaHood (IL), Anne Northrup (KY), Charles Bass (NH), John McHugh & James Walsh (NY), Pat Tiberi (OH), and Curt Weldon (PA) Thanks for all you're doing! Best, Jon Jon Randall FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.com -----Original Message----- From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org [mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org]On Behalf Of PJohns9662 at aol.com Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:58 AM To: nla at lists.literacytent.org Subject: Re: [NLA] NIFL Letter in the House -- We're up to 43 Hi Jon, Latest update. I spoke to Congressman Saxton's office today and they have a call into Walsh's office for more information. Also sent thanks to Congressman Sanders and his aide for signing on. Pat Johnston Chair, Governance Council ProLiteracy America -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NIFLlettertosecretaries.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30208 bytes Desc: not available URL: From KTamarkin at necc.mass.edu Fri Oct 4 09:42:26 2002 From: KTamarkin at necc.mass.edu (Kenneth Tamarkin) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:42:26 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL letter Message-ID: <005d01c26bab$e0e30830$9865fea9@INSPIRON8000> I just heard from Congressman Marty Meehan's office that he has signed on to the NIFL letter. Kenny Tamarkin Northeast SABES Lawrence, MA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sophocles5 at juno.com Sat Oct 5 02:56:49 2002 From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 23:56:49 -0700 Subject: [NLA] A note on scientific based educational research References: <000e01c26aea$9dd775b0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Message-ID: <20021004.235649.6398.0.sophocles5@juno.com> For those who might have an interest and for those who should: In reviewing the important National Research Council's (NRC) publication, "Scientific Research in Education," I came across the following statement: "[Q]uestions such as 'Should all students be required to say the pledge of Allegiance?" cannot be submitted to empirical investigation and thus cannot be examined scientifically. Answers to these questions [that is, those of values] lies in realms other than science" (p. 59). Perhaps so. The issue remains, do such questions lay in the realm of legitimate educational investigation? To provide another example, the current Strategic Plan of the United States Department of Education encourages character education and patriotism. Drawing on the logic of the NRC's publication, the issue of whether these should be highlighted in the K-12 curriculum cannot be investigated empirically because as questions of value, inquiry about them lies in realms other than science. Given that assumption are there other sources of reasoning than science by which to make informed decisions about educational policy? Can the issue of values themselves be subject to a substantial inquiry by communities of scholars, teachers, students, and informed citizens? Does the realm of legitimate educational scholarship lie exclusively or even predominantly in the realm of the sciences? Or might it also reside in the realm of the humanities stemming from the field of history, cultural anthropology, literary discourse theory, political theory, and social philosophy? If the latter fields are also viewed as valid sources of critical scholarly educational investigation, then such issues as requirements about the Pledge or the nature of the curriculum ( questions of profound value) are very much legitimate ones. If science is construed as emphasizing such criteria as "testability," "refutability," "replicability," "objectivity," "reliability," "validity," and viewed as "rigorous," "cumulative," "fact-based," determined by "experimental" and "quasi-experimental design," "random sampling," and the "placebo effect," then such value laden questions about the Pledge, the curriculum or the politics of adult literacy education, are simply viewed as outside the pale of legitimate investigation based on scientific-based educational research. However, if such questions are important dimensions of educational practice and can be investigated by intellectual traditions other than science (and science itself is not as rigid as sometimes perceivedboth by proponents and critics), then those academic disciplines need to be maintained as legitimate realms of scholarship upon which educational studies are formulated. Otherwise, such issues over values cannot be subject to legitimate scholarly inquiry. That I need to say this seems utterly absurd except for the political climate that has landed upon Washington D.C over the past two years. >From a scholarly perspective I intend to examine very thoroughly the NCR's study, "Scientific Research in Education." From what I've read so far, it's a sophisticated document that is bringing much important insight to the field of educational scholarship (Note, I studiously avoid the terminology "research," because the realm of academic scholarship is broader than which is connoted by the term "research." Theory, imagination, values, experience, culture, and yea, even the battered term "ideology" interact in various subtle ways in the canons of the various academic disciplines which make up the realm of what might be viewed as legitimate scholarship). Like it or not, the realm of educational studies cannot (except at its own peril) avoid the reality of the pluralistic and contentious scholarly traditions that make up the canons and research foci of the various academic disciplines, many of which converge in the making up of the field of adult literacy studies in its various and sometimes contested interpretations. In short, educational studies needs to draw on the scientific research tradition as equal opportunity partners with its sister disciplines in the humanities, in the honorific fields of history, literary studies, cultural anthropology, political theory, and social philosophy. Cut these latter disciplines off as not representing serious realms of scholarship or denigrate them by referring to them as not science and you eradicate them from the canon of legitimate investigation. In my view, that would be a profound loss. Of course, strictly speaking, one cannot use such a "subjective" adjective as "profound" in any scientific treatise because it is not objectively descriptive of any empirical reality. Therefore, from the realm of the scientific research tradition, my use of the term "profound," is literally, meaningless. Likewise, the President's inference that Saddam Hussein represents a profound threat to the security of the United States might also be dubbed as meaningless. In short, the term "profound" does not belong in any scientific study of educational research. Neither do questions of the Pledge, or the matter of patriotism as a legitimate value to instill in the curriculum, nor the issue of social justice as that, too, is inherently mired in "ideology" and therefore not the subject of "cumulative" research such as that which characterizes the field of medicine, agriculture, and industrial production. According to current administration visions, educational research is to become a field for mature, cumulative scientific research like the field of medicine, agriculture, and industrial production. Issues to be resolved by research are largely technical, value free, and ideologically neutral. Intuition, imagination, basic human experience, unscientifically-grounded theory construction, ideology and yea, values, themselves are okay for practitioners and those not informed by high-quality research, but they have no basis in scientific investigations of educational research. And when it comes to educational scholarly inquiry, scientific research is the most reliable source of knowledge construction. It's indisputable It says so in the USDoE Strategic Plan. Not that I dismiss the realm of scientific research in education. Far from it. However, neither do I view it as the foundatioonal discilpine. Rather, I view it as one of the dialogue partners in the collective quest for valuable knowledge. I would rather build on the years of scholarship that have already comprised the emergent field of educational studies (even with many questions & problems remaining), while pressing forward toward the progressive problem identification and resolution of current and anticipated issues. I need to stop. It's a shade to midnight George Demetrion sophocles5 at juno.com (Ancient Greek playright, historian, and social philosopher) ________________________________________________________________ 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 alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu Sat Oct 5 08:44:10 2002 From: alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu (Daphne Greenberg) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 08:44:10 -0400 Subject: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? Message-ID: Two weeks ago I visited a volunteer literacy program and heard something very scary from the executive director. For the last few years they have been utilizing Vista workers and recently they received a letter from the Vista office stating that if they cannot draw a link between the work being done in the literacy program and homeland security, the Vista workers would need to be pulled from the organization. I am sharing this for 2 reasons: a. I think people should know. b. I wonder if this represents a beginning of a new focus for our field. Daphne Greenberg Associate Director Center for the Study of Adult Literacy Georgia State University University Plaza Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 phone: 404-651-0127 fax:404-651-4901 dgreenberg at gsu.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 tsticht at znet.com Sat Oct 5 12:29:15 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NLA] Perennial Issues For Adult Literacy Education Message-ID: <1150.207.167.70.127.1033835355.squirrel@la.znet.com> Research Note October 5, 2002 Perennial Issues for the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELs) of the United States Tom Sticht International Consultant in Adult Education A U. S. Department of Education report for Program Year 1999-2000 states that there were 3500 to 4000 programs that year funded in part by the State Grants from Title 2 The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. These programs make up what I call the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States. In PY 1999-2000 this publicly funded education system served close to 2.9 million adults. Since the signing of the Adult Education Act of 1966, which formed the AELS, there have been a half dozen issues, besides the search for more funding, that have consistently been raised as in need of research and action. These include: 1. Determining the Scale of Need: How many adults in the nation (or state/local region) are in need of the services of the AELS or other literacy providers? Or, as is sometimes stated in a military metaphor, what is the size of the "target population" for adult literacy education providers? [Present status: State Grants under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998 are apportioned based on the number of adults 16 years or older who are out of school and do not have a high school diploma. Presently this amounts to some 44 million adults. The National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) identified around 20 percent of adults in Literacy Level 1, the lowest level, giving about 33 million adults ages 16 to 65 with very low literacy. But the NALS data have been declared invalid by the former director of the NALS at the National Center for Education Statistics and he suggests they should be reduced by about half for maximum validity. Self-perceptions of reading problems by the NALS participants resulted in about 7 percent, or around 10 to 14 million adults who said they read not well or not at all.] 2. Participation/Recruitment: What percentage of the target population is being served and how can more adults be recruited to participate in programs? [Present status: From 1998 to 2000 enrolments in the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States, defined as those programs funded in part by the State Grant funds from the AEFLA, fell from 4 million to 2.9 million. Perhaps the million or so adults who were lost from the AELS are being served elsewhere, but there are no statistics known to me on how many adults are being served nation wide in adult literacy programs among the total array of providers.] 3. Retention: How can adults be motivated or otherwise supported to stay in programs long enough to learn a lot more than they usually do? [For decades now it has been difficult to get adults to stay in programs on average for up to 100 hours of instruction. The National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs of 1995 cited an overall median of 58 hours of instruction. ESOL students stayed almost twice as long, on average around 113 hours. Contemporary national data on how retention is defined in the various states and territories, what the retention numbers are, and how they may be chainging due to the implementation of the National Reporting System or other factors are not known to me] 4. Teaching/Facilitating Learning: How to best find out what adults want/need to learn, and how to best teach/help them learn what they want/need to learn? [Present status: In 1998 Victoria Purcel-Gates and associates at NCSALL studied 271 programs and found that most (73%) were traditional teacher-talk, student-listen classes using academic materials not related to student?s lives outside the classroom. Beder & Medina in their 2001 study of 20 classrooms found that most (16) were in the traditional skills oriented, teacher led traditional classroom category. The National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs of 1995 reported that 46 percent of students received instruction in traditional classrooms with a teacher, one percent received instruction with only a tutor, 15 percent had both a classroom and learning lab, and 4 percent used only a learning lab, often with computer based instruction, 34 percent used other combinations of instruction. Many community based, volunteer programs use one-on-one tutoring to the largest extent, as in ProLiteracy Worldwide affiliates. Whether any one or a combination of these methods of teaching is superior to the other(s) is not known to me.] 5. Assessment: How can adult?s knowledge and skills be assessed to better place them in appropriate programs, to determine what special methods or accommodations they might need, and/or to determine whether they are progressing well in their learning? [Present status: National data on placement assessments and accommodations assessment are not known to me. Those programs in the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States must report learning gains using pre and post testing or performance assessments on the National Reporting System. For years numerous pre and post testing studies using standardized tests have tended to show about 5,10 or 15 months of gain in reading in any number of programs in the Job Corps, the military, corrections, in the classrooms of the AELS, and in tutoring programs like those of ProLiteracy America. Examining many studies shows little to no correlation of gains with hours of instruction across the studies.] 6. Outcomes: What happens to adults who have participated in programs after they leave the program? [Present status: The National Reporting System presents data for states and territories in the AELS on percentages of adults who move from the classroom into employment, or into postsecondary education, and who get high school diplomas or GEDs. Similar data have been obtained in the past from AELS programs and they always show a certain percentage of adults in each category. So far, these data have not seemed to have had much of a bearing on any aspect of recruitment, placement, programming,, instruction, assessment or any thing else. This may change in the future if the information is made part of a high stakes assessment system with rewards and punishments for outcomes.] The constant need for more money, and these six issues, seem to me to have occupied the adult education field every since the original signing of the Adult Education Act early in fiscal year 1967. Today, 35 years later at the end of fiscal year 2002, these same issues seem to me to still capture the major policy, research, and practice interests of those working in the AELS. Through activities such as staff development, including teachers as researchers, reports, conferences, and now internet list discussions, the field tries to educate itself about these six issues and what, if any, new knowledge may have been obtained to address these issues. Whether these staff development or other activities have actually improved any aspects of the six issues is not known by me. I?m wondering if any adult educators working in the field have any sense of how our understanding and approaches to these issues may have changed over the years and whether this change has been for the better, for worse, or have things stayed pretty much the same. _______________________________________________ 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 znet.com Sat Oct 5 14:49:10 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NLA] Adult Literacy and Homeland Security Message-ID: <1159.207.167.70.135.1033843750.squirrel@la.znet.com> Research Note September 5, 2002 Thomas G. Sticht International Consultant in Adult Education Adult Education, Literacy Development, and Homeland Security The federalization of security screeners at our nation?s airports has raised questions regarding the value of a high school diploma and various levels of cognitive ability, including literacy ability, in the world of work (see the news article by David Firestone at The New York Times web site Saturday December 29, 2001 03:02 PM EST). Controversy about the high school diploma and what it means has arisen because the regulations that the federal government first put into place for the hiring of airport screeners called for the employment of just high school graduates (HSG). But recently this requirement was modified to make it possible to retain on the job and to hire new employees who are non-high school graduates (NHSG) who can pass certain cognitive tests and have a year of prior, relevant, work experience. The controversy centers on the reports of security experts suggesting that the employment of NHSG employees lowers the quality of the security workforce and increases security risks. This controversy is reminiscent of the controversy over the use of education credentials and cognitive (literacy) test scores that have that have been encountered from time to time in the U. S. military services. The use of the high school graduation indicator of quality results from findings in military research showing that high school graduates with regular four year diplomas have higher first term completion rates than both holders of the General Educational Development (GED) certificate or NHSG, while the GED holders do better than NHSG. However, other research indicates that the effects of HSG or NHSG status or cognitive ability test scores may be different if motivation for service is considered. For instance, the effects of both higher cognitive ability and having a high school diploma may be offset to a large extent by a willingness to delay entry into military service. In one study a first term completion rate of about 75 percent was found for HSG applicants regardless of their cognitive ability or whether they entered into military service right after applying for service or after waiting seven or more months in the delayed entry program. However, for NHSG, it was found that the longer they waited in the delayed entry program after applying for service, the higher their retention rate became. In fact, the lowest cognitive ability, NHSG recruits who waited for seven or more months to enter into active duty had a completion rate of 70 percent, almost as good as higher ability HSG recruits (Sticht, 1992, p. 53). Additional research has shown that in terms of job performance as indicated by either skill qualification tests in the Army or promotion tests in the Navy, NHSG who have stayed in the service through basic training and job technical training may sometimes perform less well, or just as well, or even somewhat better, than HSG in different studies (Sticht, 1992,pp. 57-62). Literacy Education In Defense Despite the generally higher standards for education and basic skills upon entry to the armed services that have been in place for over twenty years, the Department of Defense (DoD) still maintains Voluntary Education programs that provide basic skills education for Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force personnel. While enrollments declined in the AELS by 28 percent from 1996-2000, and basic skills programs offered by the American Management Association corporate membership from 1993 through 2000 declined by 50 percent (see the AMA Survey on Workplace Testing for 2001), enrollments in the DoD basic skills programs increased by over 50 percent from 26,136 in 1996 to 39,413 in 2000. The 1996 DoD basic skills program enrollments were equivalent to the enrollments in the AELS for Delaware, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming combined. For the five year period from 1996 through 2000, a total of 166,040 personnel enrolled in the DoD basic skills programs, which are provided free during duty hours for military personnel. This policy recognizes the value of continuing adult education for all personnel as a means of enhancing morale, increasing job proficiency of a general nature, enhancing personnel promotability, and helping personnel cope with everyday demands of life so that they are not unduly distracted from their military missions. The lessons from the DoD regarding the use of motivation-related techniques such as delayed entrance to identify those adults without high school diplomas who are likely to persist in their security jobs, coupled with the provision of prior service and on-the-job continuing education in literacy skills and knowledge development, seems to me like an enlightened approach to workforce needs. It seems to me that a well implemented set of practices based upon a sound and adequately supported policy of lifelong learning for our nation?s undereducated adults could help our nation meet both our needs for workforce development for economic growth and our social and defense needs for homeland security. Reference: Sticht, T. (1992). Military testing and public policy: selected studies of lower aptitude personnel. In: B. Gifford & L. Wing (Eds.). Test policy in defense: Lessons from the military for education, training, and employment. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers (pp. 1-77). _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Oct 5 15:08:25 2002 From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine B. King) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 12:08:25 -0700 Subject: [NLA] A note on scientific based educational research References: <000e01c26aea$9dd775b0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> <20021004.235649.6398.0.sophocles5@juno.com> Message-ID: <001101c26ca2$b46f73e0$4e07f843@VZres087lb> Hello George and Colleagues: George's note shows why teachers et al are so boxed in and without power, political or otherwise. We've got it backwards: We seem to be trying to fit education into a natural and statistical science box rather than understanding that the natural and statistical sciences are essential to, but smaller than, education and its visionary aspects. Students and teachers, adult or otherwise, are not inert or without history and a vision for the future, or for what "is not yet." That vision is about "qualified" people living a "qualified" existence? I suggest that we have accepted the status quo notions of "science" as a kind of "king of the real," and with it, anyone who speaks of vision and reasonable argument about "what is not yet" is "not scientific" and therefore is ruled out of court? I suggest that this acceptance is "profoundly" effecting our understanding, and therefore our advocating for, our field. Adults, educators and policy makers are making decisions from, first, "What is" that comes to us from legitimate research and argument in the human sciences and education (about people and not inert objects). But, second, we are also making decisions from a developing VISION about "What could-should-would be." Though evidence gathering and critical judgment about it are essential to the project of education and policy-making, so is (1) qualifying the evidence and (2) developing a sense of VISION about "What is NOT YET, but should-could-will be;" and that vision is, we hope and strive for, a qualified one. If their/our critical judgments and decisions for policy that will form our future are not "qualified," then they are poor ones, by definition? I suggest we have accepted a bad definition of science itself as a kind of inert and finished content rather than as a critical method applied differently to different data. That is, one kind of data is conscious, the other is not and the method is adjusted to fit the data; one has its proper end in theory, in statistics, in technology and in applications. The other has theory, technology, and statistics, but its proper end is in qualified human understanding and living. Also, what we know and say about humans must have a component of openness to the "yet unknown"--IF we are to remain true to the data--conscious, decision-making, visionary human beings. The data itself--human beings--are visionary and quality-seeking critters. How can qualification NOT be a part of our critical investigations? It would be--ahem-- uncritical to leave out qualification as an essential dimension of the data under review or in the researcher? Second, the aim of "complete predictability," if followed through to its end in the human sciences, would give us a kind of Stepford Society? If educators and researchers in education and the human sciences are operating under this assumption--and I think many of us are--it's a bad one; and this assumption in our policy makers makes teachers look like we are always "under-performing," and until we have a Stepford Society, we will continue to do so. It also does not speak well of policy-makers' self-knowledge--or of policy as the expression of their own vision that they themselves were educated into--we hope? Third, we have forgotten the vast differences between (1) gathering evidence for "What Is" and (2) the importance of presenting a reasonable argument about "What should- could-would be" in either natural or human science, or in education, and our various fields of discourse. Educators are an intrinsic part of this argument in everyday classroom activities both in what we say and in how we act. Education is not only about "What Is" in ALL fields; it is also about qualified change based on a developing VISION--about a future, or about "What should-could- would be," either in our lifetime or the next. But with our vision of "natural and statistical science as reality," and "knowing what already is" as the only legitimate discourse in education, we have lost the power that having theoretical knowledge of educators' involvement with VISION would give us. We, as scientists, teachers, administrators and policy makers are all involved with that vision--legitimately. But critical judgment and reasonable argument about "What should-could-would be" is in essence qualitative-- for how could we have a vision for change if we couldn't or wouldn't add a qualitative judgment about "What is"? Without qualification, change would just be arbitrary and it wouldn't matter what we do in the future, or even tomorrow? It is part of the human condition that we qualify or disqualify things--it's the impetus of all knowledge including all scientific-theoretical knowledge--to find things out--intelligence--and to make things better-- excellence? Further, knowing is "better" than not-- which we deem "ignorance"? Fourth, all science is based in a plethora of notions of the good, even that it is "better" or not to define and distinguish facts from values in some investigations, if you understand the great irony here. Facts are valuable to the scientist--the scientist is not a "qualified" scientist because we are value-free, but because we "value" critical judgment over mere belief, evidence over arbitrariness, qualified over unqualified statements, collaboration over isolated or dogmatic review. We all know that one is "better" than the other. Scientists (and policy makers up to this administration, but apparently not including it) also implicitly highly "value" the political climate that allows us to ask any question we want. So the ground of all scientific fields is made of a political and ethical (qualified) and spiritual vision that came down to us from a wealth of educated and educating people who were striving to understand "What Is" in all fields and human endeavors, but who also had a vision about "What should- could-would be" and were able to argue their case on critical and reasonable grounds in open debate and in collaboration with others. In other words, they gave reasons for what they thought about "what is," but also about" what should-could-would be." Here, the "subject" puts out a reasonable argument aimed to express some objective truth--judged to be so based on good and reasonable evidence, just like any science. But the subject who is more than the scientist also speculates and sets up the conditions for a future truth based on a developing vision of the good. Can we as adult educators really claim education for our own if we do not understand ourselves as intrinsically involved with a vision for the good (valuable, qualified, etc.)? Our mandate for it is Constitutional: to "promote the general welfare," and to "establish justice," where "welfare" doesn't mean "handout" in a capitalist version of it, but rather a vision of community where everyone can develop and participate in it. Adult education is essential to creating a just community and to promoting the general welfare where all adults may have the opportunity to know their choices and to develop their vision of their future in fruitful collaboration with teachers and other members of the community in a peaceful setting. I have said as much in other notes over the years we have been involved with this list, but again, I suggest we need to recover a more qualified and therefore more legitimate view of ourselves in adult education. Regards, Catherine King Adjunct Instructor Department of Education National University San Diego, CA ---- Original Message ----- From: George E. Demetrion To: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:56 PM Subject: [NLA] A note on scientific based educational research > For those who might have an interest and for those who should: > > In reviewing the important National Research Council's (NRC) publication, > "Scientific Research in Education," I came across the following > statement: > > "[Q]uestions such as 'Should all students be required to say the pledge > of Allegiance?" cannot be submitted to empirical investigation and thus > cannot be examined scientifically. Answers to these questions [that is, > those of values] lies in realms other than science" (p. 59). > > Perhaps so. The issue remains, do such questions lay in the realm of > legitimate educational investigation? To provide another example, the > current Strategic Plan of the United States Department of Education > encourages character education and patriotism. Drawing on the logic of > the NRC's publication, the issue of whether these should be highlighted > in the K-12 curriculum cannot be investigated empirically because as > questions of value, inquiry about them lies in realms other than science. > > Given that assumption are there other sources of reasoning than science > by which to make informed decisions about educational policy? Can the > issue of values themselves be subject to a substantial inquiry by > communities of scholars, teachers, students, and informed citizens? Does > the realm of legitimate educational scholarship lie exclusively or even > predominantly in the realm of the sciences? Or might it also reside in > the realm of the humanities stemming from the field of history, cultural > anthropology, literary discourse theory, political theory, and social > philosophy? If the latter fields are also viewed as valid sources of > critical scholarly educational investigation, then such issues as > requirements about the Pledge or the nature of the curriculum ( questions > of profound value) are very much legitimate ones. If science is > construed as emphasizing such criteria as "testability," "refutability," > "replicability," "objectivity," "reliability," "validity," and viewed as > "rigorous," "cumulative," "fact-based," determined by "experimental" and > "quasi-experimental design," "random sampling," and the "placebo effect," > then such value laden questions about the Pledge, the curriculum or the > politics of adult literacy education, are simply viewed as outside the > pale of legitimate investigation based on scientific-based educational > research. > > However, if such questions are important dimensions of educational > practice and can be investigated by intellectual traditions other than > science (and science itself is not as rigid as sometimes perceivedboth by > proponents and critics), then those academic disciplines need to be > maintained as legitimate realms of scholarship upon which educational > studies are formulated. Otherwise, such issues over values cannot be > subject to legitimate scholarly inquiry. > > That I need to say this seems utterly absurd except for the political > climate that has landed upon Washington D.C over the past two years. > From a scholarly perspective I intend to examine very thoroughly the > NCR's study, "Scientific Research in Education." From what I've read so > far, it's a sophisticated document that is bringing much important > insight to the field of educational scholarship (Note, I studiously avoid > the terminology "research," because the realm of academic scholarship is > broader than which is connoted by the term "research." Theory, > imagination, values, experience, culture, and yea, even the battered > term "ideology" interact in various subtle ways in the canons of the > various academic disciplines which make up the realm of what might be > viewed as legitimate scholarship). Like it or not, the realm of > educational studies cannot (except at its own peril) avoid the reality of > the pluralistic and contentious scholarly traditions that make up the > canons and research foci of the various academic disciplines, many of > which converge in the making up of the field of adult literacy studies in > its various and sometimes contested interpretations. > > In short, educational studies needs to draw on the scientific research > tradition as equal opportunity partners with its sister disciplines in > the humanities, in the honorific fields of history, literary studies, > cultural anthropology, political theory, and social philosophy. Cut > these latter disciplines off as not representing serious realms of > scholarship or denigrate them by referring to them as not science and you > eradicate them from the canon of legitimate investigation. In my view, > that would be a profound loss. > > Of course, strictly speaking, one cannot use such a "subjective" > adjective as "profound" in any scientific treatise because it is not > objectively descriptive of any empirical reality. Therefore, from the > realm of the scientific research tradition, my use of the term > "profound," is literally, meaningless. Likewise, the President's > inference that Saddam Hussein represents a profound threat to the > security of the United States might also be dubbed as meaningless. In > short, the term "profound" does not belong in any scientific study of > educational research. Neither do questions of the Pledge, or the matter > of patriotism as a legitimate value to instill in the curriculum, nor the > issue of social justice as that, too, is inherently mired in "ideology" > and therefore not the subject of "cumulative" research such as that which > characterizes the field of medicine, agriculture, and industrial > production. > > According to current administration visions, educational research is to > become a field for mature, cumulative scientific research like the field > of medicine, agriculture, and industrial production. Issues to be > resolved by research are largely technical, value free, and ideologically > neutral. Intuition, imagination, basic human experience, > unscientifically-grounded theory construction, ideology and yea, values, > themselves are okay for practitioners and those not informed by > high-quality research, but they have no basis in scientific > investigations of educational research. And when it comes to educational > scholarly inquiry, scientific research is the most reliable source of > knowledge construction. It's indisputable It says so in the USDoE > Strategic Plan. > > Not that I dismiss the realm of scientific research in education. Far > from it. However, neither do I view it as the foundatioonal discilpine. > Rather, I view it as one of the dialogue partners in the collective quest > for valuable knowledge. I would rather build on the years of scholarship > that have already comprised the emergent field of educational studies > (even with many questions & problems remaining), while pressing forward > toward the progressive problem identification and resolution of current > and anticipated issues. > > I need to stop. It's a shade to midnight > > George Demetrion > sophocles5 at juno.com > (Ancient Greek playright, historian, and social philosopher) > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 KathleenBombach at aol.com Sun Oct 6 11:55:03 2002 From: KathleenBombach at aol.com (KathleenBombach at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 11:55:03 EDT Subject: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? Message-ID: <18b.f5ecc87.2ad1b6d7@aol.com> Daphne: Did you just find out about this? pResident Bush has directed that Vista and Americorp volunteers be directed at homeland security, although different national service offices in different states have latitude in terms of defining specific activities as related to homeland defense. Do not think in terms of snooping. Maybe the Vista tutors could provide units on biological and chemical threats of all kinds, including to the environment, or the importance of immunizations, or the health care system, or civics literacy, etc. Tell the program to be creative without fostering a police state. But yes, this has happened. Kathleen Bombach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From DJRosen at theworld.com Sun Oct 6 14:59:01 2002 From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 14:59:01 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Adult Literacy and Homeland Security References: <1159.207.167.70.135.1033843750.squirrel@la.znet.com> Message-ID: <3DA087F5.6040804@theworld.com> NLA Colleagues, Thomas Sticht wrote in his Research Note of September 5, 2002 entitled Adult Education, Literacy Development, and Homeland Security > It seems to me that a well implemented set of practices based upon a > sound and adequately supported policy of lifelong learning for our > nation?s undereducated adults could help our nation meet both our > needs for workforce development for economic growth and our social and > defense needs for homeland security. Daphne Greenberg wrote in her message of October 5: > Two weeks ago I visited a volunteer literacy program and heard > something very scary from the executive director. For the last few > years they have been utilizing Vista workers and recently they > received a letter from the Vista office stating that if they cannot > draw a link between the work being done in the literacy program and > homeland security, the Vista workers would need to be pulled from the > organization. Tom's re-posting of his message following Daphne's was intended, I believe, to help in drawing the link between literacy work and homeland security. In her message on October 6, Kathleen Bombach gives some specific examples of how VISTA volunteers could make contributions to homeland security: > Maybe the Vista tutors could provide units on biological and chemical > threats of all kinds, including to the environment, or the importance > of immunizations, or the health care system, or civics literacy, etc. I wonder if others have some concrete suggestions for how programs which have Americorps and Americorps*VISTA volunteers could make positive contributions to homeland security. If so, please post them. 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 Belzera at aol.com Mon Oct 7 10:26:02 2002 From: Belzera at aol.com (Belzera at aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:26:02 EDT Subject: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? Message-ID: <60.275758d1.2ad2f37a@aol.com> Although this might not fly with the "big boys" in Washington, don't you all think that when it comes to linking VISTA volunteers with homeland security a perfectly good argument could be made for the fact that a literate citizenry should be one of our first defenses? Ignorance is dangerous to our security and public education is in part founded on the importance of an educated citizenry. It makes us less susceptible to demagoguery and other non military (yet very real) threats to our security. Try that. Alisa Alisa Belzer, PhD Assistant Professor Rutgers University Graduate School of Education 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901 (732) 932-7496, extension 8234 (215) 885-5645 _______________________________________________ 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 earthlink.net Mon Oct 7 10:58:24 2002 From: dwyoho at earthlink.net (Debbie Yoho) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:58:24 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NRC Publication Message-ID: <4120021017145824640@earthlink.net> George D., could you share how or where to see a copy of the NRC publication "Scientific Research in Education"? Thanks. Deborah W. Yoho Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv President, SC Adult Literacy Educators Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council 2728 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205 803-765-2555 Fax 803-779-8417 dwyoho at earthlink.net _______________________________________________ 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 LVAILL at aol.com Mon Oct 7 12:19:42 2002 From: LVAILL at aol.com (LVAILL at aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:19:42 EDT Subject: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? Message-ID: <184.fb24d6f.2ad30e1e@aol.com> In a message dated 10/5/2002 9:55:50 AM Central Standard Time, alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu writes: > received a letter from the Vista office stating that if they cannot draw a > link between the work being done in the literacy program and homeland > security, the Vista workers would need to be pulled from the We have not seen that in Illinois, but every state is different. Illinois' Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) office has always had a focus on education in VISTA and that continues. However, the Illinois CNCS office is also requiring a cost match of $10,000, the cost of the living allowance. CNCS estimates their contribution of an educational award, health insurance and initial and in-service training for members to be $10,000 as well. That is limiting the number of agencies that want (or can afford) VISTA members. The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has become a favorite agency to run administration initiatiatives through, especially when they don't get congressional approval for something, i.e., America Reads. After that as program operators we dealt with Colin Powell's Promise and had to incorporate one of his first four promises into our annual objectives and were all required to do the fifth which is to provide opportunities for youth "to give something back." The RFP's for AmeriCorps grants (not VISTA that is a different system) are due out this week . Those go to states and "national direct" progams. States have some latitude in writing their own calls for proposals and setting their own priorities, but we are told there will be a focus on homeland security and a preference given to those applicants. How much of a focus and how much preference we're not sure. There's been talk about all AmeriCorps grantees and sub-grantees doing at least one homeland security objective. Our state commission (Illinois Commission on Volunteerism and Community Service) had a planning retreat two weeks ago, and we recommended that rather than having all programs involved with homeland security that CNCS set a target for the number of members they want involved in such an effort say 10%, 25%, 50% and let states implement it. I also liked the idea of giving non-homeland security type programs extra points in review if they were able to effectively incorporate homeland security or those such issues in their programs. Our Commission also asked CNCS to more clearly articulate what they consider homeland security issues. At this point it is broad and includes civil defense, law enforcement including community policing, and a range of public health topics and issues. In addition to a focus on homeland security, it appears that CNCS will also be seeking to advance the Leave No Child Behind programming. There will be specific training requirements for members who are tutoring children and at this point they are saying that they want those members to have an Associate's Degree as well. There are also a variety of changes being made on "allowable activities" for members, and in the future members can be involved with fundraising and capacity-building activities. Now that states will have the federal guidelines, they will be developing their own RFPs. Though each state sets their own guidelines and processes for funding, most will be announcing three-year funding opportunities this fall with a submission date most likely in the spring. Anyone interested in sponsoring AmeriCorps programs should follow that process with their State Commission on Community Service. It varies as to where the Commission is "housed" in each state, but it can be accessed through the national membership organization for state commissions - America's Service Commission at . Dorothy Miaso Executive Director LVA-Illinois 30 East Adams Street, Suite 1130 Chicago, IL 60603 312/857-1582 312/857-1586 (fax) literacyvolunteersillinois.org (web site) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cb.king at verizon.net Mon Oct 7 13:34:33 2002 From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine B. King) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:34:33 -0700 Subject: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? References: <60.275758d1.2ad2f37a@aol.com> Message-ID: <002301c26e27$ed469140$6b07f843@VZres087lb> Colleagues: Alisa says: ". . . a literate citizenry should be one of our first defenses?" An excellent argument. Let's add: (1) that an understanding on the part of our leaders (Congress, and other policy makers) of what an educated citizenry means to the very existence of a democracy is essential to our understanding of the long-term commitment to adult education in this culture--whatever it takes. The library and communications systems coupled with all forms of adult education are the first orders of support for a truly democratic order. (2) The more complex and communicative we become with other cultures, the more we need to underpin our culture with ongoing education--not merely training--of everyone in it. In a democracy, there is a "leader in every mirror." That is, if we are not to be governed by some other force, then we must learn to question, to be unafraid to dialogue and to criticize, to raise our voices, and to govern ourselves. That means a qualified dialogue. An open and qualified dialogue means education. Education means hope that the democracy and democratic order will stand. (3) The development of a wise view of homeland security by all citizens requires critical discernment between real and serious potential threat, profiling and various forms of group bias, e.g., racism. The "retribalization of America" can be translated into: "an uneducated mass afraid of and reacting to those who are 'different' from our various provincial identities, whether it be skin color, accent, ethnic orders, clothing, etc. Adult Education, because it draws different groups together under a common interest regardless of race, gender, etc., by its very nature strikes at the heart of xenophobia in a systematic and ongoing way--regardless of what "skills" are being taught. If we as adult educators understand education in its fuller view--of educating the whole person to live with others in a civilized and civilizing world--we should have no problem connecting ourselves and our programs with the current "trends" in governmental attitudes. Perhaps we have been doing this all along, but haven't had the situation, the events, or the to language to name it. Regards, Catherine King Adjunct Instructor National University Department of Education San Diego, CA ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 7:26 AM Subject: Re: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? > Although this might not fly with the "big boys" in Washington, don't you all > think that when it comes to linking VISTA volunteers with homeland security a > perfectly good argument could be made for the fact that a literate citizenry > should be one of our first defenses? Ignorance is dangerous to our security > and public education is in part founded on the importance of an educated > citizenry. It makes us less susceptible to demagoguery and other non > military (yet very real) threats to our security. Try that. > > Alisa > > > Alisa Belzer, PhD > Assistant Professor > Rutgers University > Graduate School of Education > 10 Seminary Place > New Brunswick, NJ 08901 > (732) 932-7496, extension 8234 > (215) 885-5645 > _______________________________________________ > 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 znet.com Mon Oct 7 13:31:38 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NLA] Reauthorization of WIA and Homeland Security Message-ID: <1724.207.167.70.221.1034011898.squirrel@la.znet.com> Research Note September 7, 2002 Thomas G. Sticht International Consultant in Adult Education Homeland Security Part 2: Renaming the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 the Adult Education, Literacy and Workforce Investment Act. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, which includes Title 2: The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) is coming up for reauthorization. It seems to me that given the present situation in which federal and state governments find themselves facing deep budget deficits, the WIA/AEFLA should be renamed the Adult Education, Literacy and Workforce Investment Act and the policy emphasis should be changed to emphasize the priority of adult education and literacy development by showing how these educational activities contribute to multiple returns to investments, including but not limited to workforce development. Placing education and literacy development before workforce investment provides the basis for a policy of lifelong learning for our nation?s under served and under educated adults that recognizes the value of adult education and literacy development across the life span for a number of purposes: personal, spiritual, health, family development, and so forth, and it helps frame more clearly just how adult education and literacy development providers can help our nation meet both our needs for workforce development for economic growth and our social and defense needs for homeland security. Following is an illustration of how adult educators can work to improve both adult?s basic skills (reading and mathematics) and contribute to their workforce development through the teaching of knowledge useful in homeland security job training. TEACHERS, BOOKS, COMPUTERS, AND PEERS:Teaching Reading and Mathematics in the Content Areas of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Warfare >From February of 1983 through September 1986 I directed a team that developed on-duty reading and mathematics education programs for the U. S. Navy. The development team took an integrated communications technology approach and taught in a classroom that integrated the use of teachers, books, computers, and peer instruction. In addition, a functional context education (FCE) approach was followed in which Navy personnel with basic skills in the 5th to 9th grade levels range were taught reading and mathematics skills using important content knowledge for progression from entry level worker to supervisory levels of rank . One body of knowledge concerned the control of damage under nuclear, biological, or chemical (NBC) warfare. This material was written at a high level, 10th through 16th grade levels using estimates made with a readability formula. Following is a brief sample: Quote: "Specific NBC countermeasure equipment is part of each ship?s or station?s allowance. The equipment assigned to ships for the purpose of personnel protection against contamination include: . The detection of nuclear radiation is of paramount importance to you because serious injury or death can result from exposure to these invisible rays and particles .(decontamination materials include: high test hypochlorite (HTH) a high test calcium hypochlorite "Unquote By developing a 45 hour reading program using these materials matched to the functional contexts of the Navy personnel?s career advancement, we were able to show gains in job knowledge and job-related reading skills across a wide range of general reading levels (3rd to 12th grade reading on the Gates-MacGinitie reading tests) while demonstrating that a general reading program did not produce such improvements in work related knowledge and reading. We also demonstrated improvements in general reading on the G-M reading tests. Other programs of this nature indicate that adult educators can get "double duty dollars" for their educational funds by teaching the basic literacy and numeracy skills in the functional contexts of health for older adults, parenting for family education and literacy development, and job skills for workforce development. Getting "double duty dollars" for adult education and literacy development funds in a time of deficit spending provides a strong policy position for rewriting the WIA to place Adult Education and Literacy Development first and uppermost, as suggested above, when the WIA is considered for reauthorization. References: Sticht, T. et al. (1986, February). Teachers, books, computers, and peers: integrated communications technologies for adult literacy development. Monterey, CA: U. S. Naval Postgraduate School; Sticht, T. (1997). Functional context education: Workshop resource notebook. Available online at www.nald.ca under full text documents searched by S for my last name. _______________________________________________ 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 AEllison at ed.state.nh.us Mon Oct 7 14:40:52 2002 From: AEllison at ed.state.nh.us (Ellison, Art) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:40:52 -0400 Subject: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? Message-ID: <34416EEBA579D3118D0D0008C75B931904771404@DOEMAIL01> To the list, I am stunned by the immediate responses on the list to the news that VISTA has become another link in the battle for homeland security. So far we have suggestions that range from using literacy VISTA's to teach the dangers of biological attacks to a refocusing of WIA to a workforce development program that emphasizes "the teaching of knowledge useful in homeland security job training". These seem like very tentative and incremental steps which only prolong the inevitable. Fortunately, we are in the enviable position of being able to rewrite the current WIA legislation within the next year. In order to consolidate all of these many efforts perhaps the field could recommend that the new WIA be changed to something like Defending the Homeland Through Literacy Act with accompany changes to the NRS system that would show measurable gains in such things as skill in designing bomb shelters, air filtering systems and the best firearms to use in protecting your property from other citizens who did not plan ahead. Art Ellison -----Original Message----- From: LVAILL at aol.com [mailto:LVAILL at aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 12:20 PM To: nla at lists.literacytent.org Subject: Re: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? In a message dated 10/5/2002 9:55:50 AM Central Standard Time, alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu writes: received a letter from the Vista office stating that if they cannot draw a link between the work being done in the literacy program and homeland security, the Vista workers would need to be pulled from the We have not seen that in Illinois, but every state is different. Illinois' Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) office has always had a focus on education in VISTA and that continues. However, the Illinois CNCS office is also requiring a cost match of $10,000, the cost of the living allowance. CNCS estimates their contribution of an educational award, health insurance and initial and in-service training for members to be $10,000 as well. That is limiting the number of agencies that want (or can afford) VISTA members. The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has become a favorite agency to run administration initiatiatives through, especially when they don't get congressional approval for something, i.e., America Reads. After that as program operators we dealt with Colin Powell's Promise and had to incorporate one of his first four promises into our annual objectives and were all required to do the fifth which is to provide opportunities for youth "to give something back." The RFP's for AmeriCorps grants (not VISTA that is a different system) are due out this week . Those go to states and "national direct" progams. States have some latitude in writing their own calls for proposals and setting their own priorities, but we are told there will be a focus on homeland security and a preference given to those applicants. How much of a focus and how much preference we're not sure. There's been talk about all AmeriCorps grantees and sub-grantees doing at least one homeland security objective. Our state commission (Illinois Commission on Volunteerism and Community Service) had a planning retreat two weeks ago, and we recommended that rather than having all programs involved with homeland security that CNCS set a target for the number of members they want involved in such an effort say 10%, 25%, 50% and let states implement it. I also liked the idea of giving non-homeland security type programs extra points in review if they were able to effectively incorporate homeland security or those such issues in their programs. Our Commission also asked CNCS to more clearly articulate what they consider homeland security issues. At this point it is broad and includes civil defense, law enforcement including community policing, and a range of public health topics and issues. In addition to a focus on homeland security, it appears that CNCS will also be seeking to advance the Leave No Child Behind programming. There will be specific training requirements for members who are tutoring children and at this point they are saying that they want those members to have an Associate's Degree as well. There are also a variety of changes being made on "allowable activities" for members, and in the future members can be involved with fundraising and capacity-building activities. Now that states will have the federal guidelines, they will be developing their own RFPs. Though each state sets their own guidelines and processes for funding, most will be announcing three-year funding opportunities this fall with a submission date most likely in the spring. Anyone interested in sponsoring AmeriCorps programs should follow that process with their State Commission on Community Service. It varies as to where the Commission is "housed" in each state, but it can be accessed through the national membership organization for state commissions - America's Service Commission at . Dorothy Miaso Executive Director LVA-Illinois 30 East Adams Street, Suite 1130 Chicago, IL 60603 312/857-1582 312/857-1586 (fax) literacyvolunteersillinois.org (web site) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria at alri.org Mon Oct 7 15:45:03 2002 From: maria at alri.org (Maria Elena Gonzalez) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:45:03 -0400 Subject: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? References: <34416EEBA579D3118D0D0008C75B931904771404@DOEMAIL01> Message-ID: <018201c26e3a$08683200$6500000a@maria02> Thank you Art for vocalizing my own dismay. My disbelief at the lack of criticism of this policy actually made me wonder if some of the messages were "tongue in cheek". I guess not. Maria Elena Gonzalez Adult Literacy Resource Institute, Boston, MA ----- Original Message ----- From: Ellison, Art To: 'nla at lists.literacytent.org' Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 2:40 PM Subject: RE: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? To the list, I am stunned by the immediate responses on the list to the news that VISTA has become another link in the battle for homeland security. So far we have suggestions that range from using literacy VISTA's to teach the dangers of biological attacks to a refocusing of WIA to a workforce development program that emphasizes "the teaching of knowledge useful in homeland security job training". These seem like very tentative and incremental steps which only prolong the inevitable. Fortunately, we are in the enviable position of being able to rewrite the current WIA legislation within the next year. In order to consolidate all of these many efforts perhaps the field could recommend that the new WIA be changed to something like Defending the Homeland Through Literacy Act with accompany changes to the NRS system that would show measurable gains in such things as skill in designing bomb shelters, air filtering systems and the best firearms to use in protecting your property from other citizens who did not plan ahead. Art Ellison -----Original Message----- From: LVAILL at aol.com [mailto:LVAILL at aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 12:20 PM To: nla at lists.literacytent.org Subject: Re: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? In a message dated 10/5/2002 9:55:50 AM Central Standard Time, alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu writes: received a letter from the Vista office stating that if they cannot draw a link between the work being done in the literacy program and homeland security, the Vista workers would need to be pulled from the We have not seen that in Illinois, but every state is different. Illinois' Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) office has always had a focus on education in VISTA and that continues. However, the Illinois CNCS office is also requiring a cost match of $10,000, the cost of the living allowance. CNCS estimates their contribution of an educational award, health insurance and initial and in-service training for members to be $10,000 as well. That is limiting the number of agencies that want (or can afford) VISTA members. The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has become a favorite agency to run administration initiatiatives through, especially when they don't get congressional approval for something, i.e., America Reads. After that as program operators we dealt with Colin Powell's Promise and had to incorporate one of his first four promises into our annual objectives and were all required to do the fifth which is to provide opportunities for youth "to give something back." The RFP's for AmeriCorps grants (not VISTA that is a different system) are due out this week . Those go to states and "national direct" progams. States have some latitude in writing their own calls for proposals and setting their own priorities, but we are told there will be a focus on homeland security and a preference given to those applicants. How much of a focus and how much preference we're not sure. There's been talk about all AmeriCorps grantees and sub-grantees doing at least one homeland security objective. Our state commission (Illinois Commission on Volunteerism and Community Service) had a planning retreat two weeks ago, and we recommended that rather than having all programs involved with homeland security that CNCS set a target for the number of members they want involved in such an effort say 10%, 25%, 50% and let states implement it. I also liked the idea of giving non-homeland security type programs extra points in review if they were able to effectively incorporate homeland security or those such issues in their programs. Our Commission also asked CNCS to more clearly articulate what they consider homeland security issues. At this point it is broad and includes civil defense, law enforcement including community policing, and a range of public health topics and issues. In addition to a focus on homeland security, it appears that CNCS will also be seeking to advance the Leave No Child Behind programming. There will be specific training requirements for members who are tutoring children and at this point they are saying that they want those members to have an Associate's Degree as well. There are also a variety of changes being made on "allowable activities" for members, and in the future members can be involved with fundraising and capacity-building activities. Now that states will have the federal guidelines, they will be developing their own RFPs. Though each state sets their own guidelines and processes for funding, most will be announcing three-year funding opportunities this fall with a submission date most likely in the spring. Anyone interested in sponsoring AmeriCorps programs should follow that process with their State Commission on Community Service. It varies as to where the Commission is "housed" in each state, but it can be accessed through the national membership organization for state commissions - America's Service Commission at . Dorothy Miaso Executive Director LVA-Illinois 30 East Adams Street, Suite 1130 Chicago, IL 60603 312/857-1582 312/857-1586 (fax) literacyvolunteersillinois.org (web site) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gdemetrion at msn.com Mon Oct 7 17:45:01 2002 From: gdemetrion at msn.com (gdemetrion at msn.com) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:45:01 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NRC Publication Message-ID: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309082919/html/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Debbie Yoho Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 12:24 PM To: NLA LIST org Subject: [NLA] NRC Publication George D., could you share how or where to see a copy of the NRC publication "Scientific Research in Education"? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cfranc2 at ilstu.edu Mon Oct 7 17:02:11 2002 From: cfranc2 at ilstu.edu (Chris Francisco) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 16:02:11 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Reauthorization of WIA and Homeland Security In-Reply-To: <1724.207.167.70.221.1034011898.squirrel@la.znet.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021007160058.02018eb0@mail.ilstu.edu> I completely agree with this thinking. Thank you for publicly sharing this position and direction for the enterprise. Peace, Chris Francisco At 10:31 AM 10/7/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Research Note September 7, 2002 > >Thomas G. Sticht >International Consultant in Adult Education > >Homeland Security Part 2: Renaming the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 >the Adult Education, Literacy and Workforce Investment Act. > >The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, which includes Title 2: The >Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) is coming up for >reauthorization. It seems to me that given the present situation in which >federal and state governments find themselves facing deep budget deficits, >the WIA/AEFLA should be renamed the Adult Education, Literacy and >Workforce Investment Act and the policy emphasis should be changed to >emphasize the priority of adult education and literacy development by >showing how these educational activities contribute to multiple returns >to investments, including but not limited to workforce development. > >Placing education and literacy development before workforce investment >provides the basis for a policy of lifelong learning for our nation?s >under served and under educated adults that recognizes the value of adult >education and literacy development across the life span for a number of >purposes: personal, spiritual, health, family development, and so forth, >and it helps frame more clearly just how adult education and literacy >development providers can help our nation meet both our needs for >workforce development for economic growth and our social and defense needs >for homeland security. > >Following is an illustration of how adult educators can work to improve >both adult?s basic skills (reading and mathematics) and contribute to >their workforce development through the teaching of knowledge useful in >homeland security job training. > >TEACHERS, BOOKS, COMPUTERS, AND PEERS:Teaching Reading and Mathematics in >the Content Areas of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Warfare > > From February of 1983 through September 1986 I directed a team that >developed on-duty reading and mathematics education programs for the U. S. >Navy. The development team took an integrated communications technology >approach and taught in a classroom that integrated the use of teachers, >books, computers, and peer instruction. In addition, a functional context >education (FCE) approach was followed in which Navy personnel with basic >skills in the 5th to 9th grade levels range were taught reading and >mathematics skills using important content knowledge for progression from >entry level worker to supervisory levels of rank . > >One body of knowledge concerned the control of damage under nuclear, >biological, or chemical (NBC) warfare. This material was written at a high >level, 10th through 16th grade levels using estimates made with a >readability formula. Following is a brief sample: > >Quote: "Specific NBC countermeasure equipment is part of each >ship?s or station?s allowance. The equipment assigned to ships for >the purpose of personnel protection against contamination include: . >The detection of nuclear radiation is of paramount importance to you >because serious injury or death can result from exposure to these >invisible rays and particles .(decontamination materials include: >high test hypochlorite (HTH) a high test calcium hypochlorite >"Unquote > >By developing a 45 hour reading program using these materials matched to >the functional contexts of the Navy personnel?s career advancement, we >were able to show gains in job knowledge and job-related reading skills >across a wide range of general reading levels (3rd to 12th grade reading >on the Gates-MacGinitie reading tests) while demonstrating that a general >reading program did not produce such improvements in work related >knowledge and reading. We also demonstrated improvements in general >reading on the G-M reading tests. > >Other programs of this nature indicate that adult educators can get >"double duty dollars" for their educational funds by teaching the basic >literacy and numeracy skills in the functional contexts of health for >older adults, parenting for family education and literacy development, and >job skills for workforce development. > >Getting "double duty dollars" for adult education and literacy development >funds in a time of deficit spending provides a strong policy position for >rewriting the WIA to place Adult Education and Literacy Development first >and uppermost, as suggested above, when the WIA is considered for >reauthorization. > >References: Sticht, T. et al. (1986, February). Teachers, books, >computers, and peers: integrated communications technologies for adult >literacy development. Monterey, CA: U. S. Naval Postgraduate School; >Sticht, T. (1997). Functional context education: Workshop resource >notebook. Available online at www.nald.ca under full text documents >searched by S for my last name. > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu Mon Oct 7 22:54:44 2002 From: alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu (Daphne Greenberg) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 22:54:44 -0400 Subject: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? Message-ID: I have to admit that I agree with Art. When I posted my message, I expected people to be horrified that a connection between homeland security and literacy was being made. In fact, I specifically posted it to the NLA list, and not to the NIFL lists because of this. Daphne Daphne Greenberg Associate Director Center for the Study of Adult Literacy Georgia State University University Plaza Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 phone: 404-651-0127 fax:404-651-4901 dgreenberg at gsu.edu >>> AEllison at ed.state.nh.us 10/07/02 15:01 PM >>> To the list, I am stunned by the immediate responses on the list to the news that VISTA has become another link in the battle for homeland security. So far we have suggestions that range from using literacy VISTA's to teach the dangers of biological attacks to a refocusing of WIA to a workforce development program that emphasizes "the teaching of knowledge useful in homeland security job training". These seem like very tentative and incremental steps which only prolong the inevitable. Fortunately, we are in the enviable position of being able to rewrite the current WIA legislation within the next year. In order to consolidate all of these many efforts perhaps the field could recommend that the new WIA be changed to something like Defending the Homeland Through Literacy Act with accompany changes to the NRS system that would show measurable gains in such things as skill in designing bomb shelters, air filtering systems and the best firearms to use in protecting your property from other citizens who did not plan ahead. Art Ellison -----Original Message----- From: LVAILL at aol.com [mailto:LVAILL at aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 12:20 PM To: nla at lists.literacytent.org Subject: Re: [NLA] literacy and homeland security? In a message dated 10/5/2002 9:55:50 AM Central Standard Time, alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu writes: received a letter from the Vista office stating that if they cannot draw a link between the work being done in the literacy program and homeland security, the Vista workers would need to be pulled from the We have not seen that in Illinois, but every state is different. Illinois' Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) office has always had a focus on education in VISTA and that continues. However, the Illinois CNCS office is also requiring a cost match of $10,000, the cost of the living allowance. CNCS estimates their contribution of an educational award, health insurance and initial and in-service training for members to be $10,000 as well. That is limiting the number of agencies that want (or can afford) VISTA members. The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has become a favorite agency to run administration initiatiatives through, especially when they don't get congressional approval for something, i.e., America Reads. After that as program operators we dealt with Colin Powell's Promise and had to incorporate one of his first four promises into our annual objectives and were all required to do the fifth which is to provide opportunities for youth "to give something back." The RFP's for AmeriCorps grants (not VISTA that is a different system) are due out this week . Those go to states and "national direct" progams. States have some latitude in writing their own calls for proposals and setting their own priorities, but we are told there will be a focus on homeland security and a preference given to those applicants. How much of a focus and how much preference we're not sure. There's been talk about all AmeriCorps grantees and sub-grantees doing at least one homeland security objective. Our state commission (Illinois Commission on Volunteerism and Community Service) had a planning retreat two weeks ago, and we recommended that rather than having all programs involved with homeland security that CNCS set a target for the number of members they want involved in such an effort say 10%, 25%, 50% and let states implement it. I also liked the idea of giving non-homeland security type programs extra points in review if they were able to effectively incorporate homeland security or those such issues in their programs. Our Commission also asked CNCS to more clearly articulate what they consider homeland security issues. At this point it is broad and includes civil defense, law enforcement including community policing, and a range of public health topics and issues. In addition to a focus on homeland security, it appears that CNCS will also be seeking to advance the Leave No Child Behind programming. There will be specific training requirements for members who are tutoring children and at this point they are saying that they want those members to have an Associate's Degree as well. There are also a variety of changes being made on "allowable activities" for members, and in the future members can be involved with fundraising and capacity-building activities. Now that states will have the federal guidelines, they will be developing their own RFPs. Though each state sets their own guidelines and processes for funding, most will be announcing three-year funding opportunities this fall with a submission date most likely in the spring. Anyone interested in sponsoring AmeriCorps programs should follow that process with their State Commission on Community Service. It varies as to where the Commission is "housed" in each state, but it can be accessed through the national membership organization for state commissions - America's Service Commission at . Dorothy Miaso Executive Director LVA-Illinois 30 East Adams Street, Suite 1130 Chicago, IL 60603 312/857-1582 312/857-1586 (fax) literacyvolunteersillinois.org (web site) _______________________________________________ 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 jrandall at fedstrategics.com Tue Oct 8 15:53:17 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:53:17 -0400 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Dear Colleage Letter, House and Senate Message-ID: <001001c26f04$59384f10$6401a8c0@cp186366c> NIFL HOUSE LETTER, FINAL UPDATE Reps. Sawyer and Walsh have sent the letters to the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and HHS. There were 49 cosigners, for a total of 51! Good job everyone! Here's the final list. (Republicans in CAPS) California ... Anna Eshoo; Sam Farr; Bob Filner; Barbara Lee; Juanita Millendar-McDonald; James McGovern; George Miller Connecticut ... John Larson; ROB SIMMONS Georgia ... JOHNNY ISAKSON Illinois ... Lane Evans; TIM JOHNSON; RAY LAHOOD Kentucky ... ANNE NORTHRUP Louisiana ... William Jefferson Maine ... Thomas Allen; John Baldacci Massachusetts ... Michael Capuano; Barney Frank; Stephen Lynch; Edward Markey; James McGovern; Marty Meehan; John Olver; John Tierney Maryland ... Benjamin Cardin; Albert Wynn Michigan ... Dale Kildee Missouri ... Karen McCarthy New Hampshire ... CHARLES BASS New Jersey ... Rush Holt New York ... JOHN MCHUGH; Edolphus Towns; JAMES WALSH; Anthony Weiner Ohio ... Sherrod Brown; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Thomas Sawyer; Ted Strickland; PAT TIBERI Oregon ... Earl Blumenauer Pennsylvania ... William Coyne; Mike Doyle; Joseph Hoeffel; CURT WELDON Rhode Island ... Patrick Kennedy; James Langevin Texas ... Gene Green; Max Sandlin Vermont ... Bernie Sanders Washington ... Rick Larsen NIFL SENATE LETTER, FINAL UPDATE Despite valiant efforts by folks in several states, we were unable to secure a Republican lead co-sponsor for the Senate letter. Since Senators are likely to wrap things up and go home by Friday, there isn't enough time left to make this thing happen. ONE MORE ACTION STEP Everyone, please send a thank you note/card to the staffer you spoke with in getting your Congressperson to co-sign the letter. It doesn't have to be long - it's the thought that counts. Remember, we're trying to cultivate long-term friends and allies in Congress. So few people take the time to say thank you that your gesture will be noticed and appreciated. Here's my thank you to all of you for your efforts! Just imagine it's a tasteful sunny little note card. Best, Jon Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 hartman at thebell.org Tue Oct 8 17:12:35 2002 From: hartman at thebell.org (hartman) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:12:35 -0600 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Dear Colleage Letter, House and Senate In-Reply-To: <001001c26f04$59384f10$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Message-ID: <000e01c26f0f$6d2aa8a0$0900000a@andy> Congratulations to everyone who made this happen. It was great to see the role so many individuals across the country played in making it successful. Special thanks to Jon, David, and others for the organizing efforts. This is very important for at least two reasons. Right now the NIFL "belongs" to the adult and family literacy field. If you don't know what they are doing, you can find out and weigh in. Leaders from the field have a great deal of access and have influenced the course of the NIFL from the beginning. Whether one agrees or disagrees with/likes or dislikes specific work, the NIFL is ours to influence and improve over time. What this letter really says to me is that we are not ready to just give that away. Maybe more important in the long run, this effort shows what the field can achieve in the public policy arena. It is not rocket science! But it does take organization, timing, and effort. It is also like a muscle, the more you use it, the stronger it becomes. Now that you know how to get a Members attention--and action--you don't have to learn it again. Now that you know the person who deals with this issue, it will be easier to talk to them next time. Now that you have let them know there is a constituency for adult and family literacy in their District, it will be easier to make that connection next time. It is a very cumulative process! The key will be identifying the next important opportunity for a pro-adult and family literacy policy action. For example, the budget process for next year will begin soon after the election. We could/should set a realistic target for funding next year, build on this success, and make it happen. Of course, the same basic process takes place in state legislatures. I am involved in the effort to secure state funding for adult and family literacy here in Colorado, and it is not that different from the federal process. Again, congratulations to everyone involved in this effort and let's look for the next important opportunity to flex our muscle! Andy Hartman Director, Policy and Research The Bell Policy Center 1801 Broadway, Suite 280 Denver, Colorado 80202 303-297-0456 (ph) 303-297-0460 (f) hartman at thebell.org -----Original Message----- From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org [mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org] On Behalf Of Jon Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 1:53 PM To: NLA Listserv (E-mail) Subject: [NLA] NIFL Dear Colleage Letter, House and Senate NIFL HOUSE LETTER, FINAL UPDATE Reps. Sawyer and Walsh have sent the letters to the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and HHS. There were 49 cosigners, for a total of 51! Good job everyone! Here's the final list. (Republicans in CAPS) California ... Anna Eshoo; Sam Farr; Bob Filner; Barbara Lee; Juanita Millendar-McDonald; James McGovern; George Miller Connecticut ... John Larson; ROB SIMMONS Georgia ... JOHNNY ISAKSON Illinois ... Lane Evans; TIM JOHNSON; RAY LAHOOD Kentucky ... ANNE NORTHRUP Louisiana ... William Jefferson Maine ... Thomas Allen; John Baldacci Massachusetts ... Michael Capuano; Barney Frank; Stephen Lynch; Edward Markey; James McGovern; Marty Meehan; John Olver; John Tierney Maryland ... Benjamin Cardin; Albert Wynn Michigan ... Dale Kildee Missouri ... Karen McCarthy New Hampshire ... CHARLES BASS New Jersey ... Rush Holt New York ... JOHN MCHUGH; Edolphus Towns; JAMES WALSH; Anthony Weiner Ohio ... Sherrod Brown; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Thomas Sawyer; Ted Strickland; PAT TIBERI Oregon ... Earl Blumenauer Pennsylvania ... William Coyne; Mike Doyle; Joseph Hoeffel; CURT WELDON Rhode Island ... Patrick Kennedy; James Langevin Texas ... Gene Green; Max Sandlin Vermont ... Bernie Sanders Washington ... Rick Larsen NIFL SENATE LETTER, FINAL UPDATE Despite valiant efforts by folks in several states, we were unable to secure a Republican lead co-sponsor for the Senate letter. Since Senators are likely to wrap things up and go home by Friday, there isn't enough time left to make this thing happen. ONE MORE ACTION STEP Everyone, please send a thank you note/card to the staffer you spoke with in getting your Congressperson to co-sign the letter. It doesn't have to be long - it's the thought that counts. Remember, we're trying to cultivate long-term friends and allies in Congress. So few people take the time to say thank you that your gesture will be noticed and appreciated. Here's my thank you to all of you for your efforts! Just imagine it's a tasteful sunny little note card. Best, Jon Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 Tue Oct 8 22:35:40 2002 From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 19:35:40 -0700 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Dear Colleage Letter, House and Senate References: <001001c26f04$59384f10$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Message-ID: <20021008.193541.6870.1.sophocles5@juno.com> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:53:17 -0400 "Jon Randall" writes: >NIFL SENATE LETTER, FINAL UPDATE > >Despite valiant efforts by folks in several states, we were unable to secure >a Republican lead co-sponsor for the Senate letter. Since Senators are >likely to wrap things up and go home by Friday, there isn't enough >time left to make this thing happen. _______________________________________________________________ Jon: Thanks for providing vigorous leadership on this effort. What are the implications for the intended course of action as a result of not being able to get the letter from the Senate? Does this mean that the effort as a whole has failed or is the process still open on influencing the choice of the NIFL Director? That raises the related issue as to whether there are one or two candidates in the running. This question is for anyone who may have an answer, are the names of the candidate(s) a secret (if so, why) or is this public information? If the latter, can we be informed? Finally, is there a date or time frame set for the names of the Board nominees to formally appear before Congress? I presume that the appointment of the Director would need to await until the nominees have actually become members? But why wait for the formality of a constitutional process? Perhaps the President can appoint his selection by Executive Order. Congress might not put up a fuss. Better to get the matter behind them so members can concentrate on the real issues for the November election. 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 DSpeights at BPINEWS.COM Wed Oct 9 09:52:23 2002 From: DSpeights at BPINEWS.COM (Dave Speights) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 09:52:23 -0400 Subject: [NLA] literacy & homeland security Message-ID: <9466D359819BC843A5161F56D33762DE2A3069@bpiexch.bpinews.com> Check this out. DOT wants someone to test airport screener applicants for English fluency. http://www.eps.gov/spg/DOT/TSA/HQTSA/DTSA20-03-R-00565/SynopsisP.html Dave Speights, Editor Report on Literacy Programs Business Publishers, Inc. 8737 Colesville Road, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, MD 20910-3928 (301) 587-6300, ext. 349 FAX: (301) 587-1081 e-mail: dspeights at bpinews.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwyoho at earthlink.net Wed Oct 9 11:20:58 2002 From: dwyoho at earthlink.net ( Debbie Yoho) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 08:20:58 -0700 Subject: [NLA] NIFL Dear Colleage Letter, House and Senate Message-ID: I have contacted Strom Thurmond's office to secure a Senate Republican, but the staff member I needed was not in and has not yet called me back. Please keep me posted if we end up with more time. When I do hear from the staffer, I will attempt to educate her on the issue but as of this moment will not ask for a signature to the letter. Thanks, Debbie Yoho On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 19:35:40 -0700 "George E. Demetrion" wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:53:17 -0400 "Jon Randall" > writes: > >NIFL SENATE LETTER, FINAL UPDATE > > > >Despite valiant efforts by folks in several > states, we were unable to > secure > >a Republican lead co-sponsor for the Senate > letter. Since Senators are > >likely to wrap things up and go home by > Friday, there isn't enough > >time left to make this thing happen. > _______________________________________________________________ > > Jon: > > Thanks for providing vigorous leadership on > this effort. > > What are the implications for the intended > course of action as a result > of not being able to get the letter from the > Senate? Does this mean that > the effort as a whole has failed or is the > process still open on > influencing the choice of the NIFL Director? > That raises the related > issue as to whether there are one or two > candidates in the running. > > This question is for anyone who may have an > answer, are the names of the > candidate(s) a secret (if so, why) or is this > public information? If the > latter, can we be informed? > > Finally, is there a date or time frame set for > the names of the Board > nominees to formally appear before Congress? I > presume that the > appointment of the Director would need to > await until the nominees have > actually become members? > > But why wait for the formality of a > constitutional process? Perhaps the > President can appoint his selection by > Executive Order. Congress might > not put up a fuss. Better to get the matter > behind them so members can > concentrate on the real issues for the November > election. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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 jrandall at fedstrategics.com Wed Oct 9 12:23:41 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 12:23:41 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Re: NIFL Dear Colleague Letter, House & Senate Message-ID: <001701c26fb0$3ca72770$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Last evening, George Demetrion (LVA-Greater Hartford) asked several questions regarding the NIFL letter effort, the Director, and the Advisory Board. I'll do my best to respond briefly. Re: Failed letter effort in Senate ... It would have had more impact if we'd been able to secure a lead Republican cosponsor to join Sen. John Breaux (D-LA), but we should be proud of our effort in the House. A letter from 51 Congresspersons has impact. The jury is still out on whether it will influence their selection of the Director. Even if we'd had a Senate letter, we wouldn't know for sure. Through this effort, we made some new friends on Capitol Hill and created some visibility for adult literacy in the offices of the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and HHS. These outputs may serve the field in the coming months. Re: Possible Director candidates ... All we have is rumor at this point. It wouldn't be fair to vet rumored possible candidates on this listserv. I assert we should focus on the characteristics of a director we'd like to see - be proactive and positive rather than reactive and negative. Let's try to be part of the solution and not allow ourselves to be painted by policy-makers as unproductive. Re: Director appointment ... It is my understanding that the Secretaries COULD appoint a new director at any time. However, they may be inclined to wait a little while longer in order for the new Advisory Board to review possible candidates and advise - thus creating some new board member buy-in. Re: Senate confirmation of the new Board ... It is my understanding that the hold up in confirming nominees is the result of the White House failing to forward FBI background check data to the Senate. This means that the Senate must gather its own background data - requiring the nominees to unnecessarily complete more paperwork and Senate staff to conduct its own investigations. This would not be necessary if the White House had asked the nominees for permission to release the FBI background data to the Senate. (Aside ... Some partisan individuals have mused that there are politics at work here. In not forwarding the data , could the Administration be trying to make the Democrat-controlled Senate look slow to act and make the nominees resent additional digging by Senator Kennedy's committee?) Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 tsticht at znet.com Wed Oct 9 14:52:53 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners (longer) Message-ID: <1744.207.167.70.188.1034189573.squirrel@la.znet.com> Research Note October 9, 2002 Thomas G. Sticht International Consultant in Adult Education Why Such Low Expectations for Adult Learners in the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States? This year the U. S. Department of Education released the first report on the use of an early version of the National Reporting System (NRS) to obtain performance data from the states about the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States, that is, those programs that receive some funding from the State Grants of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998. . Called, "Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, Report to Congress on State Performance, Program Year 1999-2000", the report is available on the Education Department?s Web site at: www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE. Performance Indicators for Learning The AEFLA calls for states to report on "Demonstrated improvements in the literacy skill levels in reading, writing and speaking English, numeracy, problem-solving, English language acquisition, and other literacy skills." In the present report, states provided data on what their targets for achievement were and what their actual achievements were for each of seven levels of literacy, three for adult basic education and four for ESOL. In examining the targets for achievement, I was struck by how low the targets were. For instance the lowest level of ABE proficiency target is defined as: "The percentage of adults enrolled at the Beginning Literacy level who acquired the basic skills (validated by standardized assessment) needed to complete that level (1999-2000)." Averaged across all fifty states, the average target for achievement by the least able adult learners was 22 percent . In other words, the average expectation of the fifty states was that some 78 percent of the least literate adults would not acquire the basic skills needed to complete the most basic level of learning. In some states, the expectations for learning at the lowest level were dismayingly low. Three states projected that less than 10 percent of adults would acquire the skills of the lowest level of literacy. Astonishingly, Hawaii projected that just 5 percent, Nevada 6 percent, and Iowa just 8 percent of the adult learners at the lowest level of literacy would acquire the basic skills needed to complete that level. Actual levels of achievement were Hawaii 2 percent (!), Nevada 30 percent, and Iowa 15 percent, with an average achievement of 15.67 percent. Notice here the large difference between actual achievements for Hawaii and Nevada. Eleven states gave targets in the range of 10-14 percent. Arizona?s target (T) was 10 percent and it achieved (A) 37 percent; Arkansas T=10, A=27, California T=13, A=13, Florida T=13,A=25,Indiana T=14,A=25, Missouri T=11,A=24, New Hampshire T=11, A=13, N. Carolina T=12, A=54, S. Dakota T=14, A=35, Texas T=12, A=12. The average achievement for the eleven states was 26.36, ten points below the national average. As a standout, N. Carolina, which expected only 12 percent to achieve the skills of the lowest level of literacy, actually reported an achievement level of 54 percent, well above the national average of 36 percent achievement for the lowest ABE level. At the high end of expectations and achievements, Alaska set its target at 42 percent and achieved 64 percent. Ohio was T=30, A=65, Delaware T=43, A=63. At the top of the targets for achievement was Utah, with a target of 74 percent. And while its achievement was high, at 67 percent, it was below the state?s target. But all these states with higher targets achieved well above the national achievement of 36 percent. At the national level, for the three ABE levels, average targets for the lowest, intermediate, and highest literacy levels were 22, 24 and 27 percent and average actual achievements were 36, 42, and 44 percent. For the four ESOL levels, average targets were from the lowest ESOL level to the highest level, 22, 25, 28, and 27 percent, while actual achievements were 39, 40, 43, 38 percent. Across all performance levels, it was expected that anywhere from 73 to 78 percent of adults at a given level would not achieve the basic skills needed to complete that level. Is Low Achievement A Self-fulfilling Prophecy? Over all fifty states, for the lowest ABE level, there was a positive correlation of +.38 between the target and actual achievement levels, indicating that as a general trend, as the state?s target?s for achievement went up, actual achievement went up. These data raise some serious questions. Why are there such wide disparities in targets and achievements among the fifty states? Why do so many states have such low expectations for their least able ABE learners? Why do those states with higher expectations for the least literate, as indicated by their relatively high target scores, actually achieve better than the states with the lowest targets? Why do average expectations and achievements go up from the lowest to the higher levels of performance? Averaged over the national average data, the overall average target for achieving the skills at one of the seven levels was 25 percent, and the average actual achievement was 40 percent. This indicates that in the AELS, 75 percent of the adults were, on average, not expected to achieve the skills of a given level, and in actuality 60 percent did not. Is there some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy at work here such that low expectations lead to lower achievements? Is it possible that this marginalized field serving marginalized adults suffers from an inferiority complex that leads to low expectations and low achievements for its adult learners? Possibly if we could move the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States from the margins to the mainstream of publicly supported education, and recognize it and fund it at levels comparable to mainstream public education, we could find the psychological, financial, and material resources to overcome any inferiority complex and hold up high expectations and reach high levels of achievement for our nation?s under served and undereducated adults. In this regard, it might be especially useful to look at states like Utah to find out why they have such high expectations and how they reach achievements that go along with such expectations, particularly for our least able adult learners. There may be some power of positive thinking in these states that can help the entire system reach new levels of hope and achievement. _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 9 17:05:55 2002 From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:05:55 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Info: New Focus on Basics issue Message-ID: <3DA49A33.3010208@theworld.com> NLA Colleagues, Barbara Garner asked me to post this for your information. David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator New "Focus on Basics" on Web When new students walk into your class, they may appear to be alone, but research now underway at NCSALL indicates that, in most cases, they are not. They arrive in a program with the help and support of a specific person or a few people in their social networks. Read more about these "sponsors" in the new issue of "Focus on Basics", now available on the Web: http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu (scroll down a bit and click on "newest issue of Focus on Basics on counseling") Also in the issue: * When does counseling learners go beyond the role of the teacher? Read about how this Missouri program went about deciding to employ a social worker. * Who supports the helpers? What are states and programs doing to train and support counselors? * Helping students handle stress is one way to counsel. This Cambridge, MA, program offers a course that teaches mind/body responses to stress as it teaches basic skills * Counselors are often responsible for recruitment and enrollment. This workplace learning program used action research to understand which of their recruitment techniques were and weren't working --- and altered them as a result. * ESOL teachers often see themselves as advocates and counselors as well as teachers. Two programs talked to us about their two ways of approaching this function. Barbara Garner Senior Program Officer email bgarner at worlded.org World Education phone (617) 482-9485 44 Farnsworth Street fax (617) 482-0617 Boston, MA 02210 _______________________________________________ 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 john_kamplain at albanyparkcommunitycenter.org Wed Oct 9 16:58:47 2002 From: john_kamplain at albanyparkcommunitycenter.org (John Kamplain) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:58:47 -0500 Subject: [NLA] literacy & homeland security In-Reply-To: <9466D359819BC843A5161F56D33762DE2A3069@bpiexch.bpinews.com> Message-ID: Is this a bad thing? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Dave Speights" Subject: [NLA] literacy & homeland security Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:52:23 -0500 Size: 11305 URL: From carl.guerriere at po.state.ct.us Wed Oct 9 17:30:08 2002 From: carl.guerriere at po.state.ct.us (Carl Guerriere) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:30:08 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Re: NIFL Dear Colleague Letter, House & Senate In-Reply-To: <0880F2D4AC583848A1456105E0517FD42DDB24@server01.crwdb.ds.exec.state.ct.us> Message-ID: <0880F2D4AC583848A1456105E0517FD4096527@server01.crwdb.ds.exec.state.ct.us> Regardless of the final decision regarding NIFL director, I agree that we should feel proud of our efforts to affect adult literacy policy on a national level. Of particular note is how it happened. We all receive email messages from friends who want us to sign on to a letter for some cause. My experience has been, more often than not, that I do not discover the final result of my contribution to the effort. The NLA listserv provided a national network to communicate information and provide daily updates, as well as the final vote tally. And eventually we will find out who has been chosen as director. I believe the listserv provided a unique and valuable contribution to national policy efforts that should be recognized as well as utilzied in the future as we try to build national advocacy efforts. Carl Guerriere Executive Director/Literacy Advocate Greater Hartford Literacy Council 99 Pratt Street Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 522-7323 (522-READ) NEW NUMBER! Fax: (860) 722-2486 -----Original Message----- From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org [mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org]On Behalf Of Jon Randall Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:24 PM To: NLA Listserv (E-mail) Subject: [NLA] Re: NIFL Dear Colleague Letter, House & Senate Last evening, George Demetrion (LVA-Greater Hartford) asked several questions regarding the NIFL letter effort, the Director, and the Advisory Board. I'll do my best to respond briefly. Re: Failed letter effort in Senate ... It would have had more impact if we'd been able to secure a lead Republican cosponsor to join Sen. John Breaux (D-LA), but we should be proud of our effort in the House. A letter from 51 Congresspersons has impact. The jury is still out on whether it will influence their selection of the Director. Even if we'd had a Senate letter, we wouldn't know for sure. Through this effort, we made some new friends on Capitol Hill and created some visibility for adult literacy in the offices of the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and HHS. These outputs may serve the field in the coming months. Re: Possible Director candidates ... All we have is rumor at this point. It wouldn't be fair to vet rumored possible candidates on this listserv. I assert we should focus on the characteristics of a director we'd like to see - be proactive and positive rather than reactive and negative. Let's try to be part of the solution and not allow ourselves to be painted by policy-makers as unproductive. Re: Director appointment ... It is my understanding that the Secretaries COULD appoint a new director at any time. However, they may be inclined to wait a little while longer in order for the new Advisory Board to review possible candidates and advise - thus creating some new board member buy-in. Re: Senate confirmation of the new Board ... It is my understanding that the hold up in confirming nominees is the result of the White House failing to forward FBI background check data to the Senate. This means that the Senate must gather its own background data - requiring the nominees to unnecessarily complete more paperwork and Senate staff to conduct its own investigations. This would not be necessary if the White House had asked the nominees for permission to release the FBI background data to the Senate. (Aside ... Some partisan individuals have mused that there are politics at work here. In not forwarding the data , could the Administration be trying to make the Democrat-controlled Senate look slow to act and make the nominees resent additional digging by Senator Kennedy's committee?) Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eileeneckert at hotmail.com Wed Oct 9 18:28:35 2002 From: eileeneckert at hotmail.com (Eileen Eckert) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 22:28:35 +0000 Subject: [NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners (longer) Message-ID: I don't know if this is generalizable, but in my experience setting targets for my program, meeting the expectations was tied both to performance measures for the community college as a whole (the location of many programs in that state) and to WIA Title II funding. There was no reward for aiming high, only punishment for not meeting expectations. Therefore, it was in programs' best interests to set the goals as low as they reasonably could. It had nothing to do with commitment to learners or real expectations; it was pure politics. I keep arguing for concentration of decision-making and expenditures at the levels closest to the learner. Tom's inference that low performance targets are a reflection of low expectations is one more example of how the field separates policy and action from learners, and then acts as if the policy and action have some identifiable meaning! >From: Thomas Sticht >Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org >To: >Subject: [NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners (longer) >Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:52:53 -0700 (PDT) > > >Research Note October 9, 2002 > >Thomas G. Sticht >International Consultant in Adult Education > >Why Such Low Expectations for Adult Learners in the Adult Education and >Literacy System (AELS) of the United States? > >This year the U. S. Department of Education released the first report on >the use of an early version of the National Reporting System (NRS) to >obtain performance data from the states about the Adult Education and >Literacy System (AELS) of the United States, that is, those programs that >receive some funding from the State Grants of the Adult Education and >Family Literacy Act of 1998. . Called, "Adult Education and Family >Literacy Act, Report to Congress on State Performance, Program Year >1999-2000", the report is available on the Education Department?s Web site >at: www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE. > >Performance Indicators for Learning > >The AEFLA calls for states to report on "Demonstrated improvements in the >literacy skill levels in reading, writing and speaking English, numeracy, >problem-solving, English language acquisition, and other literacy skills." >In the present report, states provided data on what their targets for >achievement were and what their actual achievements were for each of seven >levels of literacy, three for adult basic education and four for ESOL. > >In examining the targets for achievement, I was struck by how low the >targets were. For instance the lowest level of ABE proficiency target is >defined as: "The percentage of adults enrolled at the Beginning Literacy >level who acquired the basic skills (validated by standardized assessment) >needed to complete that level (1999-2000)." Averaged across all fifty >states, the average target for achievement by the least able adult >learners was 22 percent . In other words, the average expectation of the >fifty states was that some 78 percent of the least literate adults would >not acquire the basic skills needed to complete the most basic level of >learning. > >In some states, the expectations for learning at the lowest level were >dismayingly low. Three states projected that less than 10 percent of >adults would acquire the skills of the lowest level of literacy. >Astonishingly, Hawaii projected that just 5 percent, Nevada 6 percent, and >Iowa just 8 percent of the adult learners at the lowest level of literacy >would acquire the basic skills needed to complete that level. Actual >levels of achievement were Hawaii 2 percent (!), Nevada 30 percent, and >Iowa 15 percent, with an average achievement of 15.67 percent. Notice here >the large difference between actual achievements for Hawaii and Nevada. > >Eleven states gave targets in the range of 10-14 percent. Arizona?s target >(T) was 10 percent and it achieved (A) 37 percent; Arkansas T=10, A=27, >California T=13, A=13, Florida T=13,A=25,Indiana T=14,A=25, Missouri >T=11,A=24, New Hampshire T=11, A=13, N. Carolina T=12, A=54, S. Dakota >T=14, A=35, Texas T=12, A=12. The average achievement for the eleven >states was 26.36, ten points below the national average. As a standout, N. >Carolina, which expected only 12 percent to achieve the skills of the >lowest level of literacy, actually reported an achievement level of 54 >percent, well above the national average of 36 percent achievement for the >lowest ABE level. > >At the high end of expectations and achievements, Alaska set its target at >42 percent and achieved 64 percent. Ohio was T=30, A=65, Delaware T=43, >A=63. At the top of the targets for achievement was Utah, with a target of >74 percent. And while its achievement was high, at 67 percent, it was >below the state?s target. But all these states with higher targets >achieved well above the national achievement of 36 percent. > >At the national level, for the three ABE levels, average targets for the >lowest, intermediate, and highest literacy levels were 22, 24 and 27 >percent and average actual achievements were 36, 42, and 44 percent. For >the four ESOL levels, average targets were from the lowest ESOL level to >the highest level, 22, 25, 28, and 27 percent, while actual achievements >were 39, 40, 43, 38 percent. Across all performance levels, it was >expected that anywhere from 73 to 78 percent of adults at a given level >would not achieve the basic skills needed to complete that level. > >Is Low Achievement A Self-fulfilling Prophecy? > >Over all fifty states, for the lowest ABE level, there was a positive >correlation of +.38 between the target and actual achievement levels, >indicating that as a general trend, as the state?s target?s for >achievement went up, actual achievement went up. > >These data raise some serious questions. Why are there such wide >disparities in targets and achievements among the fifty states? Why do so >many states have such low expectations for their least able ABE learners? >Why do those states with higher expectations for the least literate, as >indicated by their relatively high target scores, actually achieve better >than the states with the lowest targets? Why do average expectations and >achievements go up from the lowest to the higher levels of performance? > >Averaged over the national average data, the overall average target for >achieving the skills at one of the seven levels was 25 percent, and the >average actual achievement was 40 percent. This indicates that in the >AELS, 75 percent of the adults were, on average, not expected to achieve >the skills of a given level, and in actuality 60 percent did not. > >Is there some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy at work here such that low >expectations lead to lower achievements? Is it possible that this >marginalized field serving marginalized adults suffers from an inferiority >complex that leads to low expectations and low achievements for its adult >learners? > >Possibly if we could move the Adult Education and Literacy System of the >United States from the margins to the mainstream of publicly supported >education, and recognize it and fund it at levels comparable to mainstream >public education, we could find the psychological, financial, and material >resources to overcome any inferiority complex and hold up high >expectations and reach high levels of achievement for our nation?s under >served and undereducated adults. > >In this regard, it might be especially useful to look at states like Utah >to find out why they have such high expectations and how they reach >achievements that go along with such expectations, particularly for our >least able adult learners. There may be some power of positive thinking in >these states that can help the entire system reach new levels of hope and >achievement. > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 _________________________________________________________________ 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 ALCDGG at langate.gsu.edu Wed Oct 9 18:29:46 2002 From: ALCDGG at langate.gsu.edu (Daphne Greenberg) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 18:29:46 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Re: NIFL Dear Colleague Letter, House & Senate Message-ID: I agree. I found this experience to be a very empowering one. I did not realize how simple it is to be counted. I was impressed how seriously my representative took my voice and am still a bit puzzled by it. I was always under the impression that one needed lots of signatures to make a point. Obviously this is not always true. Thank you David for giving us an opportunity to have a Civics education and have an impact all at the same time. Daphne >>> carl.guerriere at po.state.ct.us 10/09/02 05:30PM >>> Regardless of the final decision regarding NIFL director, I agree that we should feel proud of our efforts to affect adult literacy policy on a national level. Of particular note is how it happened. We all receive email messages from friends who want us to sign on to a letter for some cause. My experience has been, more often than not, that I do not discover the final result of my contribution to the effort. The NLA listserv provided a national network to communicate information and provide daily updates, as well as the final vote tally. And eventually we will find out who has been chosen as director. I believe the listserv provided a unique and valuable contribution to national policy efforts that should be recognized as well as utilzied in the future as we try to build national advocacy efforts. Carl Guerriere Executive Director/Literacy Advocate Greater Hartford Literacy Council 99 Pratt Street Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 522-7323 (522-READ) NEW NUMBER! Fax: (860) 722-2486 -----Original Message----- From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org [mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org]On Behalf Of Jon Randall Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:24 PM To: NLA Listserv (E-mail) Subject: [NLA] Re: NIFL Dear Colleague Letter, House & Senate Last evening, George Demetrion (LVA-Greater Hartford) asked several questions regarding the NIFL letter effort, the Director, and the Advisory Board. I'll do my best to respond briefly. Re: Failed letter effort in Senate ... It would have had more impact if we'd been able to secure a lead Republican cosponsor to join Sen. John Breaux (D-LA), but we should be proud of our effort in the House. A letter from 51 Congresspersons has impact. The jury is still out on whether it will influence their selection of the Director. Even if we'd had a Senate letter, we wouldn't know for sure. Through this effort, we made some new friends on Capitol Hill and created some visibility for adult literacy in the offices of the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and HHS. These outputs may serve the field in the coming months. Re: Possible Director candidates ... All we have is rumor at this point. It wouldn't be fair to vet rumored possible candidates on this listserv. I assert we should focus on the characteristics of a director we'd like to see - be proactive and positive rather than reactive and negative. Let's try to be part of the solution and not allow ourselves to be painted by policy-makers as unproductive. Re: Director appointment ... It is my understanding that the Secretaries COULD appoint a new director at any time. However, they may be inclined to wait a little while longer in order for the new Advisory Board to review possible candidates and advise - thus creating some new board member buy-in. Re: Senate confirmation of the new Board ... It is my understanding that the hold up in confirming nominees is the result of the White House failing to forward FBI background check data to the Senate. This means that the Senate must gather its own background data - requiring the nominees to unnecessarily complete more paperwork and Senate staff to conduct its own investigations. This would not be necessary if the White House had asked the nominees for permission to release the FBI background data to the Senate. (Aside ... Some partisan individuals have mused that there are politics at work here. In not forwarding the data , could the Administration be trying to make the Democrat-controlled Senate look slow to act and make the nominees resent additional digging by Senator Kennedy's committee?) Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 Oct 9 21:09:06 2002 From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 21:09:06 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Discussion: The NIFL Director Effort, Training for The Long Haul Message-ID: <3DA4D332.4090708@theworld.com> NLA Colleagues, Andy Hartman chose a good metaphor. The adult literacy field -- adult learners and practitioners collectively -- has muscle. Together we have lifted the field a little higher. Maybe only a centimeter or two -- and maybe advocacy efforts with bigger public policy pectorals wouldn't be impressed. But we're in training now and we'll get stronger each time until our muscle gets the Congressional and legislative attention and action which adult literacy education deserves. Based on the last few weeks' experience, if we expand this kind of commitment and organization in every state, we will have the needed strength. What does it mean to "expand this kind of commitment and organization?" Myles Horton, founder of the Highlander Center in Tennessee, said in his autobiography _The Long Haul_ that U. "Utah" Phillips, the activist folk singer, once gave him a little pin that said "One Battle, Many Fronts." Myles Horton said about the pin, and about the role of the Highlander Education Center: "Instead of saying, 'We are going to organize,' we say 'Our job is to help people who may become organizers.' We try to develop people's ability to analyze, to understand problems so that they can develop into organizers or other types of leaders." We need activists who will in each new effort send faxes and letters and make follow-up phone calls. But we also need many more grass roots practitioner and adult learner organizers and advocacy leaders within our states, communities and adult education programs. Organizers and other types of literacy leaders are needed to talk with other adult learners and practitioners about the importance of literacy advocacy, do workshops on how to do advocacy, form adult literacy advocacy organizing committees, and create phone and fax trees, and e-mail lists, to get the word out to other adult literacy activists who will reach legislators. The NLA list has evolved in the past few weeks. Public policy advocacy has been de-mystified, made visible. Members of the national adult literacy advocacy community have seen activism in progress, seen that they are not alone. And I hope those who have been watching from the sidelines, learning how it works, may be ready to jump in next time. We have needed a way that those who do take action can report back to the field, can be recognized by their colleagues for their efforts, and can see that their action -- and others' actions -- are making a difference. NLA Colleague, Karen Scheid, an experienced adult literacy advocate, wrote me that in Ohio they publish an "honor list" for those who have taken advocacy action. I like that idea a lot. I am going to create the "NLA Advocates Honor List." Look for it soon. 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 Thu Oct 10 00:20:05 2002 From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 21:20:05 -0700 Subject: [NLA] Re: NIFL Dear Colleague Letter, House & Senate References: <001701c26fb0$3ca72770$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Message-ID: <20021009.212007.6382.0.sophocles5@juno.com> Colleagues: My comments last night should not be construed as criticism of the effort led by Jon and David to galvanize the field in response to the anticipated direction of NIFL in the choice of the next Director. It was an important initiative for the various reasons that individuals have stated, whether or not in the final analysis it has any impact in influencing the direction of NIFL in the coming months and years. The inability to get a Republican to co-sign a letter in the Senate was not due to any lack of trying or planning. Congratulations are in order for a well-crafted and well-executed effort. However, I do want to make sure we're not putting a happy face on various political realities that shortly may descend on the land of adult literacy from the political and intellectual Right, that is likely to be imminently reflected on the fate and direction of NIFL. I've mentioned various concerns in recent messages and won't belabor them this evening, except to highlight the three that concern me the most: a) Whether EFF is up for imminent demise, the marganilization of its original mission, or some type of substantial transformation in its current orientation and direction. Given the development, energy, and expenses that have gone into EFF during the past 8 year, has its original vision of serving as a consensual framework to bring broad unity to the field in the merging a student-centered, constructivist philosophy of learning with current and desired policy objectives, in the realm of work, family, and community settings, been abandoned? Will the effort as a whole be dissolved? Is this something we can have public discussion about that includes official spokespersons before any such decisions are made? As an aside, it's interesting to me that none of these issues have been raised on the NIFL-EFF listserv. b) What changes (if any) are anticipated in Lincs and the listserv? Will freedom of speech be eroded? We already hear of people placing on themselves an internal censor about posting certain messages on NIFL listservs. Is there a basis in fact for such apprehensions? Assuming the focus of NIFL increasingly shifts toward childhood literacy (a trend that may not be in the works), are there plans to eliminate, or restrict the listservs. Is this apprehension on my part unfounded, or, given the current political culture of the Bush Administration , does it have a solid basis in reality? Are individuals in official authority willing and able to speak to this issue? c) I also have certain reservations about the trend toward scientific focus in education as the prevailing legitimizing view of educational research. Not that I reject science as defined by some of the studies, but I don't view its post-postivistic philosophy as inherently any more truth bearing or objective than other modes of knowing. Thus, I don't reject it. I reject its domination. I can't go into this issue tonight, though the short of it is in how canons of academic disciplines established and how do they apply to such practitioner-based and interdisciplinary fields like education. Without going into more detail now, the question for the evening is whether the new NIFL administration is open to the broader range of research that stems from the qualitative research as well or will these schools of thought and work stemming from them be viewed as second class citizens? This, too, is no small matter, particularly given that intellectual taproot of EFF stems much more from qualitative research traditions than post-positivistic science. Admittedly, this is a technical issue, but goes to the core of how power mediates knowledge, which is as much a creation of political ideology as it is of "value-free" science--at least that's how I see it, a point of view that is backed up by a broad range of scholarship. In short, I seek to raise some weighty matters about the direction of adult literacy education as may be articulated through NIFL forums, products, and services over the next few years. My comments last night pertain to these matters and to these matters only. Are these questions and concerns worthy of serious discussion on the NLA and EFF lists? George Demetrion Gdemetrion 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 arthur at ellijay.com Thu Oct 10 08:19:24 2002 From: arthur at ellijay.com (Art LaChance) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:19:24 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners (longer) References: <1744.207.167.70.188.1034189573.squirrel@la.znet.com> Message-ID: <3DA5704C.E50C7DB1@ellijay.com> Tom, Your analysis appears to leave out some contributing factors. 1) students are not considered to be 'level completers' until they achieve the skills to progress into the next level, which according to your report is segregated into three main areas: 0 to 6 grade level, 7 to 9, and 10 to 12, give or take a grade level. To "complete" a grade level ALL skills must be above the 6th grade level for instance in order to move that student into the next level. That means reading, math, and language skills as measured by a "standardized" assessment tool must all be within the parameters of the next level. 2) All data reported to NRS is 'annual' data. I find it exceptionally difficult to draw any conclusions whatsoever in terms of who, what, where, of the lowest level of adult literacy students based on annual data when it will take far longer than 6 to 12 months to grow a low level student approximately 4 grade levels across the board. Especially when we probably only see that student in class approximately 6 hours a week and most of the time less than that. This scenario has absolutely nothing to do with student capabilities nor curriculum efficiency nor teacher qualifications. It certainly does have something to do with 'time' though, and let's don't forget 'need', from the student's perspective. Thanks, Art Art LaChance Gilmer Learning Center Ellijay, GA Thomas Sticht wrote: > Research Note October 9, 2002 > > Thomas G. Sticht > International Consultant in Adult Education > > Why Such Low Expectations for Adult Learners in the Adult Education and > Literacy System (AELS) of the United States? > > This year the U. S. Department of Education released the first report on > the use of an early version of the National Reporting System (NRS) to > obtain performance data from the states about the Adult Education and > Literacy System (AELS) of the United States, that is, those programs that > receive some funding from the State Grants of the Adult Education and > Family Literacy Act of 1998. . Called, "Adult Education and Family > Literacy Act, Report to Congress on State Performance, Program Year > 1999-2000", the report is available on the Education Department?s Web site > at: www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE. > > Performance Indicators for Learning > > The AEFLA calls for states to report on "Demonstrated improvements in the > literacy skill levels in reading, writing and speaking English, numeracy, > problem-solving, English language acquisition, and other literacy skills." > In the present report, states provided data on what their targets for > achievement were and what their actual achievements were for each of seven > levels of literacy, three for adult basic education and four for ESOL. > > In examining the targets for achievement, I was struck by how low the > targets were. For instance the lowest level of ABE proficiency target is > defined as: "The percentage of adults enrolled at the Beginning Literacy > level who acquired the basic skills (validated by standardized assessment) > needed to complete that level (1999-2000)." Averaged across all fifty > states, the average target for achievement by the least able adult > learners was 22 percent . In other words, the average expectation of the > fifty states was that some 78 percent of the least literate adults would > not acquire the basic skills needed to complete the most basic level of > learning. > > In some states, the expectations for learning at the lowest level were > dismayingly low. Three states projected that less than 10 percent of > adults would acquire the skills of the lowest level of literacy. > Astonishingly, Hawaii projected that just 5 percent, Nevada 6 percent, and > Iowa just 8 percent of the adult learners at the lowest level of literacy > would acquire the basic skills needed to complete that level. Actual > levels of achievement were Hawaii 2 percent (!), Nevada 30 percent, and > Iowa 15 percent, with an average achievement of 15.67 percent. Notice here > the large difference between actual achievements for Hawaii and Nevada. > > Eleven states gave targets in the range of 10-14 percent. Arizona?s target > (T) was 10 percent and it achieved (A) 37 percent; Arkansas T=10, A=27, > California T=13, A=13, Florida T=13,A=25,Indiana T=14,A=25, Missouri > T=11,A=24, New Hampshire T=11, A=13, N. Carolina T=12, A=54, S. Dakota > T=14, A=35, Texas T=12, A=12. The average achievement for the eleven > states was 26.36, ten points below the national average. As a standout, N. > Carolina, which expected only 12 percent to achieve the skills of the > lowest level of literacy, actually reported an achievement level of 54 > percent, well above the national average of 36 percent achievement for the > lowest ABE level. > > At the high end of expectations and achievements, Alaska set its target at > 42 percent and achieved 64 percent. Ohio was T=30, A=65, Delaware T=43, > A=63. At the top of the targets for achievement was Utah, with a target of > 74 percent. And while its achievement was high, at 67 percent, it was > below the state?s target. But all these states with higher targets > achieved well above the national achievement of 36 percent. > > At the national level, for the three ABE levels, average targets for the > lowest, intermediate, and highest literacy levels were 22, 24 and 27 > percent and average actual achievements were 36, 42, and 44 percent. For > the four ESOL levels, average targets were from the lowest ESOL level to > the highest level, 22, 25, 28, and 27 percent, while actual achievements > were 39, 40, 43, 38 percent. Across all performance levels, it was > expected that anywhere from 73 to 78 percent of adults at a given level > would not achieve the basic skills needed to complete that level. > > Is Low Achievement A Self-fulfilling Prophecy? > > Over all fifty states, for the lowest ABE level, there was a positive > correlation of +.38 between the target and actual achievement levels, > indicating that as a general trend, as the state?s target?s for > achievement went up, actual achievement went up. > > These data raise some serious questions. Why are there such wide > disparities in targets and achievements among the fifty states? Why do so > many states have such low expectations for their least able ABE learners? > Why do those states with higher expectations for the least literate, as > indicated by their relatively high target scores, actually achieve better > than the states with the lowest targets? Why do average expectations and > achievements go up from the lowest to the higher levels of performance? > > Averaged over the national average data, the overall average target for > achieving the skills at one of the seven levels was 25 percent, and the > average actual achievement was 40 percent. This indicates that in the > AELS, 75 percent of the adults were, on average, not expected to achieve > the skills of a given level, and in actuality 60 percent did not. > > Is there some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy at work here such that low > expectations lead to lower achievements? Is it possible that this > marginalized field serving marginalized adults suffers from an inferiority > complex that leads to low expectations and low achievements for its adult > learners? > > Possibly if we could move the Adult Education and Literacy System of the > United States from the margins to the mainstream of publicly supported > education, and recognize it and fund it at levels comparable to mainstream > public education, we could find the psychological, financial, and material > resources to overcome any inferiority complex and hold up high > expectations and reach high levels of achievement for our nation?s under > served and undereducated adults. > > In this regard, it might be especially useful to look at states like Utah > to find out why they have such high expectations and how they reach > achievements that go along with such expectations, particularly for our > least able adult learners. There may be some power of positive thinking in > these states that can help the entire system reach new levels of hope and > achievement. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Leslee.Oppenheim at domino1.cuny.edu Thu Oct 10 09:14:38 2002 From: Leslee.Oppenheim at domino1.cuny.edu (Leslee.Oppenheim at domino1.cuny.edu) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:14:38 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners (longer) Message-ID: I believe the percentages that Tom refers to are derived from the number of students enrolled at each level, rather than from the number of students who were post tested at each level. Given a mobile population of adult learners, deriving the percentage from the number enrolled versus the number post tested presents a skewed picture. In addition, there are numbers of students who make gains within a level whose progress is not captured in the "complete-the-level" statistics. Hopefully, then, if (and that's a big if) one has confidence in the instruments used to report gain, the picture may be somewhat different that it appears to be. _______________________________________________ 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 znet.com Thu Oct 10 14:44:12 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NLA] Celebrating 35 Years of the AELS Message-ID: <1658.207.167.70.206.1034275452.squirrel@la.znet.com> Celebrating 35 Years of the Adult Education & Literacy System (AELS) of the United States Tom Sticht International Consultant in Adult Education The Adult Education Act signed into law early in fiscal year 1967 created what I call the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States. The AELS consists of the 3500+ programs that receive funds from and operate according to the rules of the State Grants program of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998. As a publicly supported education system, the AELS takes its place alongside the public K-12 school system for children and the public higher education system for adults. In program year 1999-2000 the AELS served some 2.9 million adult learners. Fiscal year 2002 marks 35 years of the AELS. In celebration, I have been conducting a speaking tour across the nation. To date I have given presentations in New York, California (twice), New Mexico, and Minnesota. Over 1,300 adult educators, adult students, government officials, and business representatives have heard about the AELS as the third major component of public education in America. On my tour I have had the pleasure of meeting in person a good number of members of the NLA list. I have had some solid discussions about issues facing adult educators in the different states, and I have been impressed by the thoughtfulness and dedication that NLA list members show in their advocacy and other efforts to advance adult literacy education in their states. This month I wrap up my tour with just two more stops. For those who may be interested in stopping by to say hello, following is a list of dates, places, and contacts: October 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 THE ADULT EDUCATION & LITERACY SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES Serving America?s Adult Learners for 35 Years! _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 10 17:44:30 2002 From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:44:30 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Info: New Jersey Advocacy News Message-ID: <3DA5F4BE.2010008@theworld.com> NLA Colleagues, We welcome news from the states about state-level adult literacy advocacy. Here's some news from New Jersey. I believe we'll soon have news from Pennsylvania. Any other states planning to report in on state-level advocacy activities? David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator New Jersey Advocacy Update October 2002 New Jersey adult educators have been working together in the past year to try some new strategies for adult literacy advocacy. We recognize that collaborative, well-organized efforts are needed if we are to get the planning, investment, collaboration at the state and local levels, and committed leadership needed to create and sustain an effective adult education system. The New Jersey Association for Lifelong Learning and Literacy Volunteers of America - New Jersey joined forces this year to take the following steps: * In January 2002, we prepared an advocacy message summarizing concerns and recommendations for state policy makers (http://www.easternlincs.org/njall/whatsnewarchive/basicskills.htm ). * In April, we held a joint three-day Institute with NJ Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages - NJ Bilingual Educators. This attempt to join forces to build expertise (including in EFF), discuss policy issues, and build a broader constituency for adult education was a success (http://www.easternlincs.org/njall/whatsnewarchive/smashingsuccess.htm ). * NJALL and LVA-NJ representatives are participating in state- and local-level decision-making bodies, including the State Council for Adult Literacy Education Services (a state-level adult literacy advisory body), New Jersey Reads (Verizon's corporate literacy initiative), and local Workforce Investment Boards. * In September we held a Legislative Luncheon at the State House, where adult educators, adult learners, and other supporters of adult education met with legislators and public officials. We celebrated International Literacy Day and educated policy makers about the need to invest in adult education, http://www.easternlincs.org/njall/whatsnewarchive/advocatesmeetlegislators.htm * We've refined our communications channels, opening up our listserv to any interested supporters of adult education in the state and including an "advocacy" section on our Web site (http://www.easternlincs.org/njall/advocacy.htm ). NJALL and LVA-NJ are talking about further collaborative efforts, including another joint Institute in the spring and the possible hiring of a policy advocate (who would help us prepare policy papers, reach out to policy makers, and train our members as advocates). We welcome ideas and support from inside and outside New Jersey. Contact NJALL President, David Kring, at dkring at rcn.com . Paul Jurmo NJALL Past President, 2001-2002 _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Oct 10 20:53:01 2002 From: sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net (Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:53:01 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners (longer) References: <1744.207.167.70.188.1034189573.squirrel@la.znet.com> <3DA5704C.E50C7DB1@ellijay.com> Message-ID: <004701c270c0$9582bc40$1408e9c0@nancy> I wish to BRIEFLY confirm what Art is saying in this email. My opinion is that his comments about Tom's analysis applies *especially* to the smallest of literacy programs where the standardized assessments have absolutely nothing to do with the needs of the learners entering at the lowest of literacy levels. In the programs where assessments are done to gauge a starting point for GED studies, *perhaps* they find the tools helpful, but for programs like the one *I* administer - where not a one of our New Readers / adult learners are here to study for a GED - the assessment results mean absolutely nothing. The measure of skills, just as Art proclaims: > "...has absolutely nothing to do with student capabilities nor > curriculum efficiency nor teacher qualifications. It certainly does have > something to do with 'time' though, and let's don't forget 'need', from the > student's perspective." Regarding the requirement of the NRS for "annual data"? The ostriches had better dig their eyeballs out of the dirt and take a long, hard look at the demographics of the truly literacy-level program participant. Finish in a year? Finish what exactly?? Be able to gain a *year's* worth of educational skills when they attend sessions on a very part-time basis as their busy schedules allow - or get to the next level in the plotted plan?? Totally a farce! Think realistically for just a second: If a prized aggressive, motivated and energized learner with a 0-1 level of recognition of sight words and a measure of positive self-image and high expectations for themselves, comes into a literacy program as early as July in a fiscal year reporting period, you think that this adult is going to "climb out of the pit" to the "next level" (7 to 9) by June of the same reporting period!? Oh! And by the Way.....that adult has a family, a full-time job, bills to pay causing a second job ... yep! You are really going to see that adult accomplish that lofty goal in 12 months! Heck! Go ahead! Flash that stand ardiszed testing tool at the guy or gal with a 0-1 base of knowledge and see just how long it takes for them to run the opposite direction of the In Door. Nancy Hansen community-based literacy council Sioux Falls, SD ----- Original Message ----- From: "Art LaChance" To: Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners (longer) > Tom, > Your analysis appears to leave out some contributing factors. > 1) students are not considered to be 'level completers' until they achieve the > skills to progress into the next level, which according to your report is > segregated into three main areas: 0 to 6 grade level, 7 to 9, and 10 to 12, > give or take a grade level. To "complete" a grade level ALL skills must be > above the 6th grade level for instance in order to move that student into the > next level. That means reading, math, and language skills as measured by a > "standardized" assessment tool must all be within the parameters of the next > level. > 2) All data reported to NRS is 'annual' data. I find it exceptionally > difficult to draw any conclusions whatsoever in terms of who, what, where, of > the lowest level of adult literacy students based on annual data when it will > take far longer than 6 to 12 months to grow a low level student approximately > 4 grade levels across the board. Especially when we probably only see that > student in class approximately 6 hours a week and most of the time less than > that. > This scenario has absolutely nothing to do with student capabilities nor > curriculum efficiency nor teacher qualifications. It certainly does have > something to do with 'time' though, and let's don't forget 'need', from the > student's perspective. > > Thanks, > > Art > > > Art LaChance > Gilmer Learning Center > Ellijay, GA > > > > Thomas Sticht wrote: > > > Research Note October 9, 2002 > > > > Thomas G. Sticht > > International Consultant in Adult Education > > > > Why Such Low Expectations for Adult Learners in the Adult Education and > > Literacy System (AELS) of the United States? > > > > This year the U. S. Department of Education released the first report on > > the use of an early version of the National Reporting System (NRS) to > > obtain performance data from the states about the Adult Education and > > Literacy System (AELS) of the United States, that is, those programs that > > receive some funding from the State Grants of the Adult Education and > > Family Literacy Act of 1998. . Called, "Adult Education and Family > > Literacy Act, Report to Congress on State Performance, Program Year > > 1999-2000", the report is available on the Education Department's Web site > > at: www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE. > > > > Performance Indicators for Learning > > > > The AEFLA calls for states to report on "Demonstrated improvements in the > > literacy skill levels in reading, writing and speaking English, numeracy, > > problem-solving, English language acquisition, and other literacy skills." > > In the present report, states provided data on what their targets for > > achievement were and what their actual achievements were for each of seven > > levels of literacy, three for adult basic education and four for ESOL. > > > > In examining the targets for achievement, I was struck by how low the > > targets were. For instance the lowest level of ABE proficiency target is > > defined as: "The percentage of adults enrolled at the Beginning Literacy > > level who acquired the basic skills (validated by standardized assessment) > > needed to complete that level (1999-2000)." Averaged across all fifty > > states, the average target for achievement by the least able adult > > learners was 22 percent . In other words, the average expectation of the > > fifty states was that some 78 percent of the least literate adults would > > not acquire the basic skills needed to complete the most basic level of > > learning. > > > > In some states, the expectations for learning at the lowest level were > > dismayingly low. Three states projected that less than 10 percent of > > adults would acquire the skills of the lowest level of literacy. > > Astonishingly, Hawaii projected that just 5 percent, Nevada 6 percent, and > > Iowa just 8 percent of the adult learners at the lowest level of literacy > > would acquire the basic skills needed to complete that level. Actual > > levels of achievement were Hawaii 2 percent (!), Nevada 30 percent, and > > Iowa 15 percent, with an average achievement of 15.67 percent. Notice here > > the large difference between actual achievements for Hawaii and Nevada. > > > > Eleven states gave targets in the range of 10-14 percent. Arizona's target > > (T) was 10 percent and it achieved (A) 37 percent; Arkansas T=10, A=27, > > California T=13, A=13, Florida T=13,A=25,Indiana T=14,A=25, Missouri > > T=11,A=24, New Hampshire T=11, A=13, N. Carolina T=12, A=54, S. Dakota > > T=14, A=35, Texas T=12, A=12. The average achievement for the eleven > > states was 26.36, ten points below the national average. As a standout, N. > > Carolina, which expected only 12 percent to achieve the skills of the > > lowest level of literacy, actually reported an achievement level of 54 > > percent, well above the national average of 36 percent achievement for the > > lowest ABE level. > > > > At the high end of expectations and achievements, Alaska set its target at > > 42 percent and achieved 64 percent. Ohio was T=30, A=65, Delaware T=43, > > A=63. At the top of the targets for achievement was Utah, with a target of > > 74 percent. And while its achievement was high, at 67 percent, it was > > below the state's target. But all these states with higher targets > > achieved well above the national achievement of 36 percent. > > > > At the national level, for the three ABE levels, average targets for the > > lowest, intermediate, and highest literacy levels were 22, 24 and 27 > > percent and average actual achievements were 36, 42, and 44 percent. For > > the four ESOL levels, average targets were from the lowest ESOL level to > > the highest level, 22, 25, 28, and 27 percent, while actual achievements > > were 39, 40, 43, 38 percent. Across all performance levels, it was > > expected that anywhere from 73 to 78 percent of adults at a given level > > would not achieve the basic skills needed to complete that level. > > > > Is Low Achievement A Self-fulfilling Prophecy? > > > > Over all fifty states, for the lowest ABE level, there was a positive > > correlation of +.38 between the target and actual achievement levels, > > indicating that as a general trend, as the state's target's for > > achievement went up, actual achievement went up. > > > > These data raise some serious questions. Why are there such wide > > disparities in targets and achievements among the fifty states? Why do so > > many states have such low expectations for their least able ABE learners? > > Why do those states with higher expectations for the least literate, as > > indicated by their relatively high target scores, actually achieve better > > than the states with the lowest targets? Why do average expectations and > > achievements go up from the lowest to the higher levels of performance? > > > > Averaged over the national average data, the overall average target for > > achieving the skills at one of the seven levels was 25 percent, and the > > average actual achievement was 40 percent. This indicates that in the > > AELS, 75 percent of the adults were, on average, not expected to achieve > > the skills of a given level, and in actuality 60 percent did not. > > > > Is there some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy at work here such that low > > expectations lead to lower achievements? Is it possible that this > > marginalized field serving marginalized adults suffers from an inferiority > > complex that leads to low expectations and low achievements for its adult > > learners? > > > > Possibly if we could move the Adult Education and Literacy System of the > > United States from the margins to the mainstream of publicly supported > > education, and recognize it and fund it at levels comparable to mainstream > > public education, we could find the psychological, financial, and material > > resources to overcome any inferiority complex and hold up high > > expectations and reach high levels of achievement for our nation's under > > served and undereducated adults. > > > > In this regard, it might be especially useful to look at states like Utah > > to find out why they have such high expectations and how they reach > > achievements that go along with such expectations, particularly for our > > least able adult learners. There may be some power of positive thinking in > > these states that can help the entire system reach new levels of hope and > > achievement. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Thu Oct 10 22:26:36 2002 From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:26:36 -0400 Subject: [NLA] National literacy Advocacy Honor Roll Message-ID: <3DA636DC.5060208@theworld.com> NLA Colleagues, The following people and their states have recently distinguished themselves in a public policy advocacy effort to impress upon members of Congress the importance of maintaining and strengthening the National Institute for Literacy's focus on adults. We wish to recognize their efforts on the NLA list. (If there are errors of omission, spelling, state of residence, or other errors, please let me know and I will publish a corrected version.) David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator NLA Advocates Honor Role Created October, 2002 Caroline Beverstock, CA Amy Prevedel, CA Dennis P. Smith, CA George Demetrion, CT Eileen Eckert, CT Carl Guerriere, CT Daphne Greenberg, GA Beth Odom, GA Archie Willard, IA Colleen Dries, IL Joyce Fritsch, IL Vicki Hinkle, IL Carol Morris, IL Suzanne Knell, IL Margery Freeman, LA Elsa Auerbach, MA Sharon Feeney, MA Silja Kallenbach, MA Jeanne Kelley, MA Esther Leonelli, MA Andrea Nash, MA Connie Nelson, MA Mina Reddy, MA Steve Reuys, MA Cristine Smith, MA Kenneth Tamarkin, MA Andrea Wilder, MA Jon Randall, MD Robbin Sorensen, MD Becky Dyer, ME Linda Hoover, MN Jeri Levesque, MO Norene Peterson, MT Beth Brockman, NC Lucy Haagen, NC Patti Vorfeld, NH Debby D?Amico, NJ Alisa Belzer, NJ David Kring, NJ Judy Hofer, NM Anita Caref, NY Georges Marceau, NY Priscilla Stadler, NY Gina Ficociello, OH Stephanie Graves, OH Mary Kern, OH Lili Roush, OH Karen Scheid, OH Carole Scholl, OR Donald Block, PA Peggy McGuire, PA JoAnn Weinberger, PA Janet Isserlis, RI Judy Titzel, RI Debbie Yoho, SC Nancy Hansen, SD Aaron Kohring, TN Edith Gower, TX Federico Salas-Isnardi, TX Carmen Seibert-Martinez, TX Andres Muro, TX Robert M. Pinhero, TX Louise Sanders, TX Jan Martin Bopp, VT Patti Vorfeld, VT Pat Johnston, VT _______________________________________________ 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 office at naulc.org Fri Oct 11 13:45:46 2002 From: office at naulc.org (Edith Gower) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:45:46 -0500 Subject: [NLA] National literacy Advocacy Honor Roll In-Reply-To: <3DA636DC.5060208@theworld.com> Message-ID: David, A thank you is due to Rachel Nicolosi who got Senator Breaux on board, even though we never found a Republican to co-sponsor. 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 -----Original Message----- From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org [mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org]On Behalf Of David J. Rosen Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:27 PM To: nla at lists.literacytent.org Subject: [NLA] National literacy Advocacy Honor Roll NLA Colleagues, The following people and their states have recently distinguished themselves in a public policy advocacy effort to impress upon members of Congress the importance of maintaining and strengthening the National Institute for Literacy's focus on adults. We wish to recognize their efforts on the NLA list. (If there are errors of omission, spelling, state of residence, or other errors, please let me know and I will publish a corrected version.) David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator NLA Advocates Honor Role Created October, 2002 Caroline Beverstock, CA Amy Prevedel, CA Dennis P. Smith, CA George Demetrion, CT Eileen Eckert, CT Carl Guerriere, CT Daphne Greenberg, GA Beth Odom, GA Archie Willard, IA Colleen Dries, IL Joyce Fritsch, IL Vicki Hinkle, IL Carol Morris, IL Suzanne Knell, IL Margery Freeman, LA Elsa Auerbach, MA Sharon Feeney, MA Silja Kallenbach, MA Jeanne Kelley, MA Esther Leonelli, MA Andrea Nash, MA Connie Nelson, MA Mina Reddy, MA Steve Reuys, MA Cristine Smith, MA Kenneth Tamarkin, MA Andrea Wilder, MA Jon Randall, MD Robbin Sorensen, MD Becky Dyer, ME Linda Hoover, MN Jeri Levesque, MO Norene Peterson, MT Beth Brockman, NC Lucy Haagen, NC Patti Vorfeld, NH Debby D?Amico, NJ Alisa Belzer, NJ David Kring, NJ Judy Hofer, NM Anita Caref, NY Georges Marceau, NY Priscilla Stadler, NY Gina Ficociello, OH Stephanie Graves, OH Mary Kern, OH Lili Roush, OH Karen Scheid, OH Carole Scholl, OR Donald Block, PA Peggy McGuire, PA JoAnn Weinberger, PA Janet Isserlis, RI Judy Titzel, RI Debbie Yoho, SC Nancy Hansen, SD Aaron Kohring, TN Edith Gower, TX Federico Salas-Isnardi, TX Carmen Seibert-Martinez, TX Andres Muro, TX Robert M. Pinhero, TX Louise Sanders, TX Jan Martin Bopp, VT Patti Vorfeld, VT Pat Johnston, VT _______________________________________________ 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 Sondra.Stein at nifl.gov Fri Oct 11 14:56:53 2002 From: Sondra.Stein at nifl.gov (Stein, Sondra) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 14:56:53 -0400 Subject: [NLA] National literacy Advocacy Honor Roll Message-ID: Thanks to all of you. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your efforts in support of keeping the NIFL focused on ADULT literacy and learning. Sondra Sondra G. Stein, PhD. Senior Research Associate and National Director, Equipped for the Future National Institute for Literacy 1775 I Street NW Suite 730 Washington, DC 20006 phone: 202-233-2041 fax: 202-233-2050 -----Original Message----- From: David J. Rosen [mailto:DJRosen at theworld.com] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 10:27 PM To: nla at lists.literacytent.org Subject: [NLA] National literacy Advocacy Honor Roll NLA Colleagues, The following people and their states have recently distinguished themselves in a public policy advocacy effort to impress upon members of Congress the importance of maintaining and strengthening the National Institute for Literacy's focus on adults. We wish to recognize their efforts on the NLA list. (If there are errors of omission, spelling, state of residence, or other errors, please let me know and I will publish a corrected version.) David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator NLA Advocates Honor Role Created October, 2002 Caroline Beverstock, CA Amy Prevedel, CA Dennis P. Smith, CA George Demetrion, CT Eileen Eckert, CT Carl Guerriere, CT Daphne Greenberg, GA Beth Odom, GA Archie Willard, IA Colleen Dries, IL Joyce Fritsch, IL Vicki Hinkle, IL Carol Morris, IL Suzanne Knell, IL Margery Freeman, LA Elsa Auerbach, MA Sharon Feeney, MA Silja Kallenbach, MA Jeanne Kelley, MA Esther Leonelli, MA Andrea Nash, MA Connie Nelson, MA Mina Reddy, MA Steve Reuys, MA Cristine Smith, MA Kenneth Tamarkin, MA Andrea Wilder, MA Jon Randall, MD Robbin Sorensen, MD Becky Dyer, ME Linda Hoover, MN Jeri Levesque, MO Norene Peterson, MT Beth Brockman, NC Lucy Haagen, NC Patti Vorfeld, NH Debby D'Amico, NJ Alisa Belzer, NJ David Kring, NJ Judy Hofer, NM Anita Caref, NY Georges Marceau, NY Priscilla Stadler, NY Gina Ficociello, OH Stephanie Graves, OH Mary Kern, OH Lili Roush, OH Karen Scheid, OH Carole Scholl, OR Donald Block, PA Peggy McGuire, PA JoAnn Weinberger, PA Janet Isserlis, RI Judy Titzel, RI Debbie Yoho, SC Nancy Hansen, SD Aaron Kohring, TN Edith Gower, TX Federico Salas-Isnardi, TX Carmen Seibert-Martinez, TX Andres Muro, TX Robert M. Pinhero, TX Louise Sanders, TX Jan Martin Bopp, VT Patti Vorfeld, VT Pat Johnston, VT _______________________________________________ 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: From cb.king at verizon.net Fri Oct 11 17:06:32 2002 From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine B. King) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 14:06:32 -0700 Subject: [NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners References: <1744.207.167.70.188.1034189573.squirrel@la.znet.com> <3DA5704C.E50C7DB1@ellijay.com> <004701c270c0$9582bc40$1408e9c0@nancy> Message-ID: <000f01c2716a$349ef560$e807f843@VZres087lb> To Nancy and Art, et al: >From a purely statistical point of view, the data (adult students) who fall outside the norms do not exist and are not important, and should not be funded. From the humanistic point of view of most teachers, each student is important, and the least are the most important ("least" meaning those who are hardest to serve). I am not saying that all statisticians are not humanistic, least of all Tom Stitcht whose posts clearly reveal him to be on the side of educational advocacy for all adults. And I am sure you are not averse to the interesting knowledge gains that the field of educational statistics provides. However, there is a disjunct in the dialogue around this issue of different points of view and emphasis. But the statistical point of view, coupled with punitive overtones, is the kind of data that apparently gets the ear of our current policy-makers. The point that I think is missing, or perhaps it doesn't seem important to anyone, is that all of these adults are a part of a supposed democratic polity whose voice needs to be (1) able to be heard, and (2) as educated as it can be. If so, the notion of "low expectations" in adult learners should comes under a different light. That is, as Nancy and Art would probably agree (?), the adults who show up in their programs are not there for a handout for which they need to produce a statistical tradeoff. They come there to improve themselves--why else would they come? At the level of the program administrator, it seems to me that Nancy's, and Art's, and all administrators' and teachers' one main responsibility is to their adults and THEIR expectations. Viewed in that light, I wonder how low they would be. Also, we should be glad people show up at these programs at all--and support the education that goes on there--in a purported democracy where education of "the people" is essential to "provide for the general welfare" and for the democracy as such. Adults are not there to work in a factory and produce some goods. In a democracy, general education is a right; this is the only thing that legitimates all of the jobs and salaries that emerge from providing this service, including policy-makers'; and this right is understood as such by those of us who understand what democracies are about. Adults, and their decisions to educate themselves in any way, ARE the goods. Their coming to adult programs, and their own qualifications of our programs should constitute a good amount of how we qualify them. Regards, Catherine King Adjunct Instructor National University Department of Education San Diego, CA ----- Original Message ----- From: Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council To: Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners (longer) > I wish to BRIEFLY confirm what Art is saying in this email. > > My opinion is that his comments about Tom's analysis applies *especially* to > the smallest of literacy programs where the standardized assessments have > absolutely nothing to do with the needs of the learners entering at the > lowest of literacy levels. In the programs where assessments are done to > gauge a starting point for GED studies, *perhaps* they find the tools > helpful, but for programs like the one *I* administer - where not a one of > our New Readers / adult learners are here to study for a GED - the > assessment results mean absolutely nothing. > > The measure of skills, just as Art proclaims: > > "...has absolutely nothing to do with student capabilities nor > > curriculum efficiency nor teacher qualifications. It certainly does have > > something to do with 'time' though, and let's don't forget 'need', from > the > > student's perspective." > > Regarding the requirement of the NRS for "annual data"? The ostriches had > better dig their eyeballs out of the dirt and take a long, hard look at the > demographics of the truly literacy-level program participant. Finish in a > year? Finish what exactly?? Be able to gain a *year's* worth of > educational skills when they attend sessions on a very part-time basis as > their busy schedules allow - or get to the next level in the plotted plan?? > Totally a farce! > > Think realistically for just a second: If a prized aggressive, motivated > and energized learner with a 0-1 level of recognition of sight words and a > measure of positive self-image and high expectations for themselves, comes > into a literacy program as early as July in a fiscal year reporting period, > you think that this adult is going to "climb out of the pit" to the "next > level" (7 to 9) by June of the same reporting period!? > > Oh! And by the Way.....that adult has a family, a full-time job, bills to > pay causing a second job ... yep! You are really going to see that adult > accomplish that lofty goal in 12 months! Heck! Go ahead! Flash that stand > ardiszed testing tool at the guy or gal with a 0-1 base of knowledge and see > just how long it takes for them to run the opposite direction of the In > Door. > > Nancy Hansen > community-based literacy council > Sioux Falls, SD > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Art LaChance" > To: > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:19 AM > Subject: Re: [NLA] Low Expectations for Adult Learners (longer) > > > > Tom, > > Your analysis appears to leave out some contributing factors. > > 1) students are not considered to be 'level completers' until they achieve > the > > skills to progress into the next level, which according to your report is > > segregated into three main areas: 0 to 6 grade level, 7 to 9, and 10 to > 12, > > give or take a grade level. To "complete" a grade level ALL skills must > be > > above the 6th grade level for instance in order to move that student into > the > > next level. That means reading, math, and language skills as measured by > a > > "standardized" assessment tool must all be within the parameters of the > next > > level. > > 2) All data reported to NRS is 'annual' data. I find it exceptionally > > difficult to draw any conclusions whatsoever in terms of who, what, where, > of > > the lowest level of adult literacy students based on annual data when it > will > > take far longer than 6 to 12 months to grow a low level student > approximately > > 4 grade levels across the board. Especially when we probably only see > that > > student in class approximately 6 hours a week and most of the time less > than > > that. > > This scenario has absolutely nothing to do with student capabilities nor > > curriculum efficiency nor teacher qualifications. It certainly does have > > something to do with 'time' though, and let's don't forget 'need', from > the > > student's perspective. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Art > > > > > > Art LaChance > > Gilmer Learning Center > > Ellijay, GA > > > > > > > > Thomas Sticht wrote: > > > > > Research Note October 9, 2002 > > > > > > Thomas G. Sticht > > > International Consultant in Adult Education > > > > > > Why Such Low Expectations for Adult Learners in the Adult Education and > > > Literacy System (AELS) of the United States? > > > > > > This year the U. S. Department of Education released the first report on > > > the use of an early version of the National Reporting System (NRS) to > > > obtain performance data from the states about the Adult Education and > > > Literacy System (AELS) of the United States, that is, those programs > that > > > receive some funding from the State Grants of the Adult Education and > > > Family Literacy Act of 1998. . Called, "Adult Education and Family > > > Literacy Act, Report to Congress on State Performance, Program Year > > > 1999-2000", the report is available on the Education Department's Web > site > > > at: www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE. > > > > > > Performance Indicators for Learning > > > > > > The AEFLA calls for states to report on "Demonstrated improvements in > the > > > literacy skill levels in reading, writing and speaking English, > numeracy, > > > problem-solving, English language acquisition, and other literacy > skills." > > > In the present report, states provided data on what their targets for > > > achievement were and what their actual achievements were for each of > seven > > > levels of literacy, three for adult basic education and four for ESOL. > > > > > > In examining the targets for achievement, I was struck by how low the > > > targets were. For instance the lowest level of ABE proficiency target is > > > defined as: "The percentage of adults enrolled at the Beginning > Literacy > > > level who acquired the basic skills (validated by standardized > assessment) > > > needed to complete that level (1999-2000)." Averaged across all fifty > > > states, the average target for achievement by the least able adult > > > learners was 22 percent . In other words, the average expectation of the > > > fifty states was that some 78 percent of the least literate adults would > > > not acquire the basic skills needed to complete the most basic level of > > > learning. > > > > > > In some states, the expectations for learning at the lowest level were > > > dismayingly low. Three states projected that less than 10 percent of > > > adults would acquire the skills of the lowest level of literacy. > > > Astonishingly, Hawaii projected that just 5 percent, Nevada 6 percent, > and > > > Iowa just 8 percent of the adult learners at the lowest level of > literacy > > > would acquire the basic skills needed to complete that level. Actual > > > levels of achievement were Hawaii 2 percent (!), Nevada 30 percent, and > > > Iowa 15 percent, with an average achievement of 15.67 percent. Notice > here > > > the large difference between actual achievements for Hawaii and Nevada. > > > > > > Eleven states gave targets in the range of 10-14 percent. Arizona's > target > > > (T) was 10 percent and it achieved (A) 37 percent; Arkansas T=10, A=27, > > > California T=13, A=13, Florida T=13,A=25,Indiana T=14,A=25, Missouri > > > T=11,A=24, New Hampshire T=11, A=13, N. Carolina T=12, A=54, S. Dakota > > > T=14, A=35, Texas T=12, A=12. The average achievement for the eleven > > > states was 26.36, ten points below the national average. As a standout, > N. > > > Carolina, which expected only 12 percent to achieve the skills of the > > > lowest level of literacy, actually reported an achievement level of 54 > > > percent, well above the national average of 36 percent achievement for > the > > > lowest ABE level. > > > > > > At the high end of expectations and achievements, Alaska set its target > at > > > 42 percent and achieved 64 percent. Ohio was T=30, A=65, Delaware T=43, > > > A=63. At the top of the targets for achievement was Utah, with a target > of > > > 74 percent. And while its achievement was high, at 67 percent, it was > > > below the state's target. But all these states with higher targets > > > achieved well above the national achievement of 36 percent. > > > > > > At the national level, for the three ABE levels, average targets for the > > > lowest, intermediate, and highest literacy levels were 22, 24 and 27 > > > percent and average actual achievements were 36, 42, and 44 percent. For > > > the four ESOL levels, average targets were from the lowest ESOL level to > > > the highest level, 22, 25, 28, and 27 percent, while actual achievements > > > were 39, 40, 43, 38 percent. Across all performance levels, it was > > > expected that anywhere from 73 to 78 percent of adults at a given level > > > would not achieve the basic skills needed to complete that level. > > > > > > Is Low Achievement A Self-fulfilling Prophecy? > > > > > > Over all fifty states, for the lowest ABE level, there was a positive > > > correlation of +.38 between the target and actual achievement levels, > > > indicating that as a general trend, as the state's target's for > > > achievement went up, actual achievement went up. > > > > > > These data raise some serious questions. Why are there such wide > > > disparities in targets and achievements among the fifty states? Why do > so > > > many states have such low expectations for their least able ABE > learners? > > > Why do those states with higher expectations for the least literate, as > > > indicated by their relatively high target scores, actually achieve > better > > > than the states with the lowest targets? Why do average expectations and > > > achievements go up from the lowest to the higher levels of performance? > > > > > > Averaged over the national average data, the overall average target for > > > achieving the skills at one of the seven levels was 25 percent, and the > > > average actual achievement was 40 percent. This indicates that in the > > > AELS, 75 percent of the adults were, on average, not expected to achieve > > > the skills of a given level, and in actuality 60 percent did not. > > > > > > Is there some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy at work here such that > low > > > expectations lead to lower achievements? Is it possible that this > > > marginalized field serving marginalized adults suffers from an > inferiority > > > complex that leads to low expectations and low achievements for its > adult > > > learners? > > > > > > Possibly if we could move the Adult Education and Literacy System of the > > > United States from the margins to the mainstream of publicly supported > > > education, and recognize it and fund it at levels comparable to > mainstream > > > public education, we could find the psychological, financial, and > material > > > resources to overcome any inferiority complex and hold up high > > > expectations and reach high levels of achievement for our nation's under > > > served and undereducated adults. > > > > > > In this regard, it might be especially useful to look at states like > Utah > > > to find out why they have such high expectations and how they reach > > > achievements that go along with such expectations, particularly for our > > > least able adult learners. There may be some power of positive thinking > in > > > these states that can help the entire system reach new levels of hope > and > > > achievement. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Nashansen at aol.com Sat Oct 12 20:44:35 2002 From: Nashansen at aol.com (Nashansen at aol.com) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 20:44:35 EDT Subject: [NLA] NLA Low Expectations for Adult Learners Message-ID: To Catherine, Art and other NLA lurkers: I printed Catherine's email message at the end of my workday yesterday and carried it home with me. And, sorry. It did get a little long. First, Catherine, one of the reasons I "pushed myself away from the NLA table", so to speak, was because I felt I had become opinionated, and secondly, felt that I no longer wanted to have to defend my views. But, here I am again. Feeling as though I have to defend my thoughts. If I'm not misreading the email, Catherine, I *think* in *essence* you and I are of the same mind, but I'm really not sure, to be honest. There are a couple points in your email that I feel need my comment. (One of them you even (?) whether I agreed or not.) The following point (and taken out of context, I realize): << ?. If so, the notion of 'low expectations' in adult learners should come under a different light. That is, as Nancy and Art would probably agree (?) the adults who show up in their programs are not there for a handout for which they need to produce a statistical tradeoff. They come there to improve themselves - why else would they come?" >> It is not accurate to believe, in my opinion that the adult learner comes to "these programs" for a "handout". Neither do they want to "increase a level" in their skills for the sake of a "level" NOR to be "a statistical tradeoff"!?!? The statement is abrasive and should make New Reader/adult learner lurkers reading this NLA listserv angry! Never mind. I'm angry enough for both of us. This portion of the second paragraph also begs response: << I am not saying that all statisticians are not humanistic, least of all Tom Stitcht whose posts clearly reveal him to be on the side of educational advocacy for all adults. ? >> Let me ask this then: If this is true, why did this statistical data-gathering article not compare data from the prior reporting year (The B.C. of the NRS) rather than headline the data as "Why Such Low Expectations for Adult Learners in the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States?" Obviously research was done to show the percentages, as detailed for each reporting state. However, if the statistician takes a humanistic view, what statistical data would be revealed if his studies included the enrollment of literacy level adults in the prior reporting period (BC NRS)? Did the number enrolled increase from one reporting period to the most current of the NRS record keeping system? Did the number stay static? Did that demographic group disappear off the radar screen? What are we advocating for here? I personally would like to know *those* numbers. Did the NRS hold water as a means by which to gather accurate data about the 'hardest to reach' and 'most literacy needy' adults? I predicted a year ago that there would be a drop in numbers of adults served even though they never left any programs - they just aren't being reported. Thus they also are not receiving appropriate funding to give them the BEST of programming. Where are those statistics? A Word of Caution: When a researcher/statistician is viewed as an authority in decision-making circles of power, they best speak total truth, don't you think? The last point - Catherine's concluding paragraph: << Adults, and their decisions to educate themselves in any way, ARE the goods. Their coming to adult programs, and their own qualifications of our programs should constitute a good amount of how we qualify them. >> Upon this point we agree. I feel that the "purely statistical point of view" is wrong to use with "current policy-makers" - particularly if it is an inaccurate portrayal of the adult learners served in our country. It's exactly why the NRS will never show the *real* picture of adult literacy programs in our country. A question: If all the "elected officials" are interested in are numbers, then why were they willing to sign a letter to show support for adult literacy in the NIFL? Is that not a humanitarian gesture rather than a statistical viewpoint? As an advocate for adults in a likely insignificant rural part of our big nation, I hope that statisticians will take caution about portraying adult learners inaccurately. Let's not JUST, as Catherine wrote, "be glad that people show up at these programs" at all, but instead show the learners respect and support their life goals as more than a statistic. Sorry. I believe that to an adult learner worthwhile literacy education is far more than "just showing up"! They screw up the courage to open the 'In Door' out of deep personal need. ASK them. They'll tell-ya! Nancy Hansen E.D. of a community-based literacy council in Sioux Falls, SD _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 13 14:08:46 2002 From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine B. King) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 11:08:46 -0700 Subject: [NLA] Low Expectations for USA Policy Makers References: Message-ID: <002401c272e3$b67bbb20$8107f843@VZres087lb> Colleagues: Recent international events, I suggest, speak out to our advocacy of adult education in the United States. That is, in Pakistan, the dictator General Musharaf tried to initiate democratic elections; but was disappointed because factions were brought into play who would, under their own principles, destroy the democracy that will have elected them, if things go as suggested in the Pakistani election. Such is the embedded irony of democratic political systems--we can, through democracy itself, easily self-destruct where there is democracy no more. In a Brian Lamb C-SPAN interview with Margaret Thatcher over the weekend, she reflects that: "the United States Constitution is the best expression of liberty in the English language." But where Musharaf is trying to develop liberty in a new democracy, we in the United States are trying to maintain an old democracy, but where many of us have forgotten the essential importance of continuing adult education to the participatory dialogue--the only thing that will sustain it. If people don't know themselves as having a voice anyway, we won't know when we've lost it. Pakistan's experience should remind us that (1) the "fourth branch" of a democratic government is "the people," (2) that governing (policy makers) is a gift of "the people" to those who govern accompanied by a great trust, and (3) that our continuing education and ability to develop our voice is essential to the very life of the democracy we all live in. Without the long-term development of voice through continuing education of the people, a power vacuum is created between "the people" and government--hence, the democracy comes under greater and greater risk. Where Musharaf's is having difficulty getting a democracy started, ours is in a long-term and neglectful demise. We see this power vacuum already being filled by the attitude of policy-makers and many "leaders" who view adult education as merely a "liberal social giveaway program," and adults as people who only need to get jobs in order to get off the "welfare roles," instead of understanding adult education as an essential part of the entire political system we all claim to love, above and beyond all the other legitimate or illegitimate stated goals of adult education. Job-getting is essential to many, but politically limited--it leaves many out; whereas a connection with the democratic political base is comprehensive--it includes everyone. Read the headlines from the point of view of adult education and its relationship to democracy: What could be more important in today's world? Regards, Catherine King Adjunct Instructor Department of Teacher Education National University San Diego, CA --- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 5:44 PM Subject: [NLA] NLA Low Expectations for Adult Learners To Catherine, Art and other NLA lurkers: I printed Catherine's email message at the end of my workday yesterday and carried it home with me. And, sorry. It did get a little long. First, Catherine, one of the reasons I "pushed myself away from the NLA table", so to speak, was because I felt I had become opinionated, and secondly, felt that I no longer wanted to have to defend my views. But, here I am again. Feeling as though I have to defend my thoughts. If I'm not misreading the email, Catherine, I *think* in *essence* you and I are of the same mind, but I'm really not sure, to be honest. There are a couple points in your email that I feel need my comment. (One of them you even (?) whether I agreed or not.) The following point (and taken out of context, I realize): << ?. If so, the notion of 'low expectations' in adult learners should come under a different light. That is, as Nancy and Art would probably agree (?) the adults who show up in their programs are not there for a handout for which they need to produce a statistical tradeoff. They come there to improve themselves - why else would they come?" >> It is not accurate to believe, in my opinion that the adult learner comes to "these programs" for a "handout". Neither do they want to "increase a level" in their skills for the sake of a "level" NOR to be "a statistical tradeoff"!?!? The statement is abrasive and should make New Reader/adult learner lurkers reading this NLA listserv angry! Never mind. I'm angry enough for both of us. This portion of the second paragraph also begs response: << I am not saying that all statisticians are not humanistic, least of all Tom Stitcht whose posts clearly reveal him to be on the side of educational advocacy for all adults. ? >> Let me ask this then: If this is true, why did this statistical data-gathering article not compare data from the prior reporting year (The B.C. of the NRS) rather than headline the data as "Why Such Low Expectations for Adult Learners in the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States?" Obviously research was done to show the percentages, as detailed for each reporting state. However, if the statistician takes a humanistic view, what statistical data would be revealed if his studies included the enrollment of literacy level adults in the prior reporting period (BC NRS)? Did the number enrolled increase from one reporting period to the most current of the NRS record keeping system? Did the number stay static? Did that demographic group disappear off the radar screen? What are we advocating for here? I personally would like to know *those* numbers. Did the NRS hold water as a means by which to gather accurate data about the 'hardest to reach' and 'most literacy needy' adults? I predicted a year ago that there would be a drop in numbers of adults served even though they never left any programs - they just aren't being reported. Thus they also are not receiving appropriate funding to give them the BEST of programming. Where are those statistics? A Word of Caution: When a researcher/statistician is viewed as an authority in decision-making circles of power, they best speak total truth, don't you think? The last point - Catherine's concluding paragraph: << Adults, and their decisions to educate themselves in any way, ARE the goods. Their coming to adult programs, and their own qualifications of our programs should constitute a good amount of how we qualify them. >> Upon this point we agree. I feel that the "purely statistical point of view" is wrong to use with "current policy-makers" - particularly if it is an inaccurate portrayal of the adult learners served in our country. It's exactly why the NRS will never show the *real* picture of adult literacy programs in our country. A question: If all the "elected officials" are interested in are numbers, then why were they willing to sign a letter to show support for adult literacy in the NIFL? Is that not a humanitarian gesture rather than a statistical viewpoint? As an advocate for adults in a likely insignificant rural part of our big nation, I hope that statisticians will take caution about portraying adult learners inaccurately. Let's not JUST, as Catherine wrote, "be glad that people show up at these programs" at all, but instead show the learners respect and support their life goals as more than a statistic. Sorry. I believe that to an adult learner worthwhile literacy education is far more than "just showing up"! They screw up the courage to open the 'In Door' out of deep personal need. ASK them. They'll tell-ya! Nancy Hansen E.D. of a community-based literacy council in Sioux Falls, SD _______________________________________________ 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 plarson24 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 14 08:01:29 2002 From: plarson24 at hotmail.com (Pat Larson) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:01:29 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Low Expectations for USA Policy Makers Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tsticht at znet.com Mon Oct 14 11:23:48 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NLA] Reading Research On Adult Reading Message-ID: <1506.207.167.70.147.1034609028.squirrel@la.znet.com> Following is an edited/abridged version of a press release currently available at the NIFL web site: www.nifl.gov It suggests one direction in which the federal government is moving with regard to adult literacy education. Tom Sticht THREE FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS ANNOUNCE $18.5 MILLION GRANT AWARDS TO FIRST ADULT LITERACY RESEARCH NETWORK WASHINGTON, October 2, 2002 - A new research network unveiled today will study the most effective methods and approaches for teaching reading skills to low-literate adults, using $18.5 million in grants from the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), Office of Adult and Vocational Education of the US Department of Education, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National Institutes of Health. The funds, to be used over a five-year period, will fund six individual research projects focused on adult literacy instruction. The projects within the network will design, develop, implement and study the effectiveness of adult literacy interventions for low-literate adults, including the role of decoding, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension instruction and explicitness of instruction. These are the components of reading that have been shown to be essential in teaching reading to younger students, but instructional methods for teaching them to adults have not been thoroughly investigated. All six of the funded studies will employ experimental or quasi-experimental designs, one including a neuroimaging component. Although these projects will not be completed for five years, by the end of the first year the investigators will be reporting on their ongoing progress and preliminary findings. A listing of the principal investigators and their institutions follows: Daphne Greenberg, Georgia State University Research on Reading Instruction for Low Literate Adults Susan Levy, University of Illinois Testing Impact of Health Literacy in Adult Literacy and Integrated Family Approach Programs Daryl Mellard, University of Kansas - Lawrence Improving Literacy Instruction for Adults John Sabatini, Educational Testing Services Relative Effectiveness of Reading Programs for Adults Frank Wood, Wake Forest University of the Health Sciences Young Adult Literacy Problems: Prevalence and Treatment Richard Venezky, University of Delaware Building a Knowledge Base for Teaching Adult Decoding "This type of in-depth study is crucial to understanding the best ways to teach low-literate adults," said Assistant Secretary D'Amico, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. "Armed with scientifically-based reading instruction methods we can equip adults with the reading and writing skills needed for better jobs and opportunities." For more information and a summary document, go to: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/crmc/cdb/AFL_workshop.htm To view the Reading Research Working Group document, go to: http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/adult_reading/adult_reading.html _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 14 20:21:19 2002 From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:21:19 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Info: NLA Advocates Honor Role Update Message-ID: <3DAB5F7F.1000106@theworld.com> NLA Advocates Honor Role Revised October 14, 2002 Caroline Beverstock, CA Amy Prevedel, CA Dennis P. Smith, CA Steve Bender, CT George Demetrion, CT Eileen Eckert, CT Carl Guerriere, CT Daphne Greenberg, GA Beth Odom, GA Archie Willard, IA Colleen Dries, IL Joyce Fritsch, IL Vicki Hinkle, IL Carol Morris, IL Suzanne Knell, IL Margery Freeman, LA Rachel Nicolosi, LA Elsa Auerbach, MA Sharon Feeney, MA Silja Kallenbach, MA Jeanne Kelley, MA Esther Leonelli, MA Andrea Nash, MA Connie Nelson, MA Mina Reddy, MA Steve Reuys, MA David Rosen, MA Cristine Smith, MA Kenneth Tamarkin, MA Andrea Wilder, MA Jon Randall, MD Robbin Sorensen, MD Becky Dyer, ME Linda Hoover, MN Jeri Levesque, MO (Missouri) Norene Peterson, MT Beth Brockman, NC Lucy Haagen, NC Patti Vorfeld, NH Debby D?Amico, NJ Alisa Belzer, NJ and PA David Kring, NJ Judy Hofer, NM Anita Caref, NY Georges Marceau, NY Priscilla Stadler, NY Gina Ficociello, OH Stephanie Graves, OH Mary Kern, OH Lili Roush, OH Karen Scheid, OH Carole Scholl, OR Alisa Belzer, NJ and PA Donald Block, PA Peggy McGuire, PA JoAnn Weinberger, PA Janet Isserlis, RI Judy Titzel, RI Debbie Yoho, SC Nancy Hansen, SD Aaron Kohring, TN Edith Gower, TX Federico Salas-Isnardi, TX Carmen Seibert-Martinez, TX Andres Muro, TX Robert M. Pinhero, TX Louise Sanders, TX Jan Martin Bopp, VT Patti Vorfeld, VT Pat Johnston, VT _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 14 23:33:38 2002 From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:33:38 -0700 Subject: [NLA] Reading Research On Adult Reading References: <1506.207.167.70.147.1034609028.squirrel@la.znet.com> Message-ID: <20021014.203339.6878.0.sophocles5@juno.com> Colleagues: I'd like to offer congratulations to the grant recipients. Their studies are likely to add important knowledge on some of the intricacies of the adult reading process. This research should add to the pool of existing and emergent knowledge, though (in advance) I would caution against assumptions (not necessarily made by the researchers) that the results will be definitive or that there are not other ways of looking not only at adult reading, butwhat some view as the more fundamental topic of adult literacy. Given the influence of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to help shape research projects designed for adult literacy studies, it becomes more pressing than ever that alternative agencies, particularly the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL) located at Harvard University, to maintain and strengthen its own distinctive research/scholarly focus. One particularly hopes that NCSALL resist pressures to restructure their work more along the lines of the direction promoted among the NIFL/OVAE/ NICHHD axis. I think in particular of NCSALL's eight pound 739 page tomb authored by the developmental psychologist Robert Kegan and his colleagues, "Toward a New Pluralism in ABE/ESOL Classrooms: Teaching to Multiple 'Cultures of Mind'" that presents a very different type of information about adult literacy education than will be evident in the projects sponsored by the announced grant awards. Without going into the details of the Kegan study (I occasionally open it up and read a random paragraph--definitely my kind of book, though) or the new research projects, let's just say that they are both forms of what might be reasonably construed as legitimate research. Within their respective (and different) frameworks and research methodologies, they are likely to be equally rigorous even though the focus is quite different. Specifically, the Kegan study looks at the phenomenon of meaning as it is experienced in different ways by different types of learners in adult literacy and ESOL programs, while the federal grant studies will focus on the specific topic of reading. The point is that both are valid, but by the government supporting one type of research based on a highly particular methodological design, in effect, the government is legitimizing one way of knowing over others. It may be fair to say that that's an inevitable by-product of the political process. Fair enough (I suppose), though the concern is raised on government funding being used to legitimize one type of knowledge over another with the invariable political agenda influencing the general design of the projects. In the process, studies like Kegan's won't get the public attention that many feel such a study merits and its findings will not be factored into policy assessments about what happens in adult literacy education programs. In the process of funding new initiatives, let's keep pluralism alive and healthy, which some feel is under jeopardy in the Bush administration. Let's make sure that university-based research agencies like NCSALL, even with their governmental funding, can keep an independent focus from the dominant vision of adult literacy education that is beginning to crystallize in Washington DC. George Demetrion sophocles5 at juno.com __________________________________________________________________ >THREE FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS ANNOUNCE $18.5 MILLION GRANT AWARDS TO FIRSTADULT LITERACY RESEARCH NETWORK > >WASHINGTON, October 2, 2002 - A new research network unveiled today>will study the most effective methods and approaches for teaching reading skills to low-literate adults, using $18.5 million in grants from theNational Institute for Literacy (NIFL), Office of Adult and Vocational Education of the US Department of Education, and the >National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National >Institutes of Health. The funds, to be used over a five-year period, will fund six individual research projects focused on adult literacy instruction. > >The projects within the network will design, develop, implement and study the effectiveness of adult literacy interventions for low-literate adults,including the role of decoding, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension instruction and explicitness of instruction. These are the components of reading that have been shown to be essential in teaching reading to younger students, but instructional methods for teaching them to adults have not been thoroughly investigated. ? > >?All six of the funded studies will employ experimental or quasi-experimental designs, one including a neuroimaging component. Although these projects will not be completed for five years, by the endof the first year the investigators will be reporting on their ongoing progress and preliminary findings. ________________________________________________________________ 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 Awilderast at aol.com Tue Oct 15 08:33:13 2002 From: Awilderast at aol.com (Awilderast at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:33:13 EDT Subject: [NLA] Reading Research On Adult Reading Message-ID: Colleagues, I think this is potentially fabulous news. I am thrilled that "one of our own," Daphne Greenberg, the moderator of the Womenlit listserv, has been chosen. If you go back into the archives, for those who are not on the Womenlit listserv, you will see that she is not only within the field but espouses many of the points of view that those who are teachers and administrators, hold. I am also tickled that we have the South represented, a region often overlooked in major studies. Good going, Daphne! 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 Awilderast at aol.com Tue Oct 15 08:46:35 2002 From: Awilderast at aol.com (Awilderast at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:46:35 EDT Subject: [NLA] Low Expectations for USA Policy Makers Message-ID: <12.273ab190.2add682b@aol.com> Dear Pat and colleagues, I agree about the horrible gap between rich and poor in this country, it has been well documented, you can read several articles about this each week in a major newspaper. I also know that anyone who is without a job and without the prospect of getting one easily will live a desperate life unless supported by friends or family. If literacy classes lead them to a job, that's fine, not only fine but excellent. Been there, done that, and I have all the literacy one could ever want. Time to give others a hand up. 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 EPSSAG at langate.gsu.edu Tue Oct 15 09:40:02 2002 From: EPSSAG at langate.gsu.edu (Sheryl Gowen) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:40:02 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Reading Research On Adult Reading Message-ID: NLA friends: Let me add my congratulations to Daphne Greenberg. She is a wonderful colleague (we are both faculty in the College of Education at GSU) with a strong sense of social justice. I can't think of anyone more deserving of this research award. >>> Awilderast at aol.com 10/15/02 08:33AM >>> Colleagues, I think this is potentially fabulous news. I am thrilled that "one of our own," Daphne Greenberg, the moderator of the Womenlit listserv, has been chosen. If you go back into the archives, for those who are not on the Womenlit listserv, you will see that she is not only within the field but espouses many of the points of view that those who are teachers and administrators, hold. I am also tickled that we have the South represented, a region often overlooked in major studies. Good going, Daphne! 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 Sheryl Gowen, Associate Professor Research, Measurement and Statistics Department of Educational Policy Studies Georgia State University Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 sgowen at gsu.edu 404.651.1152 fax 404.651.1009 _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Oct 15 12:45:00 2002 From: mcsmith at niu.edu (M C Smith) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:45:00 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Fed support for research (Response to "Reading Research on Adult...") Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.1.20021015112357.02360c68@corn.cso.niu.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hartman at thebell.org Tue Oct 15 15:49:42 2002 From: hartman at thebell.org (hartman) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 13:49:42 -0600 Subject: [NLA] Info: NLA Advocates Honor Role Update In-Reply-To: <3DAB5F7F.1000106@theworld.com> Message-ID: <001a01c27484$01bf1400$0900000a@andy> David Thanks for compiling this well-deserved honor roll. I was at a dinner here in Denver earlier in the week that was celebrating effective workforce development programs around the state. I sat next to a woman who runs a very fine adult education (ABE/ESL) program. During dinner the topic of "the letter" came up (she is also an nla subscriber). She told me about her concerted efforts to get her Congressperson on the letter. Unfortunately, she was not successful. Being the end of the session, just before an election, and with lots going on in Congress...I am sure many people gave it a great effort, but did not get traction with the Member's office. It can even depend on the personality of the staff person. I just wanted to acknowledge and thank all the people who did all the right things but still were not able to get their Congressperson to sign on. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, this is a cumulative process. I hope that folks who were not successful will take what they learned and go after it again next time. I know some of these folks, and I am sure they will only take this time around as a challenge! Andy Hartman Director, Policy and Research The Bell Policy Center 1801 Broadway, Suite 280 Denver, Colorado 80202 303-297-0456 (ph) 303-297-0460 (f) hartman at thebell.org -----Original Message----- From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org [mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org] On Behalf Of David J. Rosen Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:21 PM To: nla at lists.literacytent.org Subject: [NLA] Info: NLA Advocates Honor Role Update NLA Advocates Honor Role Revised October 14, 2002 Caroline Beverstock, CA Amy Prevedel, CA Dennis P. Smith, CA Steve Bender, CT George Demetrion, CT Eileen Eckert, CT Carl Guerriere, CT Daphne Greenberg, GA Beth Odom, GA Archie Willard, IA Colleen Dries, IL Joyce Fritsch, IL Vicki Hinkle, IL Carol Morris, IL Suzanne Knell, IL Margery Freeman, LA Rachel Nicolosi, LA Elsa Auerbach, MA Sharon Feeney, MA Silja Kallenbach, MA Jeanne Kelley, MA Esther Leonelli, MA Andrea Nash, MA Connie Nelson, MA Mina Reddy, MA Steve Reuys, MA David Rosen, MA Cristine Smith, MA Kenneth Tamarkin, MA Andrea Wilder, MA Jon Randall, MD Robbin Sorensen, MD Becky Dyer, ME Linda Hoover, MN Jeri Levesque, MO (Missouri) Norene Peterson, MT Beth Brockman, NC Lucy Haagen, NC Patti Vorfeld, NH Debby D'Amico, NJ Alisa Belzer, NJ and PA David Kring, NJ Judy Hofer, NM Anita Caref, NY Georges Marceau, NY Priscilla Stadler, NY Gina Ficociello, OH Stephanie Graves, OH Mary Kern, OH Lili Roush, OH Karen Scheid, OH Carole Scholl, OR Alisa Belzer, NJ and PA Donald Block, PA Peggy McGuire, PA JoAnn Weinberger, PA Janet Isserlis, RI Judy Titzel, RI Debbie Yoho, SC Nancy Hansen, SD Aaron Kohring, TN Edith Gower, TX Federico Salas-Isnardi, TX Carmen Seibert-Martinez, TX Andres Muro, TX Robert M. Pinhero, TX Louise Sanders, TX Jan Martin Bopp, VT Patti Vorfeld, VT Pat Johnston, VT _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 15 22:04:40 2002 From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 19:04:40 -0700 Subject: [NLA] Fed support for research (Response to "Reading Research on Adult...") References: <5.0.0.25.1.20021015112357.02360c68@corn.cso.niu.edu> Message-ID: <20021015.190441.6382.0.sophocles5@juno.com> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:45:00 -0500 M C Smith writes: But, both NICHD and NCSALL are, in fact, government-supported agencies. NCSALL receives its funding through the Office for Educational Research & Improvement (OERI), an arm of the U.S. Department of Education. Thus, I am not clear on how the government might be supporting one type of research over the other in this regard. John Comings can be more specific about this, I'm sure, but the NCSALL research projects completed thus far or currently underway include a variety of methodological approaches, including interviews (Staff Development project), observations (Literacy Practices of Adult Learners; Classroom Dynamics; Adult Student Persistence study), surveys (Longitudinal Study of Adult Learning), and of course qualitative (Adult Development Study; Adult Multiple Intelligences Study), quantitative (Longitudinal Study of Adult Learning; GED impact study), and mixed-methods approaches (several of the previously-mentioned projects and others). While I'm no fan of the Bush administration's education initiatives (they have, after all, mandated the "Lake Wobegon effect" in the No child Left Standing Act, among other things), I'm not convinced that the call for the application of rigorous methodologies to demonstrate the validity/efficacy of various educational program/interventions is a bad thing. This does not privilege quantitative methods over qualitative methods--which may be equally rigorous, if not "scientific" in the traditional sense Cecil Smith M Cecil Smith, Ph.D.< Professor of Educational Psychology Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115-2854 (815) 753-8448 (815) 753-8750 (fax) mcsmith at niu.edu "http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~smith/" eudora="autourl">www.cedu.niu.edu/~smith/ Hello Cecil: Thanks for responding. Let me make a few points for now, maybe more later. First, I agree that " the call for the application of rigorous methodologies to demonstrate the validity/efficacy of various educational program/interventions is not a bad thing." Nothing I said should be construed to indicate that. Second, more strongly, the research areas represent valid and important areas of study. In that respect, they are a good thing. Also, on that score, given the scholarly integrity of the researchers with whom I'm familiar, Daphne Greenberg, John Sabitini, and Richard Vezensky, the finished products are bound to be of a high quality and cannot but make a contribution to the field. I take no issue on that score. Third, in terms of " how the government might be supporting one type of research over the other" since both NCSALL and NICHD are both governmental agencies, one has to look to politics and ideology. NCSALL was formed and most of the basic research of the projects were carried out during the Clinton administration. The recently granted projects reflect the ideology of the Bush administration, including what many view as its narrow interpretation both of what literacy is as well as how the reading process unfolds and the emphasis it places on scientific-based research in education which sometimes takes on the rhetoric of a mantra. Let's push this a bit. Given all the research that NCSALL has produced over the past half-dozen or so years, what role will this cumulative body of data play in formulating adult literacy/ABE policy in the Bush administration? For this is the nub of the issue, how knowledge construction is related to power, which knowledge is legitimized by those in power and which knowledge is marginalized. So the question is not which research traditions government in a general sense supports, but which research tradition the Bush administration supports in the parameters it set up for funded projects and the projects actually selected. Similarly, how does this research tradition impact on the prisms through which the Administration interprets the very meaning of what adult literacy is (i.e. reading) and its public value/purposes within the nation's life? Again, for the sake of emphasis, I am not challenging the inherent integrity of particular projects and on their face they may have much to offer. My congratulations to the recipients is sincere. As a final point, consider an alternative scenario. Another branch of the government, the National Institute for Literacy has promoted the Equipped for the Future project as its flagship program. Based on the vision of the mid-late 1990s, project designers and the former NIFL Director viewed the EFF project as the means through which to galvanize a national consensus on the value and purposes of adult literacy and in establishing an integration between educational theory, best practices, and policies. One could say that this was a government-sponsored and government sanctioned project. As an alternative scenario, the grant projects could have been focused on refining and strengthening the EFF project to better help designers carry out its forward looking vision. Given years of governmental investment in EFF, a research focus like I am suggesting would have gone a long way toward giving EFF greater legitimacy. While it's not exactly clear how the current administration views the EFF project, all signs indicate, that at the least, it is no longer viewed as the flagship operation designed to galvanize and bring consensus to the field. We'll know more once the new NIFL administration (Board and Director) are in place, but the indicators seem clear that what the current government supports is reading over inquiry-driven learning to learn standards and a research methodology based on postivistic and post-positvist science rather than the intellectual precepts of constructivism that ground the entire EFF edifice. These decisions, I argue, are political and ideological, with the guise of science sometimes used to buttress these positions. A great deal of scholarship (no longer considered valid because it focuses on values) backs up the general point I am making, including a great deal of educational scholarship no longer viewed as relevant or legitimate. Science, you say. Not necessarily. So, while in a general sense, one could say that the government both supports the EFF project and th current emphasis on reading and scientific-based research in education, it seems clear that the current government favors the latter over the former. The broader point I am making (and it is based on an apprehension that the Bush administration seeks ideological hegemony for its neo-conservative world view from phonics to geopolitics), is that it is now more important than ever to preserve and strengthen independent research sectors both within and without government that respect the pluralism and diversity that has been the hallmark of educational scholarship for a century. Perhaps others will weigh in here. 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 tsticht at znet.com Tue Oct 15 21:50:07 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NLA] A Veteran's Day Message Message-ID: <1897.207.167.70.38.1034733007.squirrel@la.znet.com> Veteran's Day is less than a month away on November 11, 2002. The article below was published in the October/November 2002 issue of Reading Today (RT), the bimonthly newspaper of the International Reading Association (IRA). RT has a circulation of around 84,000 with an average of 1.9 readers per copy giving an approximate total readership of 159,600. However, only some 2 percent of IRA members are in adult literacy education so RT does not carry many stories about adult literacy education. If you would like to join the IRA and advocate for more attention to adult literacy education in RT, other publications of the IRA, and in conventions and meetings of the Association and its numerous affiliates, you can find membership and other information at www.reading.org. The IRA is a member of the National Coalition for Literacy. Tom Sticht Celebrating Veteran?s Day, November 11, 2002 The Reading Formula That Helped Win World War II Thomas G. Sticht International Consultant in Adult Education During World War II, in what was known as the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP), United States colleges were swamped by Army personnel who were on campus to take courses for hundreds of specialized skills needed to win the war. The courses these soldiers had to take were accelerated and highly concentrated, and they placed considerable demands on reading and mastering the content of difficult technical manuals. Under such conditions, many men were experiencing reading and learning difficulties. At the Ohio State University, administrators sought methods that would help the military personnel on campus meet the challenges of their accelerated, technical courses. They found help in Professor Francis Robinson, a member of the psychology department faculty. Robinson was selected to head a new Learning and Study Skills program that would teach military personnel to learn better by reading. Following his psychological research training, Robinson conducted studies of the students? reading skills and found that they approached their reading using unsystematic, haphazard methods that failed to lead to good comprehension and retention. After reviewing research and approaches to effective study skills, Robinson came up with a formula for reading and study that has endured for 60 years. He developed what is called the SQ3R method of reading and studying. In this method, students are taught to first Survey the text and to raise Questions about the meaning of what they are reading. Then they Read the text carefully, stopping now and then to construct and Recite to themselves summary statements of what they have just read. Later they Review what they have read. First tested and proven first in action with those who fought in World War II, the SQ3R method has found support in research leading to what is known today as the "active reading strategy," which guides readers to take actions before they read (as in surveying and questioning), while they read (as in reciting) and after they read (as in reviewing). Based on Professor Robinson?s research and development to meet the demands for trained personnel during World War II, the SQ3R reading strategy has been in constant use by reading and study skills educators ever since. It has helped hundreds of thousands of veterans using the GI Bill and innumerable other adults succeed in their pursuit of high school, college, and other academic or technical degrees. As we celebrate Veteran?s Day this November, while we remember and give thanks to the millions of American men and women who fought to preserve freedom in World War II, let?s also remember Francis Robinson and the thousands of other reading educators who contributed to victory through the power of a force mightier than any weapon ? the power of literacy! Note: This article is a reprint of an article appearing on page 18 of Reading Today for October/November, 2002. Reading Today is the official newspaper of the International Reading Association. For additional information about the invention of the SQ3R method, see the article "How The SQ3R Came to Be" by Walter Pauk in Advancing the World of Literacy: Moving Into the 21st Century, the 21st Yearbook of the College Reading Association (1999). _______________________________________________ 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 wagner.6 at osu.edu Wed Oct 16 13:37:14 2002 From: wagner.6 at osu.edu (Judy Wagner) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:37:14 -0400 Subject: [NLA] ERIC/ACVE Customer Satisfaction Survey Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021016133424.00bc9bc0@pop.service.ohio-state.edu> Hello, We have just posted a customer satisfaction survey on our website (http://ericacve.org). Please take a few minutes to let us know what you think of our products and services. Thanks. Judy Judy Wagner / wagner.6 at osu.edu / ericacve.org/ ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education 1900 Kenny Road / Columbus OH 43210-1090 USA 614/292-8625; 800/848-4815 (ext 2-8625); FAX: 614/292-1260 TTY/TDD: 614/688-8734 _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 16 20:10:51 2002 From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 20:10:51 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Discussion: How will OERI Reauthorization afftect NCSALL? Message-ID: <3DAE000B.5030103@theworld.com> NLA Colleagues, An NLA list member called my attention to the article below about the reform of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement which, as was recently pointed out here, funds the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL). I cannot tell from this article whether the "lamb-ing" of this Lion means that a separate national adult literacy research center is no longer at risk. Anyone know? David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator Article from the Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools Project Bi-Monthly Bulletin The entire PPI newsletter is available at http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250950 . OERI Reauthorization: In Like a Lion, Out Like a Lamb Last week the House passed a conference-approved version of the bill to reauthorize the federal Office of Educational Research and Improvement; the Senate is expected to do the same later this week, and the President is expected to sign off on the legislation, bringing an end to a process that has languished on Capital Hill in a peculiar paradox of obscurity and political import. The Bush Administration had grand plans for overhauling the federal government's role in education research as an accompaniment to the No Child Left Behind Act. But in the end it looks as if federal education research will continue to be a faint cymbal clang on the tail end of the policy cacophony. At face value there are some changes to be sure: a new name, some new offices created, more "independence" for federal research and statistics. At the end of the day, however, it's unclear how much of a difference any of these changes will make in the primary operations of federal education research. This is truly unfortunate because research should be a priority of federal education policy. As opposed to the private sector, where the lure of enormous profits drives a robust R&D industry, for the most part education research offers only intrinsic rewards. It's shocking to consider that the Department of Education spends almost as much on its own overhead and administration as research functions for American education. Even in flush times, let alone the current fiscal climate, states do not have education research capability or resources; this is a job for Washington. The bill also aims to improve evaluation functions for federal education programs by moving them from the program offices into the new research office. This is an improvement, but it's unclear how program evaluation will actually be any more independent or isolated from politics. Apparently independence in research and program evaluation looked a lot better to the Bush campaign than the Bush Administration. Perhaps none of this matters that much. Education research is only as useful as its consumers are savvy, and there is still plenty of evidence that too many people involved with education fail to differentiate among different kinds of research, both in terms of what sorts of questions it can help to answer and more importantly in terms of whether specific findings can be generalized and applied through public policy. The Bush Administration does deserve credit for putting the issue of what constitutes research front and center. But in too many cases that conversation is far ahead of practice in the field. Further Reading: Education and the Workforce Committee Press Release on House Passage of Final Agreement (10/11/02): http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press107/edresearch101102.htm "Senate Panel Passes Federal Research Bill," Lisa Fine Goldstein, Education Week (10/02/02): http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=05oeri.h22&keywords=research "Research of Education: On the leading Edge of School Improvement," PPI-NEKIA-EQI Conference Transcript (03/26/02): http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=181&contentID=250346 Scientific Research In Education Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research, Richard J. Shavelson and Lisa Towne, Editors, National Research Council (2002): http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10236.html ABOUT THE 21st CENTURY SCHOOLS PROJECT The Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools Project develops public policy to ensure that American schools help all students develop the skills and knowledge they need to be successful in the knowledge economy. More about us: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ka.cfm?knlgAreaID=110 _______________________________________________ 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 jrandall at fedstrategics.com Wed Oct 16 23:50:35 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:50:35 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Adult Education Approprriations Update Message-ID: <001901c27590$5b2bc210$6401a8c0@cp186366c> The House Rules Committee Tuesday night approved a rule for debate on an FY03 Continuing Resolution (CR) through November 22, 2002. But reportedly there is no agreement on resolving objections from members concerned about drought aid, homeland security and education which may result in another one-week CR until October 25. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said Tuesday that a lame duck session is probably inevitable. Last week, House Speaker Dennis Hastert indicated he feels a lame duck session is the best way to resolve contentious issues in the appropriations bills. One of those contentious issues is funding for education. The total amount allocated for education in the House is less than that allocated in the Senate. House leadership reluctantly acknowledges it MAY have to add money for education in order to have enough votes for passage of the appropriations bill. National Coalition for Literacy (NCL) members have been urging House Appropriations subcommittee staff to include a $135M increase for adult education state grants as part of any additional funding provided for education programs. In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee approved the same amount for adult education state grants as last year, $565M. However, Senator Kennedy may be willing to offer an amendment on the Senate floor - in the lame duck session - to provide additional funding for education programs. Again NCL members have been working to get Sen. Kennedy to include the same $135M increase for adult education state grants in his amendment. Grassroots pressure may become instantly necessary if and when things start to look possible. Stay tuned. Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.com _______________________________________________ NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy http://literacytent.org From lilimroush at eurekanet.com Thu Oct 17 10:09:15 2002 From: lilimroush at eurekanet.com (Lili M Roush) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:09:15 -0400 Subject: [NLA] ERIC/ACVE Customer Satisfaction Survey References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021016133424.00bc9bc0@pop.service.ohio-state.edu> Message-ID: <003d01c275e6$c787f860$3503180a@bhcc.k12> Judy: I visited your site to complete the customer satisfaction survey, alas there was no survey, just a fact sheet. Lili M. Roush _______________________________________________ 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 AWilder106 at aol.com Thu Oct 17 12:06:51 2002 From: AWilder106 at aol.com (AWilder106 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:06:51 EDT Subject: [NLA] Discussion: How will OERI Reauthorization afftect NCSALL? Message-ID: <15e.15ce82d3.2ae03a1b@aol.com> Colleagues, Please help. I am confused about the relationship between OERI/NCSALL and the other research grants which were just handed out. Can someone straighten me out? 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 sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net Thu Oct 17 16:37:28 2002 From: sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net (Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:37:28 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Low Expectations for USA Policy Makers References: <12.273ab190.2add682b@aol.com> Message-ID: <007e01c2761d$055ceb60$1408e9c0@nancy> Colleagues Pat, Andrea, Catherine and others: It's good to hear a new voice regarding the issue of expectations, Pat. Thank you for expressing your opinion. Keep 'em comin! A LITTLE LONG Pat, as a "direct services" kind of administrator, I see first-hand, in contact with the adult learners in our program, the unfair treatment and lack of consideration our literacy enrollees experience "out there" in "Their Community". Many times it breaks my heart for them. They are so appreciative of the respect given them wherEVER they may be employed as a worthwhile employee. The fact is they deserve *better* because they can *be* even **more** of a top-notch employee to the right employer. You raised a couple of great questions regarding this issue. As related to my own community, I think there's a reason behind a change in employer attitudes: I feel the corporations in our community have become so focused on "the bottom line" that they no longer 'give an inch' in the employment criteria they have for hiring employees. In my view that requirement follows the employee into their new job, as they enter either in secrecy about their literacy needs or under the guise of "soft-pedaling" those concerns. The learners' underlying fear of being "uncovered" may be one of the reasons it's so difficult to band together to 'give a hand up' in an advocacy effort to support the learner's employment rights (rich vs poor -- the have's and have not's). Because you see somebody has to take the *lead* and it isn't going to be the corporations! It'll *have* to be the literacy providers! The adults we serve here would rather we *not* tell the employer that they have employees who have so much more to offer the corporation with the appropriate training to bring their literacy and job skills up to the administrative level of skills. So perhaps I just gave my views about your questions without getting into much detail ("...Where is the call for getting people more involved in their communities? Where is the call to have people organize to close the growing gap between the rich and poor in this country and around the world? ...) It's incredibly difficult as an advocate. Two learners' stories came to my mind as I read your email. Only space/time for one - I'll choose the nearly 60-year old man over the 23 year-old woman who has just enrolled. In my program a volunteer meets with the folks on a weekly basis outside this facility so I have to depend upon them to share the intricacies of personal conversation regarding issues such as employment. But let me tell you what I *think* happened to him. Some time ago, he was assigned to meet with me temporarily because his volunteer moved away. That's when the story began: The learner was in a genuine stew about a company lay-off that was being tossed about in the company's lunch rooms. He had been referred to us years prior to this discussion by a supervisor who believed in his skills enough to get the man literacy help and "hired him any way". The guy was a hard worker, both at work and at his literacy sessions -- Mind you with a pretty debilitating LD. And loyal??? Couldn't find someone who was more loyal to the company. He didn't WANT "a better job". Earlier that year, with his feelings flashing in his eyes, he had proclaimed to me, "I *like* what I do! And beSIDES! I'm good at it!" Well, he wasn't good enough because not only did he get laid off? So did his supervisor. They down-sized and took a lot of hard-workers with them. It's much later now. His new tutor told me he never found a job in the larger metropolitan area. It didn't matter that he had as his work history the responsibility of watching over the work of six other employees. His supervisor even saw to it that he was licensed in specific skills to improve his work skills. His resume did not matter. Every place he applied, the response was 'no GED no interview'. He doesn't have a GED nor does he want one. I would bet that part of it is he'd struggle to get one, his deficits are that severe. He struggles to read and write in our literacy materials. He also dropped out of school at an early stage of his educational career so he'd have to be a long-distance runner to accomplish the task. What job did he take such personal pride in? He was a custodial supervisor in the prior company. He may not have been a blue-collar worker, but he was proud. Today? His tutor tells me he works part-time in a small town in the surrounding area as a janitor. He's the bread-winner in the family so that whole scenerio of 6 months' unemployment had to have been devasatating, when they likely were living paycheck-to-paycheck, and now only have a part-time paycheck. If he had seen the writing on the wall, would he have taken a hand-up out of poverty? Probably not. He was *happy* in the place where he was and the fortune teller didn't give him the right cards. To just do a simple, short literacy lesson with him was tentative from one week to the next during the unemployment period. He would have bad weeks when he couldn't even come up with an answer to a question he had gotten right a hundred times before or he'd give a totally off-the-wall answer that left *him* shaking his head! "WHY did I say THAT???" he'd say. To do job retraining or work on a GED at that point? Not a good time! Unrealistic! The long and the short of it? There are no simple, swift answers. Who IS going to step up to the plate and give a hand to our people because it's their right in a democracy as great as ours!? How do we close the gap? As Andrea so correctly identified *this* fine man, he truly led a "desperate life ... supported by friends (and) family". I don't know HOW they survived -- with a smile that beats all! His tutoring sessions are the light of some weeks to him, so says Carol his volunteer. Nancy Hansen, Ex Director SF Area Literacy Council Sioux Falls, SD sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 7:46 AM Subject: Re: [NLA] Low Expectations for USA Policy Makers > Dear Pat and colleagues, > > I agree about the horrible gap between rich and poor in this country, it has > been well documented, you can read several articles about this each week in a > major newspaper. > > I also know that anyone who is without a job and without the prospect of > getting one easily will live a desperate life unless supported by friends or > family. If literacy classes lead them to a job, that's fine, not only fine > but excellent. > > Been there, done that, and I have all the literacy one could ever want. Time > to give others a hand up. > > andrea Colleagues: I seldom if ever reply to items on the NLA list, but I want to second what Catherine King said about democracy and adult education. It is unfortunate that at a time when people need to have a voice in speaking out about where out country is headed, many state funded adult educaton programs seem more concerned about giving standardized tests to adults and tracking whether they got a job -- any job (NRS). Perhaps this is the influence of WIA where policymakers seem more concerned about whether someone got a job or made educational gains measured by standardized testing. Where is the call for getting people more involved in their communities? Where is the call to have people organize to close the growing gap between the rich and poor in this country and around the world? I no longer see this happening in much if any of adult education in Massachusetts. Maybe it is happening in other places. Pat Larson -- The Literacy Project Site Director/Teacher -- North Quabbin Adult Education Center -- Orange, MA 01364 > _______________________________________________ > 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 jrandall at fedstrategics.com Fri Oct 18 10:54:00 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:54:00 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Update: NIFL Advisory Board Nominees Message-ID: <001101c276b6$31efcdc0$6401a8c0@cp186366c> As reported in an earlier posting, Senator Kennedy indicated his committee (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) would forward the names of National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) Advisory Board nominees to the Senate floor for a vote individually, as their background paperwork was returned and considered. Juan R. Olivarez (Michigan) and Carol C. Gambill (Tennessee) are the first two nominees to have their names placed on the Executive Calendar for consideration by the full Senate. Their nominations will be confirmed without debate. Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu Fri Oct 18 14:23:36 2002 From: alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu (Daphne Greenberg) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:23:36 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Update: NIFL Advisory Board Nominees Message-ID: Why will Juan R. Olivarez and Carol C. Gambill be confirmed without debate? I am not suggesting that there should be a debate-I know nothing about them. I am assuming that since you wrote this, others may be open to debate, and if that is the case-what makes these 2 different from the others? Thanks, Daphne Daphne Greenberg Associate Director Center for the Study of Adult Literacy Georgia State University University Plaza Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 phone: 404-651-0127 fax:404-651-4901 dgreenberg at gsu.edu >>> jrandall at fedstrategics.com 10/18/02 11:50 AM >>> As reported in an earlier posting, Senator Kennedy indicated his committee (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) would forward the names of National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) Advisory Board nominees to the Senate floor for a vote individually, as their background paperwork was returned and considered. Juan R. Olivarez (Michigan) and Carol C. Gambill (Tennessee) are the first two nominees to have their names placed on the Executive Calendar for consideration by the full Senate. Their nominations will be confirmed without debate. Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 mcsmith at niu.edu Fri Oct 18 15:06:14 2002 From: mcsmith at niu.edu (M C Smith) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:06:14 -0500 Subject: [NLA] OERI/NCSALL and research grants Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.1.20021018135248.00adb818@corn.cso.niu.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AWilder106 at aol.com Fri Oct 18 16:08:51 2002 From: AWilder106 at aol.com (AWilder106 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:08:51 EDT Subject: [NLA] OERI/NCSALL and research grants Message-ID: <191.ee31a40.2ae1c453@aol.com> Dear Cecil, Thanks very much for the information, I appreciate your help in figuring this out. Another question--do you have a web address which would show a chart of how these agencies are related? I'm trying to get a visual scan of these relationships. 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 jrandall at fedstrategics.com Fri Oct 18 16:53:20 2002 From: jrandall at fedstrategics.com (Jon Randall) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:53:20 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Update: NIFL Advisory Board Nominees Message-ID: <002f01c276e8$65cf4d50$6401a8c0@cp186366c> Earlier this afternoon, Daphne Greenberg wrote: "Why will Juan R. Olivarez and Carol C. Gambill be confirmed without debate?" Daphne, I was simply stating that these nominations are expected to be confirmed uneventfully during the course of routine Senate business. It's all but certain the others will be too. I just didn't want anyone to think that there'd be anything noteworthy happening during the course of these confirmations. The nominations are being forwarded to the Senate floor, not as a group, but as their paperwork is received and okayed by the HELP Committee. The ones that that get their paperwork in first will be confirmed first - as will be the case with Olivarez and Cambill. Hope this clears up any confusion. Jon Randall Public Policy Committee Chair National Coalition for Literacy www.natcoalitionliteracy.org NCL policy efforts are supported in part by funding from ProLiteracy Worldwide FedStrategics, LLC strategic advocacy & public affairs consulting to charitable organizations www.FedStrategics.com 8413 Park Crest Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 588-5304 Fax: (301) 588-5353 jrandall at FedStrategics.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 hartman at thebell.org Fri Oct 18 18:11:25 2002 From: hartman at thebell.org (hartman) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:11:25 -0600 Subject: [NLA] OERI/NCSALL and research grants In-Reply-To: <191.ee31a40.2ae1c453@aol.com> Message-ID: <001b01c276f3$4d0ca500$0900000a@andy> Andrea I was thinking of elaborating on Cecil's response and wishing I could draw on my computer screen and send it to you. Then I saw your response. I would just add a few things to Cecil's response. As Cecil mentioned, OERI is the office within the US Department of Education (ED) which funds most (but not all) of their research. It is on the same line on the organizational chart as other "offices", such as the Office of Vocational and Adult Education. They each have an Assistant Secretary that reports to the Secretary. Historically, OERI has not received a very large appropriation (as was pointed out in the article David posted). When the legislation that authorizes funding for OERI has been written in the past, Congress required that OERI contain "research centers." The other way that research has funded by OERI is through solicited and non-solicited competitive grants. However, because of the authorizing and appropriations laws, the vast majority of OERI's money has gone to the centers. (Why this is the case is an interesting story of policy and politics.) The research centers usually have broad areas of study ("study of adult literacy and learning"). Typically, a group of universities (actually a group of researchers from several universities) get together and write a proposal. The proposals usually have a wide variety of studies that relate to the broad area of study. If there is more than one proposal, the winner is chosen on a competitive basis. The way the process and system is set up, you tend to get a lot of good breadth but not as much depth on a single issue or "question." It just does not pay to focus on one or two issues the way the competition is set up. The research on reading announced the other day is intended to be a more focused research effort around reading in adults. It is money in addition to the funds that flows through OERI to NCSALL. Any researcher(s) at NCSALL or anywhere else in the country could compete. It certainly will tie into the work of NCSALL, NCAL and other research centers that receive federal funds through other channels. For example, John Strucker's important work at NCSALL was used in writing the background documents for this competition. It is great news for our field that so many agencies and offices view this work as important to their mission and provided support. The awardees are an excellent slate of people. Top notch researchers who understand the unique (and common) learning challenges of adults. Great to have good news for the field! Andy Hartman Director, Policy and Research The Bell Policy Center 1801 Broadway, Suite 280 Denver, Colorado 80202 303-297-0456 (ph) 303-297-0460 (f) hartman at thebell.org -----Original Message----- From: nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org [mailto:nla-admin at lists.literacytent.org] On Behalf Of AWilder106 at aol.com Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 2:09 PM To: nla at lists.literacytent.org Subject: Re: [NLA] OERI/NCSALL and research grants Dear Cecil, Thanks very much for the information, I appreciate your help in figuring this out. Another question--do you have a web address which would show a chart of how these agencies are related? I'm trying to get a visual scan of these relationships. 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 _______________________________________________ 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 AWilder106 at aol.com Sat Oct 19 10:02:14 2002 From: AWilder106 at aol.com (AWilder106 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 10:02:14 EDT Subject: [NLA] OERI/NCSALL and research grants Message-ID: <14.5fa234.2ae2bfe6@aol.com> Dear Andy, Thanks for taking the time to reply to my question, the relationship is now a bit clearer. I, too, wish there were an email addition that included the ability to draw. I have always thought that "mastering the core technology" should be the center of research studies and I am glad to see it happening now. I am delighted that John Strucker's work is being elaborated on, he is an accomplished adult educator in his own right. Is there any way to view the actual grant proposals? I think it is terrific you are still involved in all this, you carry a lot of "institutional memory." 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 gspangenberg at caalusa.org Sat Oct 19 12:06:45 2002 From: gspangenberg at caalusa.org (Gail Spangenberg) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:06:45 -0400 Subject: [NLA] CAAL Report: National Coalition for Literacy: Options for the Future Message-ID: Colleagues, CAAL recently completed an independent study of the history and leadership potential of the National Coalition for Literacy. The report by CAAL's Vice President Forrest Chisman, is titled The National Coalition for Literacy: Options for the Future. It is available in pdf format for download from the website of the NCL (http://novel.nifl.gov/coalition/index.html) and also from CAAL at (http://www.caalusa.org). The report is part of the Year 2 activities of the Summit Initiative Task Force of the NCL and was funded by NIFL and the U.S. Department of Education. CAAL examines three options for the future of NCL: (a) to close down altogether, (b) to continue on as an informal network with minimal leadership capacity, and (c) to reform as a 501(c)(3) organization, with paid staff, appeal to fundraisers, direct control of its own finances, restructuring of the membership, and a greatly strengthened capacity for national leadership. CAAL strongly recommends option 3 and provides a blueprint for achieving it. The NCL will consider the report's recommendations at its upcoming quarterly meeting on November 14th. In the meantime, this posting by CAAL is being made as part of a cooperative effort to make the report widely available to the adult education and literacy field. Comments are welcome and should be addressed to Robbin Sorensen on behalf of the Summit Task Force and the Coalition. Her e-mail address is rsorensen at erols.com. Listserv discussion of the report is also encouraged. -- Gail Spangenberg President Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy 1221 Avenue of the Americas - 50th Floor New York, NY 10020 212-512-2362, fax 212-512-2610 _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Oct 19 18:21:15 2002 From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 18:21:15 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Discussion: How will OERI Reauthorization affect NCSALL? Message-ID: <3DB1DADB.5030801@theworld.com> NLA Colleagues, John Comings, Director of the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy, has not been able to join us this year on the NLA list, but he has responded to the question which I posed to the list about OERI, and which I also forwarded directly to him. He asked me to post this reply to the NLA list. I urge you to read it and to think about the important questions John has raised. Please feel free to post your thoughts to the NLA list, and also please send them directly to John. David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Fwd: Discussion: How will OERI Reauthorization affect NCSALL?] Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 10:10:33 -0400 From: comingjo To: "David J. Rosen" The OERI legislation specifically leaves the existing R&D Center grants in place, and so NCSALL is funded through July 2006 at about $3 million per year. The R&D Centers are in the new legislation, with a specific reference to an Adult Education Center, and so sometime before 2006 OERI should have another open competition for a new adult education R&D Center that will be funded for 5 years with a 5 year non-competitive extension if the Center's work is satisfactory. NCSALL will be one of the bidders for that new Center, but we may decide to make changes in such things as who directs the Center, which institution is the host, which researchers are funded, and, of course, what research we pursue. OERI will be looking for more experimental or quasi-experimental research in the proposals. NCSALL researchers and staff are discussing how best to move in that direction. Even without the politics around this issue, this is a difficult discussion, but one that we are finding useful and interesting. Once we have completed our discussion, we will share our proposed plans with the field for feedback and will use NLA as one of the venues for this. As the first step in this process, we have prepared a report of everything we did in the first five years (1996-2001), which we plan to publish in November. As soon as this document is on our website, we'll post a notice on NLA. At the end of that report, we summarize what we have learned in a way that misses some of the details but provides, we hope, a useful framework. For people involved or interested in policy, the new OERI legislation presents three issues that need discussion. First, the next 10-year grant to an adult education R&D Center should be much larger, at least $5 million per year with a 5% inflation factor. How is our field going to organize itself to argue for these funds? Keep in mind that the funds are not coming from any other adult education pot of money. Second, what questions should this Center seek to answer and how should it go about doing that. Part of the "how" is a technical question that should be answered by the researchers who take on this task but part of it is a policy issue in that different research methods have different levels of credibility and are open to different limitations on accuracy. I feel a mix of methodologies that follow a process of exploration and testing leading to more exploration and testing is the way to ensure credibility without walking down a narrow path that may help some, but not all of our students. Third, OERI now has the evaluation function that funded the Development Associates National Evaluation of ABE programs in 1994. As you know, our experience in MA of outside evaluations (the Grossman Report and the MassINC report) has been that though they can identify weaknesses they can lead to more resources. I believe our field should be calling for a new national evaluation of the WIA Title II program. Since 1994, NCSALL and other researchers have developed methods for studying our programs that could be employed in this evaluation, and our field has a more sophisticated knowledge base about our work. A well-funded, outside evalution report would be helpful to identifying our weaknesses and our strengths in a way that can inform policy decisions. Since the NAAL (the second NALS) will probably release its finding in 2005, we would want a national evaluation to release its findings at about the same time. Since the evaluation will probably take at least 2 and may take 3 years, it should start early in 2003. I feel a $5 million evaluation could give us a good report. I would urge every state to take on their own evaluations at the same time. This could provide much richer data for the national evaluation but would also provide each state with a document that could be used to argue for greater state support. I hope that some of NCSALL's work, "Focus on Basics" for example, continues on even if OERI awards the next Center grant to another group of institutions. The field should look at NCSALL's work and argue for continuation of those parts that deserve that support. John 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 >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Discussion: How will OERI Reauthorization affect NCSALL? >Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 20:10:51 -0400 >From: "David J. Rosen" >To: nla at lists.literacytent.org > >NLA Colleagues, > >An NLA list member called my attention to the article below about the >reform of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement which, as >was recently pointed out here, funds the National Center for the Study >of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL). I cannot tell from this >article whether the "lamb-ing" of this Lion means that a separate >national adult literacy research center is no longer at risk. Anyone know? > >David J. Rosen >NLA List Moderator > > > > >Article from the Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools >Project Bi-Monthly Bulletin > >The entire PPI newsletter is available at >http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID= 250950 > > >. > > > > >OERI Reauthorization: In Like a Lion, Out Like a Lamb > >Last week the House passed a conference-approved version of >the bill to reauthorize the federal Office of Educational Research >and Improvement; the Senate is expected to do the same later >this week, and the President is expected to sign off on the >legislation, bringing an end to a process that has languished on >Capital Hill in a peculiar paradox of obscurity and political import. >The Bush Administration had grand plans for overhauling the >federal government's role in education research as an >accompaniment to the No Child Left Behind Act. But in the end >it looks as if federal education research will continue to be a faint >cymbal clang on the tail end of the policy cacophony. > >At face value there are some changes to be sure: a new name, >some new offices created, more "independence" for federal >research and statistics. At the end of the day, however, it's >unclear how much of a difference any of these changes will >make in the primary operations of federal education research. >This is truly unfortunate because research should be a priority >of federal education policy. As opposed to the private sector, >where the lure of enormous profits drives a robust R&D industry, >for the most part education research offers only intrinsic rewards. >It's shocking to consider that the Department of Education >spends almost as much on its own overhead and administration >as research functions for American education. Even in flush >times, let alone the current fiscal climate, states do not have >education research capability or resources; this is a job >for Washington. > >The bill also aims to improve evaluation functions for federal >education programs by moving them from the program offices >into the new research office. This is an improvement, but it's >unclear how program evaluation will actually be any more >independent or isolated from politics. Apparently independence >in research and program evaluation looked a lot better to the >Bush campaign than the Bush Administration. > >Perhaps none of this matters that much. Education research is >only as useful as its consumers are savvy, and there is still >plenty of evidence that too many people involved with education >fail to differentiate among different kinds of research, both in >terms of what sorts of questions it can help to answer and more >importantly in terms of whether specific findings can be >generalized and applied through public policy. The Bush >Administration does deserve credit for putting the issue of >what constitutes research front and center. But in too many >cases that conversation is far ahead of practice in the field. > >Further Reading: > >Education and the Workforce Committee Press Release >on House Passage of Final Agreement (10/11/02): >http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press107/edresearch101102.htm > >"Senate Panel Passes Federal Research Bill," >Lisa Fine Goldstein, Education Week (10/02/02): >http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=05oeri.h22&keywords=research > > >"Research of Education: >On the leading Edge of School Improvement," >PPI-NEKIA-EQI Conference Transcript (03/26/02): >http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=181&contentID=250 346 > > > > > > > >Scientific Research In Education >Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research, >Richard J. Shavelson and Lisa Towne, Editors, >National Research Council (2002): >http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10236.html > >ABOUT THE 21st CENTURY SCHOOLS PROJECT > >The Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools Project >develops public policy to ensure that American schools help all >students develop the skills and knowledge they need to be >successful in the knowledge economy. >More about us: >http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ka.cfm?knlgAreaID=110 _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Oct 19 19:57:45 2002 From: mcsmith at niu.edu (M C Smith) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 18:57:45 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Flow chart for fed agencies Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.1.20021019185036.00ae2c08@corn.cso.niu.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From DJRosen at theworld.com Sun Oct 20 11:44:44 2002 From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 11:44:44 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Discussion: CAAL Report: National Coalition for Literacy: Options for the Future Message-ID: <3DB2CF6C.8070302@theworld.com> Gail Spangenberg, Robbin Sorensen, and other NLA Colleagues, Thanks to Gail, and Forrest Chisman, for this important study. It identifies critical issues for the National Coalition for Literacy (NCL). I support the recommendation that the NCL re-form as a not-for-profit organization with paid staff, membership dues, fundraising capacity, and paid staffing. I agree with many of the reasons that Forrest has laid out for doing so. However, they are not all equal in my mind. The most compelling reason for a strengthened NCL is our need for a national organization, one which represents all major adult and family literacy organizations, and which has the strength of the field working in concert with its leadership, to lead an ongoing national adult literacy advocacy campaign. This purpose is essential to the success of our field, and to the students which our field serves, and might serve. No organization now has this as its primary purpose. The NCL is already representative. It should now focus on national adult literacy advocacy as its primary purpose, and raise funds and hire staff to carry out this purpose. A not-for-profit organizational structure may, as Forrest suggests, be needed for private-sector fund-raising. But equally important, the NCL must have significant financial support provided by its member organizations. I urge you, NLA colleagues, to recommend to the leadership of the national adult literacy organizations of which you are a member or staff person, that they support a strengthened NCL, support its establishment as a not-for-profit organization, and fund this re-formed organization as soon as possible with a substantial contribution. A $5,000 annual contribution from each of 20 national member organizations, for example, would reach the initial $100,000 figure Forrest recommends. "The primary goal of the initial round would be to obtain sufficient funding to commence operations. Initial funding should be sufficient to cover the salary of at least one staff member plus administrative costs for about one year. This would probably be in the range of $100,000. For reasons discussed above, the organization should charge dues. Initial fundraising would, therefore, consist of collecting dues and seeking modest amounts of grant funding." (Chisman, page 25) $5,000 contributions from each member might also give this new organization the needed credibility to raise the additional money needed to reach a minimum annual budget of $300,000 which Forrest recommends, but most important, these organizational contributions are a public statement of the priority given to national advocacy for adult literacy education. NLA Colleagues: there is no time to waste. As Forrest points out, critical legislative reauthorizations, funding authorizations, and other public policy decisions that could deal a blow to our already marginalized work will happen in the next year. National organization colleagues: pledge your organization's financial support for the NCL at the level I have suggested, or higher. Do this at the November NCL meeting. National Coalition for Literacy members: incorporate the NCL now and file for not-for-profit status within three months. Meanwhile, find an existing not-for-profit organization to act as your fiscal agency for one year. Request a minimum of $5,000 from each member organization now. Hire a staff to organize a national campaign to build and strengthen (what Tom Sticht calls) the Adult Education and Literacy System in the United States, to provide high quality education services, and to end the growing waiting lists. David J. Rosen DJRosen at theworld.com Gail Spangenberg wrote: > Colleagues, > > CAAL recently completed an independent study of the history and > leadership potential of the National Coalition for Literacy. The report > by CAAL's Vice President Forrest Chisman, is titled The National > Coalition for Literacy: Options for the Future. It is available in pdf > format for download from the website of the NCL > (http://novel.nifl.gov/coalition/index.html) and also from CAAL at > (http://www.caalusa.org). The report is part of the Year 2 activities > of the Summit Initiative Task Force of the NCL and was funded by NIFL > and the U.S. Department of Education. > > CAAL examines three options for the future of NCL: (a) to close down > altogether, (b) to continue on as an informal network with minimal > leadership capacity, and (c) to reform as a 501(c)(3) organization, with > paid staff, appeal to fundraisers, direct control of its own finances, > restructuring of the membership, and a greatly strengthened capacity for > national leadership. CAAL strongly recommends option 3 and provides a > blueprint for achieving it. > > The NCL will consider the report's recommendations at its upcoming > quarterly meeting on November 14th. In the meantime, this posting by > CAAL is being made as part of a cooperative effort to make the report > widely available to the adult education and literacy field. Comments are > welcome and should be addressed to Robbin Sorensen on behalf of the > Summit Task Force and the Coalition. Her e-mail address is > rsorensen at erols.com. Listserv discussion of the report is also encouraged. > _______________________________________________ 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 znet.com Sun Oct 20 11:59:50 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 08:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NLA] Research in adult literacy education Message-ID: <1576.207.167.70.108.1035129590.squirrel@la.znet.com> I posted the following message to the NLA list on October 5, 2002 but it appears to be more relevant to the ongoing discussion of research by M.C. Smith, John Comings, David Rosen and others. The Comings post talked about directions that adult literacy education reserrach might take in the future and the areas identified below seem to cover in broad terms the present and future directions that such research is likely to take. To me a major question is how to determine if all the research and dissemination activities that have been and will be taken have actually led to any demonstraable improvements in adult literacy education at some place and time. That is,how will we know if our research, dissemination, and staff development activities make things better? Is the field any more effective today than it was twenty years ago before we had the National Center for Adult Literacy, the National Center for Adult Learning and Literacy, the National Institute for Literacy, the National Adult Literacy Survey, and the National Reporting System? How do you know? Tom Sticht Repost follows: Research Note October 5, 2002 Perennial Issues for the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELs) of the United States Tom Sticht International Consultant in Adult Education A U. S. Department of Education report for Program Year 1999-2000 states that there were 3500 to 4000 programs that year funded in part by the State Grants from Title 2 The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. These programs make up what I call the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States. In PY 1999-2000 this publicly funded education system served close to 2.9 million adults. Since the signing of the Adult Education Act of 1966, which formed the AELS, there have been a half dozen issues, besides the search for more funding, that have consistently been raised as in need of research and action. These include: 1. Determining the Scale of Need: How many adults in the nation (or state/local region) are in need of the services of the AELS or other literacy providers? Or, as is sometimes stated in a military metaphor, what is the size of the "target population" for adult literacy education providers? [Present status: State Grants under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998 are apportioned based on the number of adults 16 years or older who are out of school and do not have a high school diploma. Presently this amounts to some 44 million adults. The National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) identified around 20 percent of adults in Literacy Level 1, the lowest level, giving about 33 million adults ages 16 to 65 with very low literacy. But the NALS data have been declared invalid by the former director of the NALS at the National Center for Education Statistics and he suggests they should be reduced by about half for maximum validity. Self-perceptions of reading problems by the NALS participants resulted in about 7 percent, or around 10 to 14 million adults who said they read not well or not at all.] 2. Participation/Recruitment: What percentage of the target population is being served and how can more adults be recruited to participate in programs? [Present status: From 1998 to 2000 enrolments in the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States, defined as those programs funded in part by the State Grant funds from the AEFLA, fell from 4 million to 2.9 million. Perhaps the million or so adults who were lost from the AELS are being served elsewhere, but there are no statistics known to me on how many adults are being served nation wide in adult literacy programs among the total array of providers.] 3. Retention: How can adults be motivated or otherwise supported to stay in programs long enough to learn a lot more than they usually do? [For decades now it has been difficult to get adults to stay in programs on average for up to 100 hours of instruction. The National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs of 1995 cited an overall median of 58 hours of instruction. ESOL students stayed almost twice as long, on average around 113 hours. Contemporary national data on how retention is defined in the various states and territories, what the retention numbers are, and how they may be chainging due to the implementation of the National Reporting System or other factors are not known to me] 4. Teaching/Facilitating Learning: How to best find out what adults want/need to learn, and how to best teach/help them learn what they want/need to learn? [Present status: In 1998 Victoria Purcel-Gates and associates at NCSALL studied 271 programs and found that most (73%) were traditional teacher-talk, student-listen classes using academic materials not related to student?s lives outside the classroom. Beder & Medina in their 2001 study of 20 classrooms found that most (16) were in the traditional skills oriented, teacher led traditional classroom category. The National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs of 1995 reported that 46 percent of students received instruction in traditional classrooms with a teacher, one percent received instruction with only a tutor, 15 percent had both a classroom and learning lab, and 4 percent used only a learning lab, often with computer based instruction, 34 percent used other combinations of instruction. Many community based, volunteer programs use one-on-one tutoring to the largest extent, as in ProLiteracy Worldwide affiliates. Whether any one or a combination of these methods of teaching is superior to the other(s) is not known to me.] 5. Assessment: How can adult?s knowledge and skills be assessed to better place them in appropriate programs, to determine what special methods or accommodations they might need, and/or to determine whether they are progressing well in their learning? [Present status: National data on placement assessments and accommodations assessment are not known to me. Those programs in the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States must report learning gains using pre and post testing or performance assessments on the National Reporting System. For years numerous pre and post testing studies using standardized tests have tended to show about 5,10 or 15 months of gain in reading in any number of programs in the Job Corps, the military, corrections, in the classrooms of the AELS, and in tutoring programs like those of ProLiteracy America. Examining many studies shows little to no correlation of gains with hours of instruction across the studies.] 6. Outcomes: What happens to adults who have participated in programs after they leave the program? [Present status: The National Reporting System presents data for states and territories in the AELS on percentages of adults who move from the classroom into employment, or into postsecondary education, and who get high school diplomas or GEDs. Similar data have been obtained in the past from AELS programs and they always show a certain percentage of adults in each category. So far, these data have not seemed to have had much of a bearing on any aspect of recruitment, placement, programming,, instruction, assessment or any thing else. This may change in the future if the information is made part of a high stakes assessment system with rewards and punishments for outcomes.] The constant need for more money, and these six issues, seem to me to have occupied the adult education field every since the original signing of the Adult Education Act early in fiscal year 1967. Today, 35 years later at the end of fiscal year 2002, these same issues seem to me to still capture the major policy, research, and practice interests of those working in the AELS. Through activities such as staff development, including teachers as researchers, reports, conferences, and now internet list discussions, the field tries to educate itself about these six issues and what, if any, new knowledge may have been obtained to address these issues. Whether these staff development or other activities have actually improved any aspects of the six issues is not known by me. I?m wondering if any adult educators working in the field have any sense of how our understanding and approaches to these issues may have changed over the years and whether this change has been for the better, for worse, or have things stayed pretty much the same. _______________________________________________ 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 lisa_mcfarland at hotmail.com Sun Oct 20 12:19:32 2002 From: lisa_mcfarland at hotmail.com (Lisa Forster) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 16:19:32 +0000 Subject: [NLA] Question for all members Message-ID: Hello, It's me, the Masters of Social Work student from the University of South Carolina. As I mentioned previously, sometimes I will ask a question or two for all members of this list...then I will relay the answers back to my classmates who are taking an internet advocacy course with me... So, I finally have a few questions.... Do all of you feel like you are part of an online commmunity as members of this list? Do you feel that you are able to advocate effetively through this listserv? If so, if you can provide me with a brief example, that would be great! Oh, it would be easier if everyone who responds to these questions could send their answers to me privately...that'll just make it easier for me.... Thanks in advance! Lisa Forster _________________________________________________________________ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.? Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp _______________________________________________ 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 AWilder106 at aol.com Sun Oct 20 15:02:15 2002 From: AWilder106 at aol.com (AWilder106 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:02:15 EDT Subject: [NLA] Flow chart for fed agencies Message-ID: Dear Cecil, Many thanks for the info and clarification. I expect a chart does exist, but in inaccessible notebooks. Maybe someone with a notebook is a member of the nla. You've been a great help. 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 mcsmith at niu.edu Mon Oct 21 12:55:07 2002 From: mcsmith at niu.edu (M C Smith) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500 Subject: [NLA] More on OERI Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.1.20021021114812.024be5c0@corn.cso.niu.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sophocles5 at juno.com Mon Oct 21 22:45:57 2002 From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:45:57 -0700 Subject: [NLA] DC Logic in the Neo-Conservative Era References: <5.0.0.25.1.20021021114812.024be5c0@corn.cso.niu.edu> Message-ID: <20021021.194558.6398.0.sophocles5@juno.com> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500 M C Smith writes: > ;THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S Office of Educational Research and Improvement will be replaced by an autonomous Academy of Education Sciences, with the goal of infusing the beleaguered area of federal education research with scientific rigor, &t; under legislation passed by Congress last week. President Bush is expected to sign the bill. Books on Education and Literacy Lacking Scientific Rigor: 1. Apple, Michael (2000). Democratic Education in a Conservative Age 2. Applebee, Arthur M. (1996). Curriculum as Conversation: Transforming Traditions of Teaching and Learning 3. Auerbach, Elsa (1993). Making Meaning Making Change 4. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life 5. Bruner, Jerome (1987). Actual Minds Possible Worlds 6. Bruner, Jerome (1996). The Culture of Education 7. Cherryholmes, Cleo (1988). Power and Criticism: Poststructural Investigations in Education. 8. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, & Lytle, Susan (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge 9. Dewey, John (1900). The School and Society 10. Dewey, John. (1916). democracy and Education 11 Dewey, John (1933). How we Think, 2nd edition). 12. Dewey J. (1938). Experience and Education 13. Engel, Michael (2000). The Struggle for Control of Public Education: Market Ideology Vs Democratic Values 14. Fingeret, Hanna A. and Drennon, Cassandra (1997). Literacy for Life: Adult Learners New Practices 15. Fosnot, Catherine T. (Ed.) (1996). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice 16. Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed 17. Freire, Paulo (1985). The Politics of education: Culture Power and Liberation 18. Gardner, Howard (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence 19. Gardner, Howard (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice 20. Giroux, Henry A. (1988). Schooling and the Struggle for democratic Life: Critical Pedagogy in the Modern Age 21. Giroux, henry A. (1995). Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: Theory, Culture, and Schooling 22. Hunter, Carman St John & Harman, David (1985). Adult Literacy in the United States 23. Kegan, robert & Colleagues (2001). Toward a new Pluralism in ABE/ESOL Classrooms: Teaching to Multiple "Cultures of Mind" 23. Kliebard, Herbert M. (1995). The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 2nd edition 24. Kliebard, Herbert M. (1992). Forging the American Curriculum: Essays in Curriculum History and Theory 25. Kliebard, Herbert M.(1999). Schooled to Work: Vocationalism and the American Curriculum 1876-1946. 26. Merrifield, Juliet, Bigman, Mary Beth. Hemphill, David, and Bennett deMarrais, Kathleen (1997). Literacy, language and technology in Everyday Life 27. Quigley, P. Allan (1997). Rethinking Literacy Education: The Critical Need for Practice-Based Change 28. Shapiro, Svi (1990). Between capitalism and Democracy: Educational Policy and the Crisis of the Welfare State. 29. Shor, Ira (1987). Critical Teaching & Everyday Life 30. Shor, Ira (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change 31. Smith, Frank (1997). Reading Without Nonsense, 3rd Edition 32. Smith, Frank, (1988). Joining the Literacy Club: Further Essays into Education 33. Vygotsky, Lev (1994). Thought and Language 34. Vygotsky, Lev (1978) Mind and Society: The development of Higher Psychological Processes 35. Venesky, Richard L., Wagner, Daniel A. and Cliberti. Barrie S. (1990). Toward defining Literacy Question: Is defining legitimacy in education exclusively from the perspective of "scientific rigor" congruent with the best scholarship in the field of adult literacy studies over the past 100 years or is it more of a reflection of a conservative political and intellectual reaction to route out the very basis upon which a century of progressive scholarship is based? To put it more polemically for those who want to install a litmus test of "scientific rigor" as the sole means of determining legitimacy for educational studies, I recommend a public book burning in Washington D.C. of the list aforementioned and a closing down of the nation's graduate schools in education. George Demetrion of the dissenting tradition ________________________________________________________________ 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 eileeneckert at hotmail.com Mon Oct 21 22:16:28 2002 From: eileeneckert at hotmail.com (Eileen Eckert) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 02:16:28 +0000 Subject: [NLA] More on OERI Message-ID: Is "scientific rigor" so productive that it is worth rigid, mandated (that word again) emulation? Is scientific rigor even real, or just a myth? >From a 1990 article by Elliot Mischler of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts Mental Health Center: "Recent studies in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science have seriously damaged the 'storybook image of science' (Mitroff, 1974)--an image that has served to legitimate the dominant conception of validation. These new studies, which focus on actual practices of scientists rather than on textbook idealizations, reveal science as a human endeavor marked by uncertainty, controversy, and ad hoc pragmatic procedures--a far cry from an abstract and severe 'logic' of scientific discovery. Validation has come to be recognized as problematic in a deep theoretical sense, rather than as a technical problem to be solved by more rigorous rules and procedures." (p. 417). Back again to recurring questions: What is good research? Who decides? Reference: Mischler, E.G. (1990). Validation in Inquiry-Guided Research: The Role of Exemplars in Narrative Studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60 (4), 415-442. >From: M C Smith >Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org >To: nla at lists.literacytent.org >Subject: [NLA] More on OERI >Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500 _________________________________________________________________ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.? Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: M C Smith Subject: [NLA] More on OERI Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500 Size: 3659 URL: From ljhoover at hotmail.com Mon Oct 21 23:06:29 2002 From: ljhoover at hotmail.com (Linda Hoover) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:06:29 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Staff national organization??CAAL Report discussion... Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arthur at ellijay.com Tue Oct 22 08:00:43 2002 From: arthur at ellijay.com (Art LaChance) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:00:43 -0400 Subject: [NLA] More on OERI References: Message-ID: <3DB53DEB.BE35C298@ellijay.com> This is a wonderful question, and I would be very interested in hearing the answer. But unfortunately, I don't think we'll get one because I think the rationale for 'reliable' research has been lost somewhere along the road to confusion. Thanks, Art Art LaChance Gilmer Learning Center Ellijay, GA Eileen Eckert wrote: > Is "scientific rigor" so productive that it is worth rigid, mandated > (that > word again) emulation? Is scientific rigor even real, or just a myth? > > >From a 1990 article by Elliot Mischler of Harvard Medical School and > Massachusetts Mental Health Center: > > "Recent studies in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science > have > seriously damaged the 'storybook image of science' (Mitroff, 1974)--an > image > that has served to legitimate the dominant conception of validation. > These > new studies, which focus on actual practices of scientists rather than > on > textbook idealizations, reveal science as a human endeavor marked by > uncertainty, controversy, and ad hoc pragmatic procedures--a far cry > from an > abstract and severe 'logic' of scientific discovery. Validation has > come to > be recognized as problematic in a deep theoretical sense, rather than > as a > technical problem to be solved by more rigorous rules and procedures." > (p. > 417). > > Back again to recurring questions: What is good research? Who decides? > > Reference: > Mischler, E.G. (1990). Validation in Inquiry-Guided Research: The Role > of > Exemplars in Narrative Studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60 (4), > 415-442. > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: M C Smith > >Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org > >To: nla at lists.literacytent.org > >Subject: [NLA] More on OERI > >Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500 > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now! > http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: [NLA] More on OERI > Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500 > From: M C Smith > Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org > To: nla at lists.literacytent.org > > This just came across the wires today, reported in the Chronicle of > Higher Education, and follows upon recent discussion about fed funding > for adult literacy education: > > >THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S Office of Educational Research > > and Improvement will be replaced by an autonomous Academy of > > Education Sciences, with the goal of infusing the beleaguered > > area of federal education research with scientific rigor, > > under legislation passed by Congress last week. President > > Bush is expected to sign the bill. > > There appears to be a slight error in the above. The article indicates > that the new office is to be called the Institute of Education > Sciences. Not quite sure what the difference is between an Academy and > an Institute... > > Cecil Smith > > > M Cecil Smith, Ph.D. > Professor of Educational Psychology > Northern Illinois University > DeKalb, IL 60115-2854 > (815) 753-8448 > (815) 753-8750 (fax) > mcsmith at niu.edu > http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~smith > > "Hey, that's astute, I said. Why don't we get together and call > ourselves an institute?" > -Paul Simon (singer-songwriter, not the former Senator) > _______________________________________________ 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: From arthur at ellijay.com Tue Oct 22 08:02:32 2002 From: arthur at ellijay.com (Art LaChance) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:02:32 -0400 Subject: [NLA] DC Logic in the Neo-Conservative Era References: <5.0.0.25.1.20021021114812.024be5c0@corn.cso.niu.edu> <20021021.194558.6398.0.sophocles5@juno.com> Message-ID: <3DB53E58.145F055@ellijay.com> And thank you George !! Excellent ! May I put in my bid to throw the first match ? art Art LaChance Gilmer Learning Center Ellijay, GA "George E. Demetrion" wrote: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500 M C Smith writes: > > > > ;THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S Office of Educational Research > and Improvement will be replaced by an autonomous Academy of Education > Sciences, with the goal of infusing the beleaguered area of federal > education research with scientific rigor, &t; under legislation passed by > Congress last week. President Bush is expected to sign the bill. > > Books on Education and Literacy Lacking Scientific Rigor: > > 1. Apple, Michael (2000). Democratic Education in a Conservative Age > 2. Applebee, Arthur M. (1996). Curriculum as Conversation: > Transforming Traditions of Teaching and Learning > 3. Auerbach, Elsa (1993). Making Meaning Making Change > 4. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis (1976) Schooling in Capitalist > America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life > 5. Bruner, Jerome (1987). Actual Minds Possible Worlds > 6. Bruner, Jerome (1996). The Culture of Education > 7. Cherryholmes, Cleo (1988). Power and Criticism: Poststructural > Investigations in Education. > 8. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, & Lytle, Susan (1993). Inside/Outside: > Teacher Research and Knowledge > 9. Dewey, John (1900). The School and Society > 10. Dewey, John. (1916). democracy and Education > 11 Dewey, John (1933). How we Think, 2nd edition). > 12. Dewey J. (1938). Experience and Education > 13. Engel, Michael (2000). The Struggle for Control of Public > Education: Market Ideology Vs Democratic Values > 14. Fingeret, Hanna A. and Drennon, Cassandra (1997). Literacy for > Life: Adult Learners New Practices > 15. Fosnot, Catherine T. (Ed.) (1996). Constructivism: Theory, > Perspectives, and Practice > 16. Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed > 17. Freire, Paulo (1985). The Politics of education: Culture Power and > Liberation > 18. Gardner, Howard (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple > Intelligence > 19. Gardner, Howard (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in > Practice > 20. Giroux, Henry A. (1988). Schooling and the Struggle for democratic > Life: Critical Pedagogy in the Modern Age > 21. Giroux, henry A. (1995). Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: > Theory, Culture, and Schooling > 22. Hunter, Carman St John & Harman, David (1985). Adult Literacy in > the United States > 23. Kegan, robert & Colleagues (2001). Toward a new Pluralism in > ABE/ESOL Classrooms: Teaching to Multiple "Cultures of Mind" > 23. Kliebard, Herbert M. (1995). The Struggle for the American > Curriculum, 2nd edition > 24. Kliebard, Herbert M. (1992). Forging the American Curriculum: > Essays in Curriculum History and Theory > 25. Kliebard, Herbert M.(1999). Schooled to Work: Vocationalism and the > American Curriculum 1876-1946. > 26. Merrifield, Juliet, Bigman, Mary Beth. Hemphill, David, and Bennett > deMarrais, Kathleen (1997). Literacy, language and technology in > Everyday Life > 27. Quigley, P. Allan (1997). Rethinking Literacy Education: The > Critical Need for Practice-Based Change > 28. Shapiro, Svi (1990). Between capitalism and Democracy: Educational > Policy and the Crisis of the Welfare State. > 29. Shor, Ira (1987). Critical Teaching & Everyday Life > 30. Shor, Ira (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for > Social Change > 31. Smith, Frank (1997). Reading Without Nonsense, 3rd Edition > 32. Smith, Frank, (1988). Joining the Literacy Club: Further Essays > into Education > 33. Vygotsky, Lev (1994). Thought and Language > 34. Vygotsky, Lev (1978) Mind and Society: The development of Higher > Psychological Processes > 35. Venesky, Richard L., Wagner, Daniel A. and Cliberti. Barrie S. > (1990). Toward defining Literacy > > Question: Is defining legitimacy in education exclusively from the > perspective of "scientific rigor" congruent with the best scholarship in > the field of adult literacy studies over the past 100 years or is it more > of a reflection of a conservative political and intellectual reaction to > route out the very basis upon which a century of progressive scholarship > is based? > > To put it more polemically for those who want to install a litmus test of > "scientific rigor" as the sole means of determining legitimacy for > educational studies, I recommend a public book burning in Washington D.C. > of the list aforementioned and a closing down of the nation's graduate > schools in education. > > George Demetrion > of the dissenting tradition > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 mev at litwomen.org Tue Oct 22 08:15:31 2002 From: mev at litwomen.org (mev at litwomen.org) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:15:31 -0400 Subject: [NLA] DC Logic in the Neo-Conservative Era In-Reply-To: <20021021.194558.6398.0.sophocles5@juno.com> Message-ID: George I'm very interested in knowing WHO generated this list of books -- most of which are on the bibliography of my recently completed Ed.D. in Critical Pedagogy! Are you the one identifying these books are did it come from someone in the neo-conservative education "movement"? also from the dissenting tradition Mev Miller WE LEARN Women Expanding: Literacy Education Action Resource Network www.litwomen.org/welearn.html Mev Miller, Ed.D., Coordinator 160 Gano St. Providence, RI 02906 401-383-4374 401-270-1167 (fax) welearn at litwomen.org On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 10:45 PM, George E. Demetrion wrote: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500 M C Smith writes: >> > > ;THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S Office of Educational Research > and Improvement will be replaced by an autonomous Academy of > Education > Sciences, with the goal of infusing the beleaguered area of federal > education research with scientific rigor, &t; under legislation passed > by > Congress last week. President Bush is expected to sign the bill. > > Books on Education and Literacy Lacking Scientific Rigor: > > 1. Apple, Michael (2000). Democratic Education in a Conservative > Age > 2. Applebee, Arthur M. (1996). Curriculum as Conversation: > Transforming Traditions of Teaching and Learning > 3. Auerbach, Elsa (1993). Making Meaning Making Change > 4. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis (1976) Schooling in Capitalist > America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life > 5. Bruner, Jerome (1987). Actual Minds Possible Worlds > 6. Bruner, Jerome (1996). The Culture of Education > 7. Cherryholmes, Cleo (1988). Power and Criticism: Poststructural > Investigations in Education. > 8. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, & Lytle, Susan (1993). Inside/Outside: > Teacher Research and Knowledge > 9. Dewey, John (1900). The School and Society > 10. Dewey, John. (1916). democracy and Education > 11 Dewey, John (1933). How we Think, 2nd edition). > 12. Dewey J. (1938). Experience and Education > 13. Engel, Michael (2000). The Struggle for Control of Public > Education: Market Ideology Vs Democratic Values > 14. Fingeret, Hanna A. and Drennon, Cassandra (1997). Literacy for > Life: Adult Learners New Practices > 15. Fosnot, Catherine T. (Ed.) (1996). Constructivism: Theory, > Perspectives, and Practice > 16. Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed > 17. Freire, Paulo (1985). The Politics of education: Culture Power > and > Liberation > 18. Gardner, Howard (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple > Intelligence > 19. Gardner, Howard (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in > Practice > 20. Giroux, Henry A. (1988). Schooling and the Struggle for > democratic > Life: Critical Pedagogy in the Modern Age > 21. Giroux, henry A. (1995). Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: > Theory, Culture, and Schooling > 22. Hunter, Carman St John & Harman, David (1985). Adult Literacy in > the United States > 23. Kegan, robert & Colleagues (2001). Toward a new Pluralism in > ABE/ESOL Classrooms: Teaching to Multiple "Cultures of Mind" > 23. Kliebard, Herbert M. (1995). The Struggle for the American > Curriculum, 2nd edition > 24. Kliebard, Herbert M. (1992). Forging the American Curriculum: > Essays in Curriculum History and Theory > 25. Kliebard, Herbert M.(1999). Schooled to Work: Vocationalism and > the > American Curriculum 1876-1946. > 26. Merrifield, Juliet, Bigman, Mary Beth. Hemphill, David, and > Bennett > deMarrais, Kathleen (1997). Literacy, language and technology in > Everyday Life > 27. Quigley, P. Allan (1997). Rethinking Literacy Education: The > Critical Need for Practice-Based Change > 28. Shapiro, Svi (1990). Between capitalism and Democracy: > Educational > Policy and the Crisis of the Welfare State. > 29. Shor, Ira (1987). Critical Teaching & Everyday Life > 30. Shor, Ira (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for > Social Change > 31. Smith, Frank (1997). Reading Without Nonsense, 3rd Edition > 32. Smith, Frank, (1988). Joining the Literacy Club: Further Essays > into Education > 33. Vygotsky, Lev (1994). Thought and Language > 34. Vygotsky, Lev (1978) Mind and Society: The development of Higher > Psychological Processes > 35. Venesky, Richard L., Wagner, Daniel A. and Cliberti. Barrie S. > (1990). Toward defining 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 Elsa.Auerbach at umb.edu Tue Oct 22 08:27:11 2002 From: Elsa.Auerbach at umb.edu (Elsa Auerbach) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:27:11 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Reading Research On Adult Reading Message-ID: I wonder whether any of the research projects specifically look at issues for adult learners whose first or primary language is not English (the majority of adult learners in U.S. programs)? Elsa Auerbach > ---------- > From: Thomas Sticht > Reply To: nla at lists.literacytent.org > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:23 AM > To: nla at lists.literacytent.org > Subject: [NLA] Reading Research On Adult Reading > > Following is an edited/abridged version of a press release currently > available at the NIFL web site: www.nifl.gov > It suggests one direction in which the federal government is moving with > regard to adult literacy education. > Tom Sticht > > THREE FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS ANNOUNCE $18.5 MILLION GRANT AWARDS TO FIRST > ADULT LITERACY RESEARCH NETWORK > > WASHINGTON, October 2, 2002 - A new research network unveiled today will > study the most effective methods and approaches for teaching reading > skills to low-literate adults, using $18.5 million in grants from the > National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), Office of Adult and > Vocational Education of the US Department of Education, and the National > Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National > Institutes of Health. The funds, to be used over a five-year period, will > fund six individual research projects focused on adult literacy > instruction. > > The projects within the network will design, develop, implement and study > the effectiveness of adult literacy interventions for low-literate adults, > including the role of decoding, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension > instruction and explicitness of instruction. These are the components of > reading that have been shown to be essential in teaching reading to > younger students, but instructional methods for teaching them to adults > have not been thoroughly investigated. > ...> > > ...> All six of the funded studies will employ experimental or > quasi-experimental designs, one including a neuroimaging component. > Although these projects will not be completed for five years, by the end > of the first year the investigators will be reporting on their ongoing > progress > and preliminary findings. A listing of the principal investigators and > their institutions follows: > > Daphne Greenberg, Georgia State University > Research on Reading Instruction for Low Literate Adults > > Susan Levy, University of Illinois > Testing Impact of Health Literacy in Adult Literacy > and Integrated Family Approach Programs > > Daryl Mellard, University of Kansas - Lawrence > Improving Literacy Instruction for Adults > > John Sabatini, Educational Testing Services > Relative Effectiveness of Reading Programs for Adults > > Frank Wood, Wake Forest University of the Health Sciences > Young Adult Literacy Problems: Prevalence and Treatment > > Richard Venezky, University of Delaware > Building a Knowledge Base for Teaching Adult Decoding > > > ...> "This type of in-depth study is crucial to understanding the best > ways to teach low-literate adults," said Assistant Secretary > D'Amico, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. "Armed with > scientifically-based reading instruction methods we can equip adults > with the reading and writing skills needed for better jobs and > opportunities." > > For more information and a summary document, go to: > http://www.nichd.nih.gov/crmc/cdb/AFL_workshop.htm > > To view the Reading Research Working Group document, go to: > http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/adult_reading/adult_reading.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 AWilder106 at aol.com Tue Oct 22 08:48:50 2002 From: AWilder106 at aol.com (AWilder106 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:48:50 EDT Subject: [NLA] DC Logic in the Neo-Conservative Era Message-ID: <64.270732a5.2ae6a332@aol.com> George, Venezky, on your list, is one of those who just got a grant, reported on the nla. Curiosity: What would you prefer in the way of studies in adult literacy? What would you measure? How would you do it? What would you do with your conclusions? How would you disseminate them? What kind of teacher training do you want to see for teachers? Would you see it required, and if so, what would you require? How do you feel about cetitfication? What programs would get more money, assuming scarce resources? What would make you close down a program? 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 Awilderast at aol.com Tue Oct 22 09:10:38 2002 From: Awilderast at aol.com (Awilderast at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:10:38 EDT Subject: [NLA] More on OERI Message-ID: Dear Cecil, The report you cite will be in next weeks Chronicle, I'll have to wait until then. If OERI vanishes in the future, it looks as though this new Institute/Academy will take over the grant funding. And what might happen to NIFL? Who created it? Under OERI? What's the link to OERI? I need a flow chart. 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 sophocles5 at juno.com Tue Oct 22 12:14:11 2002 From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:14:11 -0700 Subject: [NLA] DC Logic in the Neo-Conservative Era References: Message-ID: <20021022.091411.6398.0.sophocles5@juno.com> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:15:31 -0400 mev at litwomen.org writes: >George >I'm very interested in knowing WHO generated this list of books -- >most >of which are on the bibliography of my recently completed Ed.D. in >Critical Pedagogy! Are you the one identifying these books are did it >come from someone in the neo-conservative education "movement"? > >also from the dissenting tradition >Mev Miller Mev, >From my bookshelves. I've tried to put a moratorium on buying new books. It's not working. ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.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 EPSSAG at langate.gsu.edu Tue Oct 22 09:43:57 2002 From: EPSSAG at langate.gsu.edu (Sheryl Gowen) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:43:57 -0400 Subject: [NLA] DC Logic in the Neo-Conservative Era Message-ID: I'm curious: How are you defining "scientific?" Also, in order to understand your process, could you tell us how you decided which books to include on the list? Were you systematic? From what group of books did you make the selection? Could anyone on the NLA listserve create a similar list if we knew how you created your list? Sheryl Gowen, Associate Professor Research, Measurement and Statistics Department of Educational Policy Studies Georgia State University Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 sgowen at gsu.edu 404.651.1152 fax 404.651.1009 >>> sophocles5 at juno.com 10/21/02 10:45PM >>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500 M C Smith writes: > ;THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S Office of Educational Research and Improvement will be replaced by an autonomous Academy of Education Sciences, with the goal of infusing the beleaguered area of federal education research with scientific rigor, &t; under legislation passed by Congress last week. President Bush is expected to sign the bill. Books on Education and Literacy Lacking Scientific Rigor: 1. Apple, Michael (2000). Democratic Education in a Conservative Age 2. Applebee, Arthur M. (1996). Curriculum as Conversation: Transforming Traditions of Teaching and Learning 3. Auerbach, Elsa (1993). Making Meaning Making Change 4. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life 5. Bruner, Jerome (1987). Actual Minds Possible Worlds 6. Bruner, Jerome (1996). The Culture of Education 7. Cherryholmes, Cleo (1988). Power and Criticism: Poststructural Investigations in Education. 8. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, & Lytle, Susan (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge 9. Dewey, John (1900). The School and Society 10. Dewey, John. (1916). democracy and Education 11 Dewey, John (1933). How we Think, 2nd edition). 12. Dewey J. (1938). Experience and Education 13. Engel, Michael (2000). The Struggle for Control of Public Education: Market Ideology Vs Democratic Values 14. Fingeret, Hanna A. and Drennon, Cassandra (1997). Literacy for Life: Adult Learners New Practices 15. Fosnot, Catherine T. (Ed.) (1996). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice 16. Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed 17. Freire, Paulo (1985). The Politics of education: Culture Power and Liberation 18. Gardner, Howard (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence 19. Gardner, Howard (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice 20. Giroux, Henry A. (1988). Schooling and the Struggle for democratic Life: Critical Pedagogy in the Modern Age 21. Giroux, henry A. (1995). Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: Theory, Culture, and Schooling 22. Hunter, Carman St John & Harman, David (1985). Adult Literacy in the United States 23. Kegan, robert & Colleagues (2001). Toward a new Pluralism in ABE/ESOL Classrooms: Teaching to Multiple "Cultures of Mind" 23. Kliebard, Herbert M. (1995). The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 2nd edition 24. Kliebard, Herbert M. (1992). Forging the American Curriculum: Essays in Curriculum History and Theory 25. Kliebard, Herbert M.(1999). Schooled to Work: Vocationalism and the American Curriculum 1876-1946. 26. Merrifield, Juliet, Bigman, Mary Beth. Hemphill, David, and Bennett deMarrais, Kathleen (1997). Literacy, language and technology in Everyday Life 27. Quigley, P. Allan (1997). Rethinking Literacy Education: The Critical Need for Practice-Based Change 28. Shapiro, Svi (1990). Between capitalism and Democracy: Educational Policy and the Crisis of the Welfare State. 29. Shor, Ira (1987). Critical Teaching & Everyday Life 30. Shor, Ira (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change 31. Smith, Frank (1997). Reading Without Nonsense, 3rd Edition 32. Smith, Frank, (1988). Joining the Literacy Club: Further Essays into Education 33. Vygotsky, Lev (1994). Thought and Language 34. Vygotsky, Lev (1978) Mind and Society: The development of Higher Psychological Processes 35. Venesky, Richard L., Wagner, Daniel A. and Cliberti. Barrie S. (1990). Toward defining Literacy Question: Is defining legitimacy in education exclusively from the perspective of "scientific rigor" congruent with the best scholarship in the field of adult literacy studies over the past 100 years or is it more of a reflection of a conservative political and intellectual reaction to route out the very basis upon which a century of progressive scholarship is based? To put it more polemically for those who want to install a litmus test of "scientific rigor" as the sole means of determining legitimacy for educational studies, I recommend a public book burning in Washington D.C. of the list aforementioned and a closing down of the nation's graduate schools in education. George Demetrion of the dissenting tradition ________________________________________________________________ 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 NAASLN at aol.com Tue Oct 22 10:32:43 2002 From: NAASLN at aol.com (NAASLN at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:32:43 EDT Subject: [NLA] NAASLN News Release -- Exciting 2003 Conference on Special Learning Needs Message-ID: <109.1aa2003a.2ae6bb8b@aol.com> **** PLEASE POST THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL BULLETINS **** **** Please forward this e-mail to adult education and literacy, employment and training, human service and TANF services constituencies **** NEWS RELEASE ? How do I accommodate adults with special learning needs in my education, vocation, or employment setting? ? What are the best products and resources to maximize the outcomes services for adults with disabilities? ? Who can I contact when I have questions on accommodations or resources that I need to improve the success of adults with special learning needs in my program or workplace setting? ? What legislative issues are critical to support to adults with special learning needs and how can I advocate within my own state or have any impact in DC? NAASLN, the National Association for Adults with Special Learning Needs, is a unique organization devoted to supporting service providers working with persons with disabilities (learning disabilities, visual and hearing impairments, developmental disabilities, long-term mental health and addiction disabilities, and physical disabilities). NAASLN provides opportunities for networking, advocacy, links to resources, professional development, and opportunities for leadership. NAASLN is presenting a three-day international conference: People and Partnerships First! Advocating and Partnering for Access, Quality and Outcomes, March 16 - 18, 2003. Columbus, OH. The conference will offer over 75 sessions for practitioners, administrators, and employers. Presentations will include research, cutting-edge models, and practical ways to better serve adults with special learning needs, in addition to exhibits targeting products and services for adults with special learning needs. Conference sessions will be offered up-to-date information on state and national initiatives. The Keynote speaker for the conference will be Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Association of People with Disabilities. Imparato will be addressing the Routes to Impacting Local, State, and Federal Legislation for Persons with Disabilities. In addition to his keynote, Imparato will also be hosting several smaller sessions on Techniques for Advocating for People with Disabilities in the Current Political Climate. A Pre-Conference set of all day sessions will be held on Saturday, March 15th. Session scheduled to date include: Brain Research - Understanding the Neurological Functioning of Persons with Special Learning Needs - What Every Service Provider Needs to Know! Dr. Dale Jordan Accessing Accommodations on the GED -- The GED Testing Service Leadership Development for Learners with Special Learning Needs -- NIFL NAASLN is offering participation opportunities for you and your organization as conference presenters, attendees, partners, or exhibitors. For conference and membership information visit our website at www.NAASLN.com or contact NAASLN, C/O CEA, 4380 Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, MD 20706, 800.496.9222 for more 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 cb.king at verizon.net Tue Oct 22 13:52:45 2002 From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine B. King) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:52:45 -0700 Subject: [NLA] DC Logic and Nonsense in the Neo-Conservative Era References: <5.0.0.25.1.20021021114812.024be5c0@corn.cso.niu.edu> <20021021.194558.6398.0.sophocles5@juno.com> Message-ID: <002501c279f3$f7bd7e40$4f07f843@VZres087lb> Colleagues: Hats off to George for posting "The List." We won't solve the "research problem" here. However, we are all aware of the marked difference between the unity of collaboration in: (1) the natural and statistical sciences, (2) the human sciences, including the theoretical "sides" of philosophy, the arts, history, and (3) the field that integrates all of them: Education and for us, Adult Education. All of "The List" that George published are from 2 and 3 above. There are many reasons for this difference in the unity of collaboration; however, if we don't want to think about those differences, and take them into consideration when developing our expectations of theory, research, and "outcomes" in human studies, then: . . . we can follow the present thrust and just forget the differences, and keep trying to make the unity happen by avoiding the human sciences, the theoretical "sides" of philosophy, the arts and history, and try to fit the field that integrates them ALL into the one field that does give us a unity of collaboration--the natural sciences, and perhaps statistical science, even though statistical science doesn't really do the job of complete predictability either--because that's the goal: Complete Predictability with no room for qualified change and vision. This way, we can forget that we will have what my Aunt Nell calls a "blivit," (two pounds of stuff in a one- pound bag). I would say that not paying attention to the differences in the data is naive and uncritical on scientific grounds; but, hey, I am just an adjunct teacher, and my theoretical background is in education theory, so, on the premise of the new drift, it doesn't "count." Stop now if you don't want to think about the differences. Or skip to the ***** at the end. However, if we want to talk about the differences in the unity of collaboration, we have to begin first with the data under review: That is, we don't discount critical science as a method of inquiry. Rather, we consider that the data under review are conscious human beings and not non-conscious, relatively predictable data. That is, human beings are not much like the data of the natural world. And since educators are charged with developing minds with a vision for the future we do not know yet, the aim of complete predictability is not a valid aim. Secondly, we must consider that the data under review --the data that is conscious--asks lots of questions about the world, themselves, and others and changes in qualified ways. Namely, we ask "What" questions, as well as questions for value. These kinds of questions for intelligence and value, in turn, create the field of human endeavors we know as science, history, philosophy, the arts, spiritual-religious orders, education, etc., all of which are the legitimate fields that inform education--legitimately. ("What is education?" is a question for philosophy, as well as for the philosophy of education [Dewey, et al], and contains within it the questions about the political, the ethical, and human spirituality--unless of course human beings are not political, or have no spirituality, or do not ask questions about the good, value or ethics.) Thirdly, if the data itself asks questions for intelligence and value, then so do all researchers and policy makers, who are also human. (All policy is grounded on questions of the type, "What is the best way to order our lives?" BEST is the operative value word. Or, what is the BEST way to do research?) Fourthly, the researcher involved with scientific method in any field has come to VALUE that questions for intelligence are distinguished from questions of value when doing critical science. Fifthly, distinguishing questions for intelligence and questions for value is a good (valuable) distinction and has been a hallmark of scientific method for hundreds of years. Sixthly, human beings develop and live around the questions of intelligence and value, all of which inform our political, ethical, philosophical, etc..views. It follows that to avoid or to eliminate these kinds of questions and their outcomes in research as manifest of these questions is to seriously encroach on the factual form of the data so much so as to distort the data--an egregious breech of scientific method. Seventhly, the difference in the data is directly related to the researcher's own development and humanity in a way that does not relate to the non-conscious data of the natural sciences. This development and humanity quite normally come into play at the beginning point where the researchers' questions are formed. Eighthly, the unity of collaboration in the natural sciences is informed by the similar questions that we bring to non- conscious data, which are unified around a marked similarity in interest in understanding it, a similarity in interpreting the data, and a similarity in expectations and outcomes, including predictability. However, the questions the human scientist bring to human beings are formed around DIFFERENT interests, differences in interpreting the data, and different expectations and outcomes--including our notions of predictability. This is so precisely because those interests, notions of import, and interpretations are already informed by the prior DIFFERENT developments of the scientist--philosophical, political, ethical, spiritual, not to mention social and psychological. Ninthly, this difference does not mean that "all human scientists are biased" and therefore cannot possibly produce critical, scientific-theoretical reporting. It does explain, however, why human sciences, philosophy, the arts, history, and education do not share the unity of collaboration that the natural sciences do. Tenthly, if we all held the same views, and if we had a unity of collaboration like the natural sciences, it would infer that we were all developmentally on the same plane-- we would all share the same philosophical, political ethical, spiritual development and assumptions, and of course we do not. Stepford communities comes to mind, if you remember that movie. My humble opinion is that if we want that, we have already lost our minds. Eleventh, when human researchers inquire (ask questions) about human beings, their philosophical, political, ethical, spiritual background and development inform the questions, expectations and interpretations of the data. These views also inform the natural sciences; however, non-conscious data does not have philosophical, political, ethical spiritual components and, therefore, the views informing the scientists' "What" questions for intelligence are relatively similar. Hence, the general unity of collaboration in the field. Twelfth, if we are to follow the mandate of critical scientific method and take account of the differences in: (1) the data and (2) the conscious and developmental relationship of the researcher to the data, then we must consider that all human--and some natural-- scientific research must be informed by an open dialogue and critical exploration of the scientists' philosophical, political, and ethical positions--and even spiritual where the spiritual is a part of the researcher's questioning. Also, we must consider all of these areas of the data exploration as essential to research in education. ****However, it seems easier for conscious and value seeking human beings to research value-seeking conscious data under the paradigm of valueLESS nonconscious data. That way, we can: (1) "streamline" and simplify research, (2) eliminate all those pesky texts that confuse the issue around "bias," (3) reduce teaching to more predictably factory work, (4) force unpredictable creative people into predictable molds; and most importantly: (5) We can usher in our own political et al views under the cover of "research with scientific rigor" AS IF there were no ethical-political order informing our research, and AS IF there were no philosophical or political presuppositions at work that find it expeditious to eliminate "certain texts." These texts happen to directly address those philosophical positions that inform what education is, and that, in fact, underpin the political system that would create the conditions for our questions in the first place, and our vision for a yet unknown future. President Bush, it seems, in signing into law "scientific rigor" so defined, is also in danger of signing away the philosophical positions that inform the documents he stands for--namely, the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the mandate that weds education to democracy. Maybe those are things we can live without, as long as we have a new political order informing "scientific rigor." Regards to all my fellow teachers who have nothing important to say in principle--we are all now outsiders-- and thank you George for "The List" and for the allusion to the movies "Brazil" and "Fahrenheit 451." Catherine King Adjunct Instructor Department of Education National University San Diego, CA ---- Original Message ----- From: George E. Demetrion To: Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 7:45 PM Subject: [NLA] DC Logic in the Neo-Conservative Era > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500 M C Smith writes: > > > > ;THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S Office of Educational Research > and Improvement will be replaced by an autonomous Academy of Education > Sciences, with the goal of infusing the beleaguered area of federal > education research with scientific rigor, &t; under legislation passed by > Congress last week. President Bush is expected to sign the bill. > > Books on Education and Literacy Lacking Scientific Rigor: > > 1. Apple, Michael (2000). Democratic Education in a Conservative Age > 2. Applebee, Arthur M. (1996). Curriculum as Conversation: > Transforming Traditions of Teaching and Learning > 3. Auerbach, Elsa (1993). Making Meaning Making Change > 4. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis (1976) Schooling in Capitalist > America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life > 5. Bruner, Jerome (1987). Actual Minds Possible Worlds > 6. Bruner, Jerome (1996). The Culture of Education > 7. Cherryholmes, Cleo (1988). Power and Criticism: Poststructural > Investigations in Education. > 8. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, & Lytle, Susan (1993). Inside/Outside: > Teacher Research and Knowledge > 9. Dewey, John (1900). The School and Society > 10. Dewey, John. (1916). democracy and Education > 11 Dewey, John (1933). How we Think, 2nd edition). > 12. Dewey J. (1938). Experience and Education > 13. Engel, Michael (2000). The Struggle for Control of Public > Education: Market Ideology Vs Democratic Values > 14. Fingeret, Hanna A. and Drennon, Cassandra (1997). Literacy for > Life: Adult Learners New Practices > 15. Fosnot, Catherine T. (Ed.) (1996). Constructivism: Theory, > Perspectives, and Practice > 16. Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed > 17. Freire, Paulo (1985). The Politics of education: Culture Power and > Liberation > 18. Gardner, Howard (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple > Intelligence > 19. Gardner, Howard (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in > Practice > 20. Giroux, Henry A. (1988). Schooling and the Struggle for democratic > Life: Critical Pedagogy in the Modern Age > 21. Giroux, henry A. (1995). Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: > Theory, Culture, and Schooling > 22. Hunter, Carman St John & Harman, David (1985). Adult Literacy in > the United States > 23. Kegan, robert & Colleagues (2001). Toward a new Pluralism in > ABE/ESOL Classrooms: Teaching to Multiple "Cultures of Mind" > 23. Kliebard, Herbert M. (1995). The Struggle for the American > Curriculum, 2nd edition > 24. Kliebard, Herbert M. (1992). Forging the American Curriculum: > Essays in Curriculum History and Theory > 25. Kliebard, Herbert M.(1999). Schooled to Work: Vocationalism and the > American Curriculum 1876-1946. > 26. Merrifield, Juliet, Bigman, Mary Beth. Hemphill, David, and Bennett > deMarrais, Kathleen (1997). Literacy, language and technology in > Everyday Life > 27. Quigley, P. Allan (1997). Rethinking Literacy Education: The > Critical Need for Practice-Based Change > 28. Shapiro, Svi (1990). Between capitalism and Democracy: Educational > Policy and the Crisis of the Welfare State. > 29. Shor, Ira (1987). Critical Teaching & Everyday Life > 30. Shor, Ira (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for > Social Change > 31. Smith, Frank (1997). Reading Without Nonsense, 3rd Edition > 32. Smith, Frank, (1988). Joining the Literacy Club: Further Essays > into Education > 33. Vygotsky, Lev (1994). Thought and Language > 34. Vygotsky, Lev (1978) Mind and Society: The development of Higher > Psychological Processes > 35. Venesky, Richard L., Wagner, Daniel A. and Cliberti. Barrie S. > (1990). Toward defining Literacy > > Question: Is defining legitimacy in education exclusively from the > perspective of "scientific rigor" congruent with the best scholarship in > the field of adult literacy studies over the past 100 years or is it more > of a reflection of a conservative political and intellectual reaction to > route out the very basis upon which a century of progressive scholarship > is based? > > To put it more polemically for those who want to install a litmus test of > "scientific rigor" as the sole means of determining legitimacy for > educational studies, I recommend a public book burning in Washington D.C. > of the list aforementioned and a closing down of the nation's graduate > schools in education. > > George Demetrion > of the dissenting tradition > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 Janet_Isserlis at brown.edu Tue Oct 22 14:39:55 2002 From: Janet_Isserlis at brown.edu (Janet Isserlis) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:39:55 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Discussion: How will OERI Reauthorization affect NCSALL? In-Reply-To: <3DB1DADB.5030801@theworld.com> References: <3DB1DADB.5030801@theworld.com> Message-ID: John and all does the notion of a new institute or academy then render all of the information below moot? Janet Isserlis > >The OERI legislation specifically leaves the existing R&D Center >grants in place, and so NCSALL is funded through July 2006 at about >$3 million per year. The R&D Centers are in the new legislation, >with a specific reference to an Adult Education Center, and so >sometime before 2006 OERI should have another open competition for a >new adult education R&D Center that will be funded for 5 years with >a 5 year non-competitive extension if the Center's work is >satisfactory. NCSALL will be one of the bidders for that new Center, >but we may decide to make changes in such things as who directs the >Center, which institution is the host, which researchers are funded, >and, of course, what research we pursue. > >OERI will be looking for more experimental or quasi-experimental >research in the proposals. NCSALL researchers and staff are >discussing how best to move in that direction. Even without the >politics around this issue, this is a difficult discussion, but one >that we are finding useful and interesting. Once we have completed >our discussion, we will share our proposed plans with the field for >feedback and will use NLA as one of the venues for this. As the >first step in this process, we have prepared a report of everything >we did in the first five years (1996-2001), which we plan to publish >in November. As soon as this document is on our website, we'll post >a notice on NLA. At the end of that report, we summarize what we >have learned in a way that misses >some of the details but provides, we hope, a useful framework. > >For people involved or interested in policy, the new OERI >legislation presents three issues that need discussion. First, the >next 10-year grant to an adult education R&D Center should be much >larger, at least $5 million per year with a 5% inflation factor. >How is our field going to organize itself to argue for these funds? >Keep in mind that the funds are not coming from any other adult >education pot of money. > >Second, what questions should this Center seek to answer and how >should it go about doing that. Part of the "how" is a technical >question that should be answered by the researchers who take on this >task but part of it is a policy issue in that different research >methods have different levels of credibility and are open to >different limitations on accuracy. I feel a mix of methodologies >that follow a process of exploration and testing leading to more >exploration and testing is the way to ensure credibility without >walking down a narrow path that may help some, but not all of our >students. > >Third, OERI now has the evaluation function that funded the Development >Associates National Evaluation of ABE programs in 1994. As you know, our >experience in MA of outside evaluations (the Grossman Report and the >MassINC report) has been that though they can identify weaknesses >they can lead to more resources. I believe our field should be >calling for a new national evaluation of the WIA Title II program. >Since 1994, NCSALL and other researchers have developed methods for >studying our programs that could be employed in this evaluation, and >our field has a more sophisticated knowledge base about our work. A >well-funded, outside evalution report would be helpful to >identifying our weaknesses and our strengths in a way that can >inform policy decisions. Since the NAAL (the second NALS) will >probably release its finding in 2005, we would want a national >evaluation to release its findings at about the same time. Since the >evaluation will probably take at least 2 and may take 3 years, it >should start early in 2003. I feel a $5 million evaluation could >give us a good report. I would urge every state to take on their >own evaluations at the same time. This could provide much richer >data >for the national evaluation but would also provide each state with a >document that could be used to argue for greater state support. > >I hope that some of NCSALL's work, "Focus on Basics" for example, >continues on even if OERI awards the next Center grant to another >group of institutions. The field should look at NCSALL's work and >argue for continuation of those parts that deserve that support. > >John > >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 > > > > >-------- Original Message -------- > >Subject: Discussion: How will OERI Reauthorization affect NCSALL? > >Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 20:10:51 -0400 > >From: "David J. Rosen" > >To: nla at lists.literacytent.org > > > >NLA Colleagues, > > > >An NLA list member called my attention to the article below about the > >reform of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement which, as > >was recently pointed out here, funds the National Center for the Study > >of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL). I cannot tell from this > >article whether the "lamb-ing" of this Lion means that a separate > >national adult literacy research center is no longer at risk. Anyone know? > > > >David J. Rosen > >NLA List Moderator > > > > > > > > > >Article from the Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools > >Project Bi-Monthly Bulletin > > > >The entire PPI newsletter is available at > >http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001& >contentID= >250950 > > > > > >&contentID >=250950>. > > > > > > > > > >OERI Reauthorization: In Like a Lion, Out Like a Lamb > > > >Last week the House passed a conference-approved version of > >the bill to reauthorize the federal Office of Educational Research > >and Improvement; the Senate is expected to do the same later > >this week, and the President is expected to sign off on the > >legislation, bringing an end to a process that has languished on > >Capital Hill in a peculiar paradox of obscurity and political import. > >The Bush Administration had grand plans for overhauling the > >federal government's role in education research as an > >accompaniment to the No Child Left Behind Act. But in the end > >it looks as if federal education research will continue to be a faint > >cymbal clang on the tail end of the policy cacophony. > > > >At face value there are some changes to be sure: a new name, > >some new offices created, more "independence" for federal > >research and statistics. At the end of the day, however, it's > >unclear how much of a difference any of these changes will > >make in the primary operations of federal education research. > >This is truly unfortunate because research should be a priority > >of federal education policy. As opposed to the private sector, > >where the lure of enormous profits drives a robust R&D industry, > >for the most part education research offers only intrinsic rewards. > >It's shocking to consider that the Department of Education > >spends almost as much on its own overhead and administration > >as research functions for American education. Even in flush > >times, let alone the current fiscal climate, states do not have > >education research capability or resources; this is a job > >for Washington. > > > >The bill also aims to improve evaluation functions for federal > >education programs by moving them from the program offices > >into the new research office. This is an improvement, but it's > >unclear how program evaluation will actually be any more > >independent or isolated from politics. Apparently independence > >in research and program evaluation looked a lot better to the > >Bush campaign than the Bush Administration. > > > >Perhaps none of this matters that much. Education research is > >only as useful as its consumers are savvy, and there is still > >plenty of evidence that too many people involved with education > >fail to differentiate among different kinds of research, both in > >terms of what sorts of questions it can help to answer and more > >importantly in terms of whether specific findings can be > >generalized and applied through public policy. The Bush > >Administration does deserve credit for putting the issue of > >what constitutes research front and center. But in too many > >cases that conversation is far ahead of practice in the field. > > > >Further Reading: > > > >Education and the Workforce Committee Press Release > >on House Passage of Final Agreement (10/11/02): > >http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press107/edresearch101102.htm > > > >"Senate Panel Passes Federal Research Bill," > >Lisa Fine Goldstein, Education Week (10/02/02): > >http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=05oeri.h22&keywords=research > > > > > >"Research of Education: > >On the leading Edge of School Improvement," > >PPI-NEKIA-EQI Conference Transcript (03/26/02): > >http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=181&con >tentID=250 >346 > > > > > >ntentID=25 >0346> > > > > > > > > > >Scientific Research In Education > >Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research, > >Richard J. Shavelson and Lisa Towne, Editors, > >National Research Council (2002): > >http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10236.html > > > >ABOUT THE 21st CENTURY SCHOOLS PROJECT > > > >The Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools Project > >develops public policy to ensure that American schools help all > >students develop the skills and knowledge they need to be > >successful in the knowledge economy. > >More about us: > >http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ka.cfm?knlgAreaID=110 > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue Oct 22 15:48:44 2002 From: mcsmith at niu.edu (M C Smith) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:48:44 -0500 Subject: [NLA] OERI goes bye-bye? Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.1.20021022144253.00addb68@corn.cso.niu.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sophocles5 at juno.com Tue Oct 22 21:10:58 2002 From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:10:58 -0700 Subject: [NLA] DC Logic in the Neo-Conservative Era References: <64.270732a5.2ae6a332@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021022.181059.9286.0.sophocles5@juno.com> Hello Andrea: These are all great questions. I came across Sheryl's questions first and started a response. So let me work on that, then perhaps this weekend I might be able to get back to you. Quick response: What I might prefer in the way of adult literacy studies would not be something that I would necessarily measure in a statistical sense (Catherine's message speaks to this). This does not negate the importance of evaluation or assessment in some sense, though it might challenge the notion of "objectivity" if defined exclusively or in the final analysis through a mathematical metaphor. With Catherine, evaluation is an invariably interpretive affair stemming from the human sciences--and science may be used here as a code for human inquiry which takes on a variety of different modes. Because I'm trying to be quick I speak cryptically. Let me get on to my longer response, then (along with Catherine's message and whatever else may come up) let's see where we are. George I On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:48:50 EDT AWilder106 at aol.com writes: >George, > >Venezky, on your list, is one of those who just got a grant, reported >on the >nla. > >Curiosity: What would you prefer in the way of studies in adult >literacy? >What would you measure? How would you do it? What would you do with >your >conclusions? How would you disseminate them? What kind of teacher >training >do you want to see for teachers? Would you see it required, and if >so, what >would you require? How do you feel about cetitfication? What >programs would >get more money, assuming scarce resources? What would make you close >down a >program? > >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 > ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.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 Awilderast at aol.com Tue Oct 22 19:13:04 2002 From: Awilderast at aol.com (Awilderast at aol.com) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 19:13:04 EDT Subject: [NLA] DC Logic in the Neo-Conservative Era Message-ID: <39.2eecca90.2ae73580@aol.com> Hi everyone, I like Georege's List. I have read or have on my shelves about half, and then some. Most are social science, which still counts as ****science**** so can we please leave that argument where it fell? Or do we have to keep pounding on it? My favorite book these days is "Dyslexia, Fluency, and the Brain." It is full of pre and post testing, interventions, and brain imaging. I think the conclusions will be quite useful for day to day teachers once I translate the findings into everyday language. I listen carefully to what Art and Nancy say, because they represent day to day teachers, and what I do has to make sense to them or it is useless. I wish more teaching teachers would speak up. So.....my question on reading George's List: for who is everyone else writing? Thinking? Arguing? Day to day teachers? Policy makers? Administrators? 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 Tue Oct 22 21:22:12 2002 From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:22:12 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Discussion: Assessment and WIA, title II Public policy Message-ID: <3DB5F9C4.2040000@theworld.com> NLA colleagues who may be interested in assessment issues, The long message cross-posted below from the NIFL-assessment list, written by my Massachusetts colleague, Kevin O'Connor, is not focused on public policy. Yet, because the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) has required accountability from a field that does not yet have adequate accountability tools, it >is< about public policy. Kevin writes about the BEST test, a standardized ESL assessment designed for adults, widely regarded as one of the better standardized assessments. Yet, he points out how inadequate and mis-used it is. This is not a criticism of the test developer -- indeed, the test is being revised now and that is why Kevin has raised the issues -- nor necessarily of the states that have chosen to use the BEST test. In my view, the kinds of issues Kevin raises point to the shortsightedness of Congress and the U.S. Department of Education in requiring the implementation of high-stakes standardized assessment in a long-marginalized field which does not yet have the tools and resources needed to do this job well. In my testimony last week on WIA, Title II, at a U.S. Department of Education public meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, I said the U.S. Department of Education should not make decisions based on these data. We do not have valid assessments for the full range of skills that are currently required to be assessed. And I said I thought that it is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Education to pay for developing these needed assessments out of their national programs funding (not the funding which goes to the states for adult education services.) I got an encouraging response. Hans Meeder, representing the U.S. Department of Education at the meeting, asked me how much it would cost. I said "millions," but I wonder if there might be some NLA colleagues who have a more precise answer to this question. If you do, please e-mail Hans Meeder at . He wants to know what standardized assessments we need and how much it will cost to do a good job developing them. Also, if you want to see my full testimony, let me know and I'll e-mail you a copy. David J. Rosen -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:220] RE: Level 3 SPL Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:31:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "Kevin O'Connor" Reply-To: nifl-assessment at nifl.gov To: Multiple recipients of list Sandra, I based this on what I learned for the Standards of Educational and Psychological Testing. It is the Rosetta Stone for psycholinguistics. Sorry it's so long, but I really wanted to make this more than another gripe piece, but not an impenetrable mass of "assessment-speak". Questioning validity: Realigning the BEST test with the NRS descriptors The BEST Oral Test was developed in the 1980's through the Office of Refugee Resettlement and Department of Health and Human Services to help measure the life skills of Asian immigrants who were coming to the U.S. Since then, it has been adopted as a placement tool by many programs across the country. In recent years, it has been mandated by several states through Department of Education as a measure of educational gains. The BEST is a venerable and respected tool, but I believe that its use has grown beyond the original framework. Today it is being used to test linguistic domains that are different from its designed, and with a population far beyond the designers' expectations. I understand that here is a revision being developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics, and I hope that they will consider some of my following concerns to help produce a valid version of the test. I am the Assessment Specialist for a large ESL and ABE program in Massachusetts (over 600 students in ESL). The Mass. Department of Education has mandated all DOE-funded programs to use the BEST Oral Test, Long Form, to test all students within the range of SPL 1-4. As a result, we have tested over 300 people during this pre-test cycle. As Assessment Coordinator, I have been closely involved in the testing, and I wanted to share some of our concerns. The BEST is similar to a curriculum-based test that we had been evolving and using at our program for over 10 years. As a result, we were very familiar with interview-formatted performance assessments and how to build and use them. We have found that there are some major problems with the BEST test that should be addressed in any revision. I understand that there is a new version of the BEST test being developed, and I wanted to forward some of the biggest concerns to arise from our experience with the BEST. I understand that it was the Mass. DOE's decision to use this test, not CAL's. However, many states are now using the BEST for this purpose (as stated on the CAL website). I believe that there are many people out there who would benefit from a revision aimed at validly measuring the domain reportedly being measured: oral communication skills. Those of us who have been using this test may be of help in revising it. Test usage has expanded beyond the intended use and domain I have read the history of the BEST test. When the test was developed, its conceptual framework did not incorporate high-stakes testing of oral proficiency based on the scores derived. To begin with, some items do not test the domain that we (Massachusetts ESL programs) are looking for. Specifically, here in Massachusetts (and in other states I imagine), the BEST is being used to measure oral proficiency of English. However, several of the test items do not seem valid for this purpose (counting money, following maps, pointing to clocks...). Neither the NRS Speaking/ Listening Descriptors nor the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks Oral Communication Strand incorporate these kinds of life skill constructs in this category. This is because the BEST Test was designed to assess grammar, but also "Topic areas identified as crucial to "survival level" competency in English..." (BEST Test Manual, p.53). When developing a test, it is important to clearly state the intended use and design it accordingly. The BEST was not originally built for this purpose, and its validity suffers because of this. The potential uses of a test should shape its conceptual framework. "Validation logically begins with an explicit statement of the proposed interpretation of test scores.... The proposed interpretation refers to the constructs or concepts the test is intended to measure" (Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, p.9). Therefore, a test designed to place students in relation to the domain represented by the NRS Speaking/Listening Descriptors should not incorporate money, maps and clocks, since they are not included in the construct measured to report educational gain in NRS Speaking/Listening skills. Test has expanded beyond the normed population I have been told that the original BEST series was normed on 987 test-takers. This group was encompassed speakers of five Asian language groups along with one Latin-based and one Slavic language. No statistics gave percentages for each language (BEST Test Manual, p.54). This does not seem to be an adequate sample size considering the tens of thousands of students now taking the test. Our program alone has just finished giving it to over 300 students, and by June, we will have tested more than 950 who speak 32 different languages. I am not second-guessing the test designers. They designed a good tool for their intended purpose. It would have been impossible for them to adequately sample every possible language group. In addition, the test designers never intended this tool for such wide use of such a narrow domain. However, the BEST has been brought out into the wider world for a larger, more high-stakes use. If its use is to be continued (as indicated by the revision), the developers should know of the information out here in the field that could inform test revision. SUGGESTIONS Redesign the order/difficulty of test items Everyone I have talked to believes that the order of the test could benefit from revision. The cutoff point ("cut score") of four correct answers before #14 leads to too many low-SPL students needing to complete the whole test. Some of the questions that occur before #14 are just too easy or, as I have said, not relevant to the construct of speaking/listening. The fact that someone can say their name and point to two clock pictures does not indicate that they are ready to move on to a 19-word question about the price of apples. Because of this, many students have been forced to complete the whole test and still end up at an SPL 0. That is 15 minutes of feeling like a failure. This is crushing to a student's morale. Some have noted: "...We must continue the test because there are some easier questions later in the test, and test takers may score points on them. It is unfair to quit too early and deprive the student of a chance to score those extra points and show the full extent of their abilities." I agree that students should have the chance to answer all the easy questions, but I DO NOT AGREE that they should be raked over the coals on all the hard questions to get there. Almost every assessment tool I have examined graduates test items based on their difficulty, so students at low levels can find test items that suit their skill level BEFORE they are demoralized by test items that are too difficult. By the time SPL 1 students gets to the relatively easy item #42, many have given up. The items that a low-SPL learner could answer are placed too far into the test. CAL should move the easy questions up and move the clock questions beyond the "cut score" point (currently #14), or better yet, remove them entirely. Technical concerns with specific items Construct-irrelevant variance: "The test scores may be systematically influenced to some extent by components that are not part of the construct.... construct-irrelevant components might include an emotional reaction to the test content" Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing p.13 "An attempt is generally made to avoid words or topics that may offend or otherwise disturb some test takers, if less offensive material is equally useful" Ibid, p.39 Please consider these excerpts when selecting test items and pictures. Many students react badly to the picture of the child struck who has been struck by a car. This "emotional reaction" may be affecting their test scores. Question #1 and the standard error of measurement "My name is..." not a discriminating question. Out of 300 students, only one was not able to answer this question. That is 0.3% of our testing sample. Any question that 99.7% of the students can answer correctly is not providing you with any real data about what students in general can and cannot do. This item does not" discriminate among test takers of different standing on the scale" (ibid, p.39); therefore it should NOT be included in the "cut score" of four correct before #14. Non-computer based BEST needed. I understand the possibilities that computer-based testing (CBT) allow. I am impressed with the research, theory and mathematical data that go into creating a "computer-adaptive test". These tests gradually increase the difficulty of the test items to best challenge the tester (again, by graduating difficulty as I have proposed before). However, computer-based testing poses construct-irrelevant difficulties for an immigrant population. Many of my students have never used a computer before, and this presents serious challenges, difficulty and psychological intimidation. Studies are currently being conducted to determine how much variance this causes. In addition, not all programs have the facilities to test all their students on a computer. I hope that the BEST revisions will appear in a hard copy form as well, thereby allowing all programs to be able to use a valid test, not just those who can afford the hardware. As I have said, I understand how this test was developed. I respect the work done through ORR and DHHS, and I appreciate the role that the Center for Applied Linguistics has played in supporting and distributing the BEST. There are many things going for this test, which is why so many states are choosing it. However, it needs to be adapted to better fill the niche it has found in the last 20 years. I hope the revision team at CAL will consider some of our concerns and suggestions and give us a valid, hard copy version of the BEST that will help us measure our students speaking/listening skills. Kevin O'Connor ESL Teacher and Assessment Specialist Framingham Adult ESL 508-626-4282 koconnor at framingham.k12.ma.us -----Original Message----- From: Sandra Robinson [mailto:srobinson at doe.state.vt.us] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:51 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:216] RE: Level 3 SPL Kevin, I wonder if you could share those suggestions with the list serve. We would certainly welcome the help. Sandra Robinson Kevin O'Connor wrote: > Hell, Carol. I work with a large Massachusetts ESL program and we have quite a few BEST test revision suggestions, based on our program's concerns about validity. Who could I forward them to? > > Kevin O'Connor > ESL Teacher and > Assessment Specialist > Framingham Adult ESL > 508-626-4282 > koconnor at framingham.k12.ma.us > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carol Van Duzer [mailto:carol at cal.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 2:02 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:214] RE: Level 3 SPL > > Hi Cheryl, > > Part of the problem is that the BEST Oral interview assesses oral skills and the REEP writing rubric assesses writing skills. For most learners, speaking and listening skills do not develop at the same pace--perhaps one is used (or needed immediately) more than the other or instruction focusses on the most needed language skill. Placement should reflect what is happening instructionally so learners are placed in levels that best meet their needs (and proficiency). It frequently happens that learners have high speaking skills, but lower writing skills. > > What did you use for exiting learners from your Level 3 before you began using these assessments? I assume that would still be valid. Then what you want to do is increase writing skills so that the learners can advance on the REEP writing rubric to meet the state's NRS requirements.Perhaps a stronger writing component will need to be added to the Level 3 curriculum. > > Carol > Carol H. Van Duzer > National Center for ESL Literacy Education > Center for Applied Linguistics > 202-362-0700 > carol at cal.org > > visit our website at www.cal.org/ncle > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cheryl Pyburn [mailto:cpyburn7 at yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:52 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:209] Level 3 SPL > > Hi everyone. > > I have a question about ESOL levels with regards to > the REEP and BEST tests...I'll explain... > > We're having some trouble at our learning center > trying to decide where our ESOL level 3 class should > end. We have just started using the REEP, and we're > running into the problem of level 3 students who have > an SPL 7 (BEST oral), but their REEP score is quite > low: 2 or 3. When would this student move on? At what > point does a student 'finish'? > > Right now we have 3 ESOL levels. Level 1 is SPL 0-3; > Level 2 is SPL 4-5; Level 3 is SPL 6+; however, with > the REEP assessment, it seems that students could end > up being in level 3 forever. Any thoughts? > Suggestions? What do other learning centers do? > > Thank you. > > ===== > Cheryl Pyburn > Operation Bootstrap > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith.yahoo.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 Wed Oct 23 00:38:18 2002 From: sophocles5 at juno.com (George E. Demetrion) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:38:18 -0700 Subject: [NLA] Scientific logic in the era of Bush II Message-ID: <20021022.213822.9286.3.sophocles5@juno.com> (Long & somewhat technical) Sheryl Gowen writes: I'm curious: How are you defining "scientific?" Also, in order to understand your process, could you tell us how you decided which books to include on the list? Were you systematic? From what group of books did you make the selection? Could anyone on the NLA listserve create a similar list if we knew how you created your list? Hello Sheryl: In the broader sense of the questions you are raising it is redundant for me to respond, as the points Catherine King made in her detailed message make virtually all of the points that I would make. There's not one thing I say below, which is not said in different ways in Catherine's message. Still, in my own language, in my own voice, let memake an effort. The more fundamental issue is not my view, but how the federal government under the Bush Administration is defining "rigorous" science. Any clarification that you or others might be able to bring is welcome. I don't know about you, but I hear alarm bells when I read the following three sentences on research from the USDoE Strategic Plan. You know the quote, I've referenced several; times on this list and not once has anyone responded by way of explanation or justification. For the record, these are the sentences: "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. We will change education to make it an evidence-based field." When the plan asserts that the field of education operates largely on the basis of ideology and contrasts this to evidence-based science, when pushed for explanation beyond the cliches of the three sentences, what might you think defenders would say? More fundamentally for our discussion, would the Administration's perspective on evidence-based scientific research on education be synonymous with yours? Critical issues lie in the balnce of these answers. It is not I who has initiated this polemic. It is the federal government that is polarizing ideology and evidence-based science, naturalizing the latter, as if it's perspective is not reflective of a world view--i.e. ideology. I am but an impoverished stalwart for a position very much under threat in the new era of Bush-Paige. I seek to hold the ground against a torrent of conservative ideology. Similarly, in an article in Education Week on the Web, January 30, 2002, authors Lynn Olson and Debra Vladero discuss how the ("mantra-like") phrase "scientifically based research" is now enacted into law and that the slogan appears more than 100 times in the re authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The goal, the authors state, is "to base school improvement efforts less on intuition and experience and more on research-based evidence." Again, this pitting of human experience and practitioner-based knowledge against the surer foot of evidence-based research is a major concern. Practitioners teach, researchers provide the knowledge base information-starved teachers need. One of the beauties of Cochran-Smith and Lytle's texts on teacher research is that human experience and intuition were the basis for practitioner-based research which still requires what the authors refer to as "systematic, intentional inquiry." Does teacher research count as real research? I suppose that depends on how one defines the science upon which it is constructed. Oh, if Susan L. Lytle were only available for commentary on these airwaves. Dewey argues similarly in linking human research to problems bursting forth in an eruption of consciousness requiring resolution through critical inquiry and reflective, experimental practice. Dewey, who the authors of the recently published monograph, Scientific Research in Education, favorably quote, often spoke both of human problems and proximate resolution through pragmatic inquiry as an existential experience where consciousness is a primary indicator of the ongoing working through from problems identified to what he refers to as warranted assertions in their proximate resolution. For Dewey as well as for Cochran-Smith and Lytle, there is no immaculate conception or methodology, but problems identified and problems proximately resolved. Also, Dewey used the term "propositions" to characterize both theory and data as part of the means-ends continuum in progressively working through a problem. In this pragmatic methodology, theory plays the role of a hypothesis inserted into a problem, as sometimes the best possible means of moving resolution forward, which needs to prove itself in the crucible of experiene. Data plays a similar role in providing pieces of the puzzle in the working through from problems identified to problems resolved. The validity of the data is determined by its efficacy in contributing to the work of resolving the problem at hand. The end result of a Deweyan and Cochran-Smith and Lytle research project is not increased knowledge, which serves as a mid-wife, but the improvement of a situation, an inherently contestable phenomenon. The matter of values as well as that of intuition and human experience inevitably intrudes. Evidence-based research may provide important insight, and that's the point, but I'm not sure what makes it the foundational discipline upon which all other truths must submit. Or, in fact, Sheryl, perhaps this foundational claim is not the argument of science, though it does appear to be the contention of the Bush-Paige position on the role of scientific-based evidence in determining the validity of legitimate, publicly-funded research. It is not so much science that is the issue, but the political-scientific nexus as a manifestation of political ideology that is the problem. For Cochran-Smith and Dewey, the very purpose of research is to help resolve human problems as defined by the humans directly engaged in the problem solving, drawing on whatever means are available to them, including research and theory construction. At least in the Bush-Paige interpretation of evidence-based scientific research on education, this teacher research, pragmatic inquiry approach to problem resolution in the arena of education, is probably what is meant in the USDoE Strategic Plan in characterizing the field as exhibiting fads and ideology. Whether or not a purer scientific approach could, in principle, lend legitimacy to the modes of research and human experience identified by Cochran-Smith & Lyttle, and Dewey, and Mezirow, and Gardner, and Freire, and Bruner, is an important question, that could, in turn, reflect on the relationship between the purer canons of social science research and the politics of education, which sems to legitimize a narrow form form of research methodology over other ways of evaluating human experience. Then there is the statement in the National Research Council's monograph, Scientific Research in Education that I quoted recently that states: "[Q]uestions such as 'Should all students be required to say the pledge of Allegiance?" cannot be submitted to empirical investigation and thus cannot be examined scientifically. Answers to these questions [that is, those of values] lies in realms other than science" (p. 59). Now this study is quite rich, which I've only begun to examine. There's much there that is of value. No argument there, but even so, without getting into its content at this time, there are questions about some of its core assumptions that I would raise, and perhaps will raise in another message. We'll let that pass. The singular point here is that based on that quote, the twain shall not meet when it comes between the realm of values and that of empirically-based evidence-based science. Perhaps so, as I said in an earlier message, but the fundamental issue, which no one responded to, is whether the matter of values can be eradicated from scholarship on education. If the answer is no, then, while objective-based empirical science may be quite useful, including in coming to terms with some of the questions Andrea posed in her message, it is not the be-all and end-all of scholarly work on education. Can the matter of values be eradicated from discussions about such topics as what the curriculum should consist of, or on the amount of emphasis US history courses should place on the Constitution and founding political tradition verses the institution of slavery? While these may be valid educational questions, in their evaluative format, they are not the subject of valid scientific investigation. Very good. Well said, the best rationale there is for putting science in a proper perspective rather than making it the summa cum laude of the entire realm of educational research. There are many areas related to adult education and literacy that do not fall primarily within the realm of evidence-based science. if that were the sole criteria one would, indeed rule out most, if not all of the books that I mentioned, which are based on a diverse range of intellectual traditions and disciplines, not very many in the positivistic-post-positivistic mode. Rule out, too, such concepts as Mezirow's "perspective transformation" unless it could be documented by some experimental or quasi experimental design or through some kind of placebo effect. The type of evidence-based science promoted by the Bush-paige Administration would have little truck with the philosophical tenets of hermeneutics, critical theory, feminist theory, narratology, phenomenology, literary theory, cultural anthropology, unless they could be somehow reframed through some quasi-experimental filter. This is apparently, the kind of struggle NCSALL is currently undergoing according to John Coming's recent message, in re-assessing their research paradigms in terms of current research mandates. Not that science in the pure sense is that banal and there is clear complexity and nuance in the new monograph on scientific research in education. More power to the nuance, the complexity, the methodological pluralism, the systematization where valid, may many flowers bloom. If scientific-based research is going there, there may be something to work with, though even here, the issue of where the intellectual home of adult literacy studies resides, in the interdisciplinary field of cultural studies (that's where Henry Giroux would place it) or in the hard social sciences is no small matter. I wonder about the usefulness of a methodological litmus test in the first place, as I am more interested in the general quality of a study, that is, its content, which doesn't mean evidence isn't important. But I am suspicious of an overemphasis on methodological rigor as applicable to a field that is invariably political, cultural, and value laden. I would rather draw on the various canonical frameworks of the various academic disciplines that may infuse a study and look for what Nicholas Rescher refers to as "best fit consistent with the data" and not be overly obsessed about methodology. Of course, my argument is based on the assumption that research on education should reflect the "human" sciences, another metaphor, to be sure. In terms of my selection of books, I looked around my bookshelves. The list is systematic in that it is alphabetized. What the list has in common is an emphasis on theory, on values, on political, culture. Most, if not all of the books, draw on different intellectual traditions than positivism and post-positivism and therefore are not reflective of the "objective" intellectual tradition. More positively put, they reflect the intellectual traditions of hermeneutics, critical theory, phenomenology, cultural anthropology, social philosophy, and pragmatic epistemology, what might be referred to as the human sciences. Where do these intellectual traditions stand with federal funded educational projects? Do they pass the litmus test, not the standards of the best science (which Catherine King and I embrace), but of the politicized notion of scientific-based research as defined by the current USDoE. Let me toss the question back. Of the texts cited, which ones would you associate with rigorous science and would your definition be the same or be different than ones drawn upon by the USDoE? The related question is, if most of the texts cited are not congruent with either your, or the federal government's definition of science, is their legitimacy invariably suspect in terms of drawing useful inferences in terms of educational theory, educational practice, or educational policy? Would such inferences be inherently any less valid than conclusions drawn from rigorous science? Perhaps the answer is, it depends on what questions you're asking and what questions your methodology and intellectual traditions allow and disallow. In terms of methodology, I would favor an informed eclecticism, focusing more on the overall quality and usefulness of particular studies, though that moves invariably into the realm of values. I remain deeply suspicious of science even broadly speaking, as being viewed as the foundational disciplinary framework to base methodological legitimacy. I would rather view it as an equal opportunity partner with culture in the sense that academic disciplines are historically construed and the disciplines of knowledge allowed by any academic discourse are invariably interpretative. So the question remains, does rigorous science rule out or marginalize those academic studies on education and literacy that I cited? Does the Bush-Paige interpretation of scientific-based research rule them out? George Demetrion Sophocles5 at juno.com ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.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 Nashansen at aol.com Wed Oct 23 00:21:09 2002 From: Nashansen at aol.com (Nashansen at aol.com) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 00:21:09 EDT Subject: [NLA] DC Logic in the Neo-Conservative Era Message-ID: <1c4.74ee72.2ae77db5@aol.com> To Andrea and George, to other NLA subscribers: Look below these two emails for a brief response from Nancy Hansen small town administrator of a small community-based literacy council Sioux Falls, South Dakota sfliteracy at mcleodusa.net In a message dated 10/22/2002 8:59:58 PM Central Daylight Time, Awilderast at aol.com writes: << Hi everyone, I like George's List. I have read or have on my shelves about half, and then some. Most are social science, which still counts as ****science**** so can we please leave that argument where it fell? Or do we have to keep pounding on it? My favorite book these days is "Dyslexia, Fluency, and the Brain." It is full of pre and post testing, interventions, and brain imaging. I think the conclusions will be quite useful for day to day teachers once I translate the findings into everyday language. I listen carefully to what Art and Nancy say, because they represent day to day teachers, and what I do has to make sense to them or it is useless. I wish more teaching teachers would speak up. So.....my question on reading George's List: for who is everyone else writing? Thinking? Arguing? Day to day teachers? Policy makers? Administrators? Andrea >> PLUS the illustrious conclusion FOLLOWING "The List" from George himself: << Question: Is defining legitimacy in education exclusively from the perspective of "scientific rigor" congruent with the best scholarship in the field of adult literacy studies over the past 100 years or is it more of a reflection of a conservative political and intellectual reaction to route out the very basis upon which a century of progressive scholarship is based? To put it more polemically for those who want to install a litmus test of "scientific rigor" as the sole means of determining legitimacy for educational studies, I recommend a public book burning in Washington D.C. of the list aforementioned and a closing down of the nation's graduate schools in education. George Demetrion of the dissenting tradition >> .............................................................................. ................................................................... Andrea stated The List acknowledges a scientific base, so to speak. George listed the books, then recommended a "public book burning". I don't want to "pound on it" either, Andrea. First, it's too late at night and, secondly, we have all afore let it be known we of the NLA listserv are of wide and varying opinions. In my view,"scientific rigor" and studies to confirm who and what works with whom and which peoples will not reveal any more current information than has been studied in the past 100 years or which exist as an unverified technique. Instead we need to come to a point where we realize "the statistical data" that is proclaimed as the important stuff of adult education/literacy is *actually* individual human *beings*. They come with a whole lot of individual needs. "Legitimizing" adult education is a moot point. Teachers and tutors use the methods which work with individuals with limited literacy skills - forget the recipe card, folks! There isn't one in my opinion. I'm with you, George. Let's burn down the nation's graduate schools of education. (Whoops! Guess you said "*shut* down".) As a nation let's rebuild something that vaguely resembles a work-training program so that our nation's instructors are better prepared to go into the educational environment and hold the precious gold of our children in skilled hands, rather than have those children end up in an adult literacy program 20 years down the road. As for Andrea's questions? Here goes: << So.....my question on reading George's List: for who is everyone else writing? Thinking? Arguing? Day to day teachers? Policy makers? Administrators? >> Who am I writing FOR? Thinking OF? The answer: My small group of most-deserving men and women learners who are gallantly toiling to achieve their own educational goals and make up for their own lost years of time. This afternoon I spoke with a newly placed tutor volunteer whose biggest, immediate challenge will be to Assist in Building the Self-Image of her new learner, a wonderfully talented 70-year-old adult male who has lost faith in himself and his capabilities. Who do I write for? I'm not an illustrious author with fine, immense and colorful vocabulary that amazes all who open the pages of my works. Instead I tell the story of real people who hurt and cry, who smile and thrive, who take joy in small accomplishments. They are rich in the lives they do **not** take for granted. They take *pleasure* in small rewards - something as little as learning the meaning of a **single** word, which they have said all their lives to express themselves, but never knew how to look up in the dictionary. No scientific methodology needed HERE! Who am I arguing for? I argue for the adult learner and their special volunteer who have a gift of a spectacular relationship in a one-to-one tutoring circumstance that will turn around a world for the adult with limited literacy skills. They deserve the best of materials and the most positive and supportive programming, all of which costs money. I argue that this individualized educational approach works - that for perhaps the first TIME an adult is seeing the fruits of his/her labor of being taught! I argue that the policy makers need to take us practitioners and administrators more seriously - we KNOW about which we SPEAK! I guess I'll continue to shout until someone listens to me as an individual with just a tiny bit of experience to share. I'm with you, Andrea. I also wish other teachers and volunteers of real people would feel more free -- more liberated -- to speak out for what they believe to be truth. _______________________________________________ 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 Nashansen at aol.com Wed Oct 23 00:37:01 2002 From: Nashansen at aol.com (Nashansen at aol.com) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 00:37:01 EDT Subject: [NLA] Discussion: Assessment and WIA, title II Public policy Message-ID: <7b.7c884a.2ae7816d@aol.com> Alleluia, David! These two paragraphs in your post encouraged me tremendously. First: THANK you for being there to say it so well that assessment tools should be the financial responsibility of the U.S. Dept of Education. If they *want* the documentation?? They should **pay** for it! And, secondly, you are absolutely right on target with the message that there is a need for "valid assessments". You know something, David? Those of us who protest the loudest would be the greatest *supporters* if the decision-makers would just TELL us what it is they are attempting (or want *us* to **attempt**!) to "measure"!! Costing millions? Here's where it will all stop. The Buck. I'm interested to hear just what other NLA subscribers say. Who could ever guess what it would cost in the end to come up with a standardized tool which would be non-threatening to all individual adults (whether speaking a second language, whether developmentally or learning challenged, whether 23 or 73 years of age) and measure all educational and life-skill levels. I have to remind everyone, now, that these folks are so afraid and test-stressed that they will stay away from enrollment in programs **for years** because the first thing that occurs at entry is to be *Tested*. So what will our policy-makers come up with as an answer to all of this for an assessment tool? I will wait with baited breath. Thank you very much for giving testimony on our learners' behalf. Nancy Hansen, ED Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council sfliteracy at mcleodusa.com In a message dated 10/22/2002 8:48:36 PM Central Daylight Time, DJRosen at theworld.com writes: << In my testimony last week on WIA, Title II, at a U.S. Department of Education public meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, I said the U.S. Department of Education should not make decisions based on these data. We do not have valid assessments for the full range of skills that are currently required to be assessed. And I said I thought that it is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Education to pay for developing these needed assessments out of their national programs funding (not the funding which goes to the states for adult education services.) I got an encouraging response. Hans Meeder, representing the U.S. Department of Education at the meeting, asked me how much it would cost. I said "millions," but I wonder if there might be some NLA colleagues who have a more precise answer to this question. If you do, please e-mail Hans Meeder at . He wants to know what standardized assessments we need and how much it will cost to do a good job developing them. >> _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Oct 23 09:26:01 2002 From: Janet_Isserlis at brown.edu (Janet Isserlis) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:26:01 -0400 Subject: [NLA] John Comings' response In-Reply-To: <3DB5F9C4.2040000@theworld.com> References: <3DB5F9C4.2040000@theworld.com> Message-ID: Dear all, This (reprinted with his permission) in response to my questions yesterday: --On Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:39 PM -0400 Janet Isserlis wrote: >John and all > >does the notion of a new institute or academy then render all of the >information below moot? > >Janet Isserlis Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:44:42 -0400 From: John Comings Subject: Re: [NLA] Discussion: How will OERI Reauthorization affect NCSALL? no, the OERI legislation is for the new academy. --On Tuesday, October 22, 2002 3:49 PM -0400 Janet Isserlis wrote: >so, everything you've detailed will apply to that academy? the academy >is the new name for OERI? > >thanks for getting back to me. it's getting complicateder by the day, it >feels.. > Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:26:04 -0400 From: John Comings Subject: Re: [NLA] Discussion: How will OERI Reauthorization affect NCSALL? To: Janet Isserlis Yes. Way back when, the plan was to take OERI out of the Dept. of Ed and make it an academy, like the national academy of sciences. But the democrats objected and so it is still in the US Dept of Ed but it is called an academy and the director has a six year term... so I guess it is somewhat independent. _______________________________________________ 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 AWilder106 at aol.com Wed Oct 23 09:40:19 2002 From: AWilder106 at aol.com (AWilder106 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:40:19 EDT Subject: [NLA] Scientific logic in the era of Bush II Message-ID: <17.307284bc.2ae800c3@aol.com> Colleagues, I want to reply to my own emai. Why would I read a book "Dyslexia, Fluency and the Brain," by Maryann Wolf? 1) I was at the conference, "Learning and the Brain ," last spring. I heard Maryann Wolf speak. I bought the edited book. At this conference I also heard Reid Lyon speak, I have heard him before, the studies he/NICHD supports are pre-post-test/intervention. It is the model used for testing drugs, medicines, the durability of roofing materials and many other phenomena. The knowledge about how children learn has been tapped by adult educators to "inform" the discussion. Now we are moving the studies into the adult arena, that's what the new grants are about. 2) I believe that unless you have some idea of what you are doing in the classroom you shouldn't be there. I call this in my own shorthand "mastering the core technology." I took the phrase from a book on organizational behavior. Reading is a technology. 3) Information often has to be translated into usable knowledge. 4) Is this the whole story? Not to my thinking, there are at least five other parts which need study. a) What actual teachers are doing in actual classrooms. b) What adult students are like. c) What goals you want to achieve. d) What you judge to be the purpose of adult education e) How you plan to make this happen 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 EPSSAG at langate.gsu.edu Wed Oct 23 10:23:13 2002 From: EPSSAG at langate.gsu.edu (Sheryl Gowen) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:23:13 -0400 Subject: [NLA] DC Logic in the Neo-Conservative Era Message-ID: Well, I can answer that in terms of academics (many of whom have books on George's list). Many of us (most of us???) write primarily for one another. It is what we were hired to do, it is what we are expected to do, it is what determines whether or not we keep our jobs. Some of us conduct research that informs policy makers, others train teachers and administrators, but few of us write primarily for practitioners. This is not because we are all intellectual snobs (although some of us certainly are) so much as it is because it is in our job description. How many of the books on George's list were written by academics? How many of the books were published by scholarly presses? How many of the books counted in the author's promotion and tenure review? How many of the books are used as textbooks in college-level classes? Sheryl Gowen, Associate Professor Research, Measurement and Statistics Department of Educational Policy Studies Georgia State University Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 sgowen at gsu.edu 404.651.1152 fax 404.651.1009 >>> Awilderast at aol.com 10/22/02 07:13PM >>> Hi everyone, I like Georege's List. I have read or have on my shelves about half, and then some. Most are social science, which still counts as ****science**** so can we please leave that argument where it fell? Or do we have to keep pounding on it? My favorite book these days is "Dyslexia, Fluency, and the Brain." It is full of pre and post testing, interventions, and brain imaging. I think the conclusions will be quite useful for day to day teachers once I translate the findings into everyday language. I listen carefully to what Art and Nancy say, because they represent day to day teachers, and what I do has to make sense to them or it is useless. I wish more teaching teachers would speak up. So.....my question on reading George's List: for who is everyone else writing? Thinking? Arguing? Day to day teachers? Policy makers? Administrators? 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 _______________________________________________ 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 pam at literacygbr.net Wed Oct 23 13:56:26 2002 From: pam at literacygbr.net (Pam Creighton) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:56:26 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Neo-conservatives Message-ID: <002501c27abd$82303440$738b320a@btnrug1.la.home.com> Nancy Hansen writes, "I also wish other teachers and volunteers of real people would feel more free -- more liberated -- to speak out for what they believe to be truth." Nancy, it is odd that you mention this. I was showing a posting to my husband last night because I can discuss many of these postings and ideas with him. However, he is one of those *conservatives*, and he is a pure *scientist*. It often becomes frustrating for me to read many of the posts to this list serv because I wonder how I could be working in the same field as so many of the writers. Other than those we serve, it seems we have little in common. I have been told many times by funders, supporters, critics, volunteers and staff that I should never lose the passion I have for the learners who come to our program. They are the only reason this organization exists, and I constantly worry about them and for them. They are tremendously important folks. I want for them what they want for themselves, whatever that is. It is also very important to me that my staff stay abreast of what is going on in the field, participate in professional development opportunities as often as they want, continue their formal studies and remember our corporate mission and values. All this to say, I don't always feel free to express my opinions or speak out for what I want for our learners. Yes, I feel passionate; however, I also feel isolated. The bias that is so often shown on this list often makes me feel like the Lone Ranger. Yes, I sometimes feel challenged by the direction that our political leaders are taking some of our professional organizations; however, I embrace that challenge and don't look upon it as a doomsday threat. This is a wonderful country, made up of many types of people: liberal, moderate, conservative, etc. Nothing ever stays the same, nor should it. The program that is embraced by one political party today will be owned by the opposing party tomorrow. Bush will be out and perhaps Daschle, Gore, Edwards or some other liberal will be in. Just because so much emphasis is being placed on the K-3 reading programs today should not be such a cause of terror for those of us serving those children's parents, siblings, grandparents, etc. We should only hope their efforts with our children are highly successful; we should hope that we will be out of jobs in another generation or two. Of course, that won't happen to all of us. But is it so wrong to hope for that? When we feel threatened by something, shouldn't that motivate us to work harder and smarter for that which we believe? Yes, I am a proud and successful "moderately conservative businesswoman." I have to believe that I am not the only one who takes exception to many of the NLA postings and doesn't feel beleagured by accountability, science, political change or change in general. Perhaps others will feel empowered enough to add their two cents worth. Pam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carol at cal.org Wed Oct 23 15:44:15 2002 From: carol at cal.org (Carol Van Duzer) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:44:15 -0400 Subject: [NLA] BEST revision Message-ID: Dear NLA colleagues, Before responding to Kevin's concerns about the BEST revision and Nancy's concern about ED support, we just want to thank the US Department of Education for making the revision possible. OVAE is concerned about the issues of assessment and NRS accountability and has been very supportive of the BEST Plus project since its inception as a pilot project 3 years ago. Carol Carol H. Van Duzer National Center for ESL Literacy Education Center for Applied Linguistics 202-362-0700 carol at cal.org Dear Kevin, It is true that the BEST was developed for a different purpose than for what many programs are using today. That is why the Center for Applied Linguistics is in the process of revising it. The revised version will be appropriate for use in the "high-stakes" environment in which the field finds itself, as well as provide useful information to program staff and the learners. As in the development of the original test, this revision has involved professional language test developers, ESOL practitioners, administrators, and learners from across the United States (including your state of Massachusetts). They serve as members of our Technical Working Advisory Board, item writers, field testers, and participants in the reliability and validity studies. Our language testing experts have ensured that the revisions are in line with the current standards for education and psychological testing of the AERA, APA, and NCME. Thus, we think the field will find that the revisions take into account many of things you mentioned in your posting as well as others that we felt could be improved upon. For example, the revision focuses on assessing oral English proficiency as opposed to curricular competencies. Thus, many of your concerns referring to specific test items in the original BEST are no longer applicable to the revision. Furthermore, the new items and the scoring rubric incorporate developments in language acquisition and proficiency assessment that have emerged over the past 20 years since the original BEST was developed. Again, we believe the revision to the BEST addresses your main concerns. We are working hard to make it available by the spring of next year. We sincerely hope that, once the test becomes available in both a computer-based and paper-based versions next spring, you will take a good look at it in light of these concerns. You can find additional information about the revised BEST on our website www.cal.org/BEST/compBEST.htm I'll be happy to answer any other questions that you (or others) may have about the BEST or BEST Plus. Please write to the email address below. Carol Carol H. Van Duzer National Center for ESL Literacy Education Center for Applied Linguistics 202-362-0700 carol at cal.org visit our website at www.cal.org/ncle -----Original Message----- From: David J. Rosen [mailto:DJRosen at theworld.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 9:22 PM To: nla at lists.literacytent.org Cc: hans.meeder at ed.gov; koconnor at framingham.k12.ma.us Subject: [NLA] Discussion: Assessment and WIA, title II Public policy NLA colleagues who may be interested in assessment issues, The long message cross-posted below from the NIFL-assessment list, written by my Massachusetts colleague, Kevin O'Connor, is not focused on public policy. Yet, because the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) has required accountability from a field that does not yet have adequate accountability tools, it >is< about public policy. Kevin writes about the BEST test, a standardized ESL assessment designed for adults, widely regarded as one of the better standardized assessments. Yet, he points out how inadequate and mis-used it is. This is not a criticism of the test developer -- indeed, the test is being revised now and that is why Kevin has raised the issues -- nor necessarily of the states that have chosen to use the BEST test. In my view, the kinds of issues Kevin raises point to the shortsightedness of Congress and the U.S. Department of Education in requiring the implementation of high-stakes standardized assessment in a long-marginalized field which does not yet have the tools and resources needed to do this job well. In my testimony last week on WIA, Title II, at a U.S. Department of Education public meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, I said the U.S. Department of Education should not make decisions based on these data. We do not have valid assessments for the full range of skills that are currently required to be assessed. And I said I thought that it is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Education to pay for developing these needed assessments out of their national programs funding (not the funding which goes to the states for adult education services.) I got an encouraging response. Hans Meeder, representing the U.S. Department of Education at the meeting, asked me how much it would cost. I said "millions," but I wonder if there might be some NLA colleagues who have a more precise answer to this question. If you do, please e-mail Hans Meeder at . He wants to know what standardized assessments we need and how much it will cost to do a good job developing them. Also, if you want to see my full testimony, let me know and I'll e-mail you a copy. David J. Rosen -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:220] RE: Level 3 SPL Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:31:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "Kevin O'Connor" Reply-To: nifl-assessment at nifl.gov To: Multiple recipients of list Sandra, I based this on what I learned for the Standards of Educational and Psychological Testing. It is the Rosetta Stone for psycholinguistics. Sorry it's so long, but I really wanted to make this more than another gripe piece, but not an impenetrable mass of "assessment-speak". Questioning validity: Realigning the BEST test with the NRS descriptors The BEST Oral Test was developed in the 1980's through the Office of Refugee Resettlement and Department of Health and Human Services to help measure the life skills of Asian immigrants who were coming to the U.S. Since then, it has been adopted as a placement tool by many programs across the country. In recent years, it has been mandated by several states through Department of Education as a measure of educational gains. The BEST is a venerable and respected tool, but I believe that its use has grown beyond the original framework. Today it is being used to test linguistic domains that are different from its designed, and with a population far beyond the designers' expectations. I understand that here is a revision being developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics, and I hope that they will consider some of my following concerns to help produce a valid version of the test. I am the Assessment Specialist for a large ESL and ABE program in Massachusetts (over 600 students in ESL). The Mass. Department of Education has mandated all DOE-funded programs to use the BEST Oral Test, Long Form, to test all students within the range of SPL 1-4. As a result, we have tested over 300 people during this pre-test cycle. As Assessment Coordinator, I have been closely involved in the testing, and I wanted to share some of our concerns. The BEST is similar to a curriculum-based test that we had been evolving and using at our program for over 10 years. As a result, we were very familiar with interview-formatted performance assessments and how to build and use them. We have found that there are some major problems with the BEST test that should be addressed in any revision. I understand that there is a new version of the BEST test being developed, and I wanted to forward some of the biggest concerns to arise from our experience with the BEST. I understand that it was the Mass. DOE's decision to use this test, not CAL's. However, many states are now using the BEST for this purpose (as stated on the CAL website). I believe that there are many people out there who would benefit from a revision aimed at validly measuring the domain reportedly being measured: oral communication skills. Those of us who have been using this test may be of help in revising it. Test usage has expanded beyond the intended use and domain I have read the history of the BEST test. When the test was developed, its conceptual framework did not incorporate high-stakes testing of oral proficiency based on the scores derived. To begin with, some items do not test the domain that we (Massachusetts ESL programs) are looking for. Specifically, here in Massachusetts (and in other states I imagine), the BEST is being used to measure oral proficiency of English. However, several of the test items do not seem valid for this purpose (counting money, following maps, pointing to clocks...). Neither the NRS Speaking/ Listening Descriptors nor the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks Oral Communication Strand incorporate these kinds of life skill constructs in this category. This is because the BEST Test was designed to assess grammar, but also "Topic areas identified as crucial to "survival level" competency in English..." (BEST Test Manual, p.53). When developing a test, it is important to clearly state the intended use and design it accordingly. The BEST was not originally built for this purpose, and its validity suffers because of this. The potential uses of a test should shape its conceptual framework. "Validation logically begins with an explicit statement of the proposed interpretation of test scores.... The proposed interpretation refers to the constructs or concepts the test is intended to measure" (Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, p.9). Therefore, a test designed to place students in relation to the domain represented by the NRS Speaking/Listening Descriptors should not incorporate money, maps and clocks, since they are not included in the construct measured to report educational gain in NRS Speaking/Listening skills. Test has expanded beyond the normed population I have been told that the original BEST series was normed on 987 test-takers. This group was encompassed speakers of five Asian language groups along with one Latin-based and one Slavic language. No statistics gave percentages for each language (BEST Test Manual, p.54). This does not seem to be an adequate sample size considering the tens of thousands of students now taking the test. Our program alone has just finished giving it to over 300 students, and by June, we will have tested more than 950 who speak 32 different languages. I am not second-guessing the test designers. They designed a good tool for their intended purpose. It would have been impossible for them to adequately sample every possible language group. In addition, the test designers never intended this tool for such wide use of such a narrow domain. However, the BEST has been brought out into the wider world for a larger, more high-stakes use. If its use is to be continued (as indicated by the revision), the developers should know of the information out here in the field that could inform test revision. SUGGESTIONS Redesign the order/difficulty of test items Everyone I have talked to believes that the order of the test could benefit from revision. The cutoff point ("cut score") of four correct answers before #14 leads to too many low-SPL students needing to complete the whole test. Some of the questions that occur before #14 are just too easy or, as I have said, not relevant to the construct of speaking/listening. The fact that someone can say their name and point to two clock pictures does not indicate that they are ready to move on to a 19-word question about the price of apples. Because of this, many students have been forced to complete the whole test and still end up at an SPL 0. That is 15 minutes of feeling like a failure. This is crushing to a student's morale. Some have noted: "...We must continue the test because there are some easier questions later in the test, and test takers may score points on them. It is unfair to quit too early and deprive the student of a chance to score those extra points and show the full extent of their abilities." I agree that students should have the chance to answer all the easy questions, but I DO NOT AGREE that they should be raked over the coals on all the hard questions to get there. Almost every assessment tool I have examined graduates test items based on their difficulty, so students at low levels can find test items that suit their skill level BEFORE they are demoralized by test items that are too difficult. By the time SPL 1 students gets to the relatively easy item #42, many have given up. The items that a low-SPL learner could answer are placed too far into the test. CAL should move the easy questions up and move the clock questions beyond the "cut score" point (currently #14), or better yet, remove them entirely. Technical concerns with specific items Construct-irrelevant variance: "The test scores may be systematically influenced to some extent by components that are not part of the construct.... construct-irrelevant components might include an emotional reaction to the test content" Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing p.13 "An attempt is generally made to avoid words or topics that may offend or otherwise disturb some test takers, if less offensive material is equally useful" Ibid, p.39 Please consider these excerpts when selecting test items and pictures. Many students react badly to the picture of the child struck who has been struck by a car. This "emotional reaction" may be affecting their test scores. Question #1 and the standard error of measurement "My name is..." not a discriminating question. Out of 300 students, only one was not able to answer this question. That is 0.3% of our testing sample. Any question that 99.7% of the students can answer correctly is not providing you with any real data about what students in general can and cannot do. This item does not" discriminate among test takers of different standing on the scale" (ibid, p.39); therefore it should NOT be included in the "cut score" of four correct before #14. Non-computer based BEST needed. I understand the possibilities that computer-based testing (CBT) allow. I am impressed with the research, theory and mathematical data that go into creating a "computer-adaptive test". These tests gradually increase the difficulty of the test items to best challenge the tester (again, by graduating difficulty as I have proposed before). However, computer-based testing poses construct-irrelevant difficulties for an immigrant population. Many of my students have never used a computer before, and this presents serious challenges, difficulty and psychological intimidation. Studies are currently being conducted to determine how much variance this causes. In addition, not all programs have the facilities to test all their students on a computer. I hope that the BEST revisions will appear in a hard copy form as well, thereby allowing all programs to be able to use a valid test, not just those who can afford the hardware. As I have said, I understand how this test was developed. I respect the work done through ORR and DHHS, and I appreciate the role that the Center for Applied Linguistics has played in supporting and distributing the BEST. There are many things going for this test, which is why so many states are choosing it. However, it needs to be adapted to better fill the niche it has found in the last 20 years. I hope the revision team at CAL will consider some of our concerns and suggestions and give us a valid, hard copy version of the BEST that will help us measure our students speaking/listening skills. Kevin O'Connor ESL Teacher and Assessment Specialist Framingham Adult ESL 508-626-4282 koconnor at framingham.k12.ma.us -----Original Message----- From: Sandra Robinson [mailto:srobinson at doe.state.vt.us] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:51 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:216] RE: Level 3 SPL Kevin, I wonder if you could share those suggestions with the list serve. We would certainly welcome the help. Sandra Robinson Kevin O'Connor wrote: > Hell, Carol. I work with a large Massachusetts ESL program and we have quite a few BEST test revision suggestions, based on our program's concerns about validity. Who could I forward them to? > > Kevin O'Connor > ESL Teacher and > Assessment Specialist > Framingham Adult ESL > 508-626-4282 > koconnor at framingham.k12.ma.us > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carol Van Duzer [mailto:carol at cal.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 2:02 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:214] RE: Level 3 SPL > > Hi Cheryl, > > Part of the problem is that the BEST Oral interview assesses oral skills and the REEP writing rubric assesses writing skills. For most learners, speaking and listening skills do not develop at the same pace--perhaps one is used (or needed immediately) more than the other or instruction focusses on the most needed language skill. Placement should reflect what is happening instructionally so learners are placed in levels that best meet their needs (and proficiency). It frequently happens that learners have high speaking skills, but lower writing skills. > > What did you use for exiting learners from your Level 3 before you began using these assessments? I assume that would still be valid. Then what you want to do is increase writing skills so that the learners can advance on the REEP writing rubric to meet the state's NRS requirements.Perhaps a stronger writing component will need to be added to the Level 3 curriculum. > > Carol > Carol H. Van Duzer > National Center for ESL Literacy Education > Center for Applied Linguistics > 202-362-0700 > carol at cal.org > > visit our website at www.cal.org/ncle > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cheryl Pyburn [mailto:cpyburn7 at yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:52 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:209] Level 3 SPL > > Hi everyone. > > I have a question about ESOL levels with regards to > the REEP and BEST tests...I'll explain... > > We're having some trouble at our learning center > trying to decide where our ESOL level 3 class should > end. We have just started using the REEP, and we're > running into the problem of level 3 students who have > an SPL 7 (BEST oral), but their REEP score is quite > low: 2 or 3. When would this student move on? At what > point does a student 'finish'? > > Right now we have 3 ESOL levels. Level 1 is SPL 0-3; > Level 2 is SPL 4-5; Level 3 is SPL 6+; however, with > the REEP assessment, it seems that students could end > up being in level 3 forever. Any thoughts? > Suggestions? What do other learning centers do? > > Thank you. > > ===== > Cheryl Pyburn > Operation Bootstrap > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith.yahoo.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 dwyoho at earthlink.net Wed Oct 23 16:15:25 2002 From: dwyoho at earthlink.net (Debbie Yoho) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:15:25 -0400 Subject: [NLA] "Scientific Rigor" Message-ID: <41200210323201525765@earthlink.net> Hats off, once again, to George Demetrion, the Master of the Rhetorical Question. George, your contribution of a reading list of the most important/influential tomes in education has not gone unnoticed--in fact, your printed-out message is fast making the rounds. Deborah W. Yoho Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv President, SC Adult Literacy Educators Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council 2728 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205 803-765-2555 Fax 803-779-8417 dwyoho at earthlink.net _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Oct 23 18:13:23 2002 From: mcsmith at niu.edu (M C Smith) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:13:23 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Research methods and adult literacy education Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.1.20021023161754.00ae6308@corn.cso.niu.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcsmith at niu.edu Wed Oct 23 18:49:12 2002 From: mcsmith at niu.edu (M C Smith) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:49:12 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Teacher research Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.1.20021023171508.00ae6450@corn.cso.niu.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcsmith at niu.edu Wed Oct 23 19:14:03 2002 From: mcsmith at niu.edu (M C Smith) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:14:03 -0500 Subject: [NLA] More on educational research Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.1.20021023175226.00aea490@corn.cso.niu.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wagner.6 at osu.edu Thu Oct 24 14:07:22 2002 From: wagner.6 at osu.edu (Judy Wagner) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:07:22 -0400 Subject: [NLA] New pubs from ERIC/ACVE Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021024135746.00b50698@pop.service.ohio-state.edu> Good afternoon, The ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education has just produced three new Practice Application Briefs. They are available at no cost in paper copy, PDF, or as e-mail messages. Subscribers to the ERICACVE listserv (http://ericacve.org/listserv.asp) have already received copies. Please send your requests to ericacve at osu.edu--do not reply to the listserv--and indicate the format you would prefer. If you are requesting paper copies, be sure to include your mailing address. New Wine in Old Bottles: Transforming Vocational Education into Career and Technical Education (#21) by Bettina L. Brown identifies practices that can help career and technical education (CTE) teachers facilitate change at the classroom level. Journal Writing as an Adult Learning Tool (#22) by Sandra Kerka reviews the research and practice literature and describes issues and methods involved in incorporating journal writing in adult education. Blending Face-to-Face and Distance Learning Methods in Adult and Career-Technical Education (#23) by Michael E. Wonacott reviews the literature on combining traditional classroom instruction with distance learning via ICT and offers suggestions on how the two methods can be effectively blended in adult and CTE programs. The publications will be on our website within a week. Again, send your requests to ericacve at osu.edu. Judy Judy Wagner / wagner.6 at osu.edu / ericacve.org/ ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education 1900 Kenny Road / Columbus OH 43210-1090 USA 614/292-8625; 800/848-4815 (ext 2-8625); FAX: 614/292-1260 TTY/TDD: 614/688-8734 _______________________________________________ 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 earthlink.net Thu Oct 24 16:40:14 2002 From: dwyoho at earthlink.net (Debbie Yoho) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:40:14 -0400 Subject: [NLA] ..."in a neo-conservative era" Message-ID: <41200210424204014328@earthlink.net> from Sheryl Gowen: "How many of the books on George's list were written by academics? How many of the books were published by scholarly presses? How many of the books counted in the author's promotion and tenure review? How many of the books are used as textbooks in college-level classes?" Sheryl has a good point, but just because a book is written by and for academics, doesn't mean it is useless to practitioners. Deborah W. Yoho Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv President, SC Adult Literacy Educators Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council 2728 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205 803-765-2555 Fax 803-779-8417 dwyoho at earthlink.net _______________________________________________ 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 earthlink.net Thu Oct 24 16:55:13 2002 From: dwyoho at earthlink.net (Debbie Yoho) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:55:13 -0400 Subject: [NLA] Neo-conservatives Message-ID: <41200210424205513890@earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eileeneckert at hotmail.com Fri Oct 25 11:46:07 2002 From: eileeneckert at hotmail.com (Eileen Eckert) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:46:07 +0000 Subject: [NLA] Neo-conservatives Message-ID: I second Debbie's comments! And I'd like to add that though it can be frustrating to feel you're swimming against the tide on this list, I've found that it's the disagreements that prompt me to think more deeply and reflect on just what it is I believe, and why. Furthermore, though the source of the feeling of isolation may be different, the experience is one that many adult literacy students are immersed in. For each of us to develop her or his own voice, and the courage to use it to say something unpopular, may be one of the best lessons we can share with students. >From: "Debbie Yoho" >Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org >To: "NLA LIST" >Subject: RE: [NLA] Neo-conservatives >Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:55:13 -0400 > _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Debbie Yoho" Subject: RE: [NLA] Neo-conservatives Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:55:13 -0400 Size: 9391 URL: From tsticht at znet.com Fri Oct 25 18:23:38 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NLA] Leadership for Adult Education and Literacy Message-ID: <1971.207.167.70.146.1035584618.squirrel@la.znet.com> Adult Education and Literacy: Leadership In Abundance Tom Sticht Recently there have been discussions about the need for a new organization to offer the field of adult education and literacy some leadership. If you are lost in the forest and thickets of adult literacy education leadership, consider the following organizations which provide leadership and voice for adult education and literacy and may help you find your way to where you want to be. You can locate any of them on the web using GOOGLE. 1. The National Coalition for Literacy's (NCL) Charter is to serve as the leadership voice for the literacy movement. It has recently been recommended that the NCL formally incorporate as a non-profit to raise money so that it can do a better job of leadership, which includes advocacy for the field. 2. The Commission on Adult Basic Education, Inc. (COABE) provides leadership in advancing the education of adults in the lifelong learning process 3. The mission of the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE) is to provide leadership for the field of adult and continuing education 4. The National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL). Providing Leadership. From its start, NCSALL has been a leader in bringing a research perspective to improving policy and practice, and in highlighting adult literacy?s crucial connections to other fields, such as health, employment, and post-secondary education. 5. The National Adult Education Professional Development Consortium (NAEPDC) will be the leading voice in adult education for the nation. 6. The Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy (CAAL) announced its formation as an independent new national voice for adult literacy in the U.S. 7. ProLiteracy America is poised for leadership. According to Marsha L. Tait, ProLiteracy's Worldwide's senior vice president for programs and services (and former president of LVA, Inc.) there is an enormous need for effective leadership in the adult literacy arena because, until now, no other organization or professional group has effectively represented all the players in the adult education and literacy system. If your interest is in family literacy, the following offer leadership for you: 8. The National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL) is recognized nationally and internationally as the leader in family literacy. 9. The mission of the Goodling Institute is to improve family literacy education [it] provides national leadership to support and maintain high quality, integrated programs for families with educational needs. Do not look for leadership in the federal government, it only supports your efforts: 10. The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) used to be "an independent federal organization leading the national effort toward a fully literate nation in the 21st century" but today it is a "pipeline" for information, and does not provide leadership. 11. The U. S. Department of Education?s Office for Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy (OVAE/DAEL) does not offer leadership for the nation?s adult education and literacy activities but, rather, OVAE/DAEL provides support for these activities; support like the National Reporting System to aid programs in their accountability activities. _______________________________________________ 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 znet.com Sat Oct 26 16:56:46 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [NLA] Working Toward Self-Destruction Message-ID: <1568.207.167.70.183.1035665806.squirrel@la.znet.com> Are We Planting The Seeds Of Our Own Destruction? Tom Sticht Pam said, "Just because so much emphasis is being placed on the K-3 reading programs today should not be such a cause of terror for those of us serving those children's parents, siblings, grandparents, etc. We should only hope their efforts with our children are highly successful; we should hope that we will be out of jobs in another generation or two. Of course, that won't happen to all of us. But is it so wrong to hope for that? When we feel threatened by something, shouldn't that motivate us to work harder and smarter for that which we believe?" In this quote, it was the statement that " we should hope that we will be out of jobs in another generation or two" to which I want to call attention. This seems to me to be based on the belief that the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States is simply a remedial, repetition of the K-3, second-chance education system, and that the AELS is just a necessary though undesirable, temporary inconvenience and drain on society, until the K-3 education system is fixed. Then, once that happens, there will be no need for the AELS, adult literacy educators will no longer be needed, the AELS along with the jobs of the adult literacy educators can be eliminated, and society will reap the benefits of the demise of the cost of the AELS. For the Literacy Summit of February 2000 I prepared a paper entitled The Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) in the United States: Moving >From the Margins to the Mainstream of Education (the latter phrase was the basis for the title of the later Action Agenda report). In this paper, I wrote a section called Rethinking The Basic Nature and Mission of the Adult Education and Literacy System in which I called attention to what I thought were a number of misunderstandings of the AELS. One of these misunderstandings, was the one referred to above, the idea that the AELS is a temporary, remedial, second-chance education system that will go away once the K-12 system is fixed. Clearly, Pam?s comments indicate that the idea that I referred to as a misunderstanding is not confined to those outside the adult literacy education field, and that has led me to wonder how many agree with the position that Pam has taken, that is, once the K-3 or K-12 system is fixed, there will be no need for the AELS. What does this position imply for the possibility of achieving the goal of the Action Agenda that calls for a strengthened adult education, language, and literacy system in the U.S.? What implications does this position have for the idea of the AELS as a permanent, lifelong learning system for adults? Does this position weaken our advocacy for the AELS as a viable third branch of publicly funded education in the U.S.? _______________________________________________ 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 eileeneckert at hotmail.com Sun Oct 27 10:02:26 2002 From: eileeneckert at hotmail.com (Eileen Eckert) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 15:02:26 +0000 Subject: [NLA] Working Toward Self-Destruction Message-ID: Tom, I guess I share Pam's (mis)conception of the mission of the AELS and think that if K-12 successfully served all children, we wouldn't be needed and that there are myriad formal non-remedial lifelong learning opportunities like continuing education, professional development, higher education degree and certificate programs, etc, plus as many informal activities as there are people. I don't feel the need to preserve a certain level of illiteracy to ensure myself a job, and I doubt there are many who do! That said, I'd love to have a different framework for understanding our work, one that doesn't put us all in the position of simply remedying a lack and then going away. I wonder how much that idea of the system contributes to a deficit perspective of the learner. Can you post a statement that distinguishes your conception of the mission of the AELS from the above understanding? Thanks. Eileen >From: Thomas Sticht >Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org >To: >Subject: [NLA] Working Toward Self-Destruction >Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:56:46 -0700 (PDT) > >Are We Planting The Seeds Of Our Own Destruction? >Tom Sticht > >Pam said, "Just because so much emphasis is being placed on the K-3 >reading programs today should not be such a cause of terror for those of >us serving those children's parents, siblings, grandparents, etc. We >should only hope their efforts with our children are highly successful; we >should hope that we will be out of jobs in another generation or two. Of >course, that won't happen to all of us. But is it so wrong to hope for >that? When we feel threatened by something, shouldn't that motivate us to >work harder and smarter for that which we believe?" > >In this quote, it was the statement that "?we should hope that we will be >out of jobs in another generation or two" to which I want to call >attention. This seems to me to be based on the belief that the Adult >Education and Literacy System of the United States is simply a remedial, >repetition of the K-3, second-chance education system, and that the AELS >is just a necessary though undesirable, temporary inconvenience and drain >on society, until the K-3 education system is fixed. Then, once that >happens, there will be no need for the AELS, adult literacy educators will >no longer be needed, the AELS along with the jobs of the adult literacy >educators can be eliminated, and society will reap the benefits of the >demise of the cost of the AELS. > >For the Literacy Summit of February 2000 I prepared a paper entitled The >Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) in the United States: Moving >From the Margins to the Mainstream of Education (the latter phrase was the >basis for the title of the later Action Agenda report). In this paper, I >wrote a section called Rethinking The Basic Nature and Mission of the >Adult Education and Literacy System in which I called attention to what I >thought were a number of misunderstandings of the AELS. One of these >misunderstandings, was the one referred to above, the idea that the AELS >is a temporary, remedial, second-chance education system that will go away >once the K-12 system is fixed. > >Clearly, Pam?s comments indicate that the idea that I referred to as a >misunderstanding is not confined to those outside the adult literacy >education field, and that has led me to wonder how many agree with the >position that Pam has taken, that is, once the K-3 or K-12 system is >fixed, there will be no need for the AELS. > >What does this position imply for the possibility of achieving the goal of >the Action Agenda that calls for a strengthened adult education, language, >and literacy system in the U.S.? > >What implications does this position have for the idea of the AELS as a >permanent, lifelong learning system for adults? > >Does this position weaken our advocacy for the AELS as a viable third >branch of publicly funded education in the U.S.? > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 _________________________________________________________________ Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp _______________________________________________ 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 eileeneckert at hotmail.com Sun Oct 27 12:09:10 2002 From: eileeneckert at hotmail.com (Eileen Eckert) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 17:09:10 +0000 Subject: [NLA] research questions and methods Message-ID: Contributions to the discussion of research have highlighted differences in philosophy and methods, and discussed the matter of which are priveleged and which may be marginalized in the current political climate. Maybe it would be useful to look at research in terms of purposes or questions to be answered as well. As I think about it, the categories of exploratory and confirmatory research serve to make clear for me the value of a range of research methods. I'm going to take a stab at describing two approaches. Exploratory research, aka inquiry-guided or grounded theory research, starts with a question. The researcher does not make predictions about the answer, so the data collection and data analysis methods need to be sensitive to all the possibilities, and the criteria for evaluating the quality of the research are based on the degree to which the researcher makes the case that s/he has considered and weighed the possibilities and substantiated her/his findings. Confirmatory research starts with a hypothesis to be tested. Data collection and analysis methods need to control for confounding influences and isolate the phenomenon being studied. The criteria for evaluating the research are based on the degree to which the researcher has set up an experiment that tests the hypothesis and controlled for factors that might influence the test results. Here's an example: Exploratory research into development of reading proficiency might start with the question, "What activities and strategies facilitate the development of reading skill?" The researcher could choose a sample of low level readers, either purposely choosing a homogeneous sample knowing that the findings may not be transferable beyond the population sampled, or deliberately seeking a heterogeneous group. Data collection methods might include doing talk-aloud protocols, interviews and observations, and measurement of reading skills at some point(s). Data analysis could include a search for common themes and/or single cases of "best practices" among those who demonstrated skill gains. It could include creating groups of high skill and low skill readers at the end of the data collection period and doing a comparison of activities and strategies used by members of the two groups. The quality of the research would be judged by how well the researcher makes the case that s/he has considered and explained the various possibilities and how well s/he substantiates her/his conclusions about what activities and strategies facilitate the development of reading skill. A confirmatory approach to reading research would start with previous research and test a hypothesis, usually the null hypothesis, such as "There will be no significant difference in reading level among those instructed using a 'balanced' approach versus those instructed using an approach stressing phonemic awareness. The sample would have to be chosen to control for factors not being tested, so the researcher would want groups (a control and two different treatment groups, or just two treatment groups) that are similar. Amount of instructional time, time spent reading outside of instructional time, and other possibly confounding factors would be controlled for as much as possible, and the quality of the research would be judged on how well the researcher controlled for "threats to validity" and how well the test measured differences in the groups in terms of the outcome, reading skill, being studied. When there is not much known about something, or when the case could be made that prior research has not addressed important aspects of a phenomenon, then exploratory research is valuable. When there is a research base that has produced a testable hypothesis, then confirmatory research is valuable. Each has its place, and though the criteria for judging them is different, there are criteria for evaluating both. One is not "more rigorous" than the other. Of course, that still leaves the question: Even if both kinds of research are valued and funded, how do the findings get applied? We seem to rely on a trickle down theory: academics do and publish the research, policy makers use the findings to make new rules, administrators intepret the rules to make new procedures, professional developers interpret the research to teachers, teachers use it with students. Lots of opportunities for loss of meaning in the journey! _________________________________________________________________ Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp _______________________________________________ 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 earthlink.net Mon Oct 28 09:55:02 2002 From: dwyoho at earthlink.net (Debbie Yoho) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 9:55:2 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Leadership for Adult Education and Literacy Message-ID: <4120021012814552250@earthlink.net> Tom Sticht's posting listing the various national leadership organizations begs a question, as I'm sure he intended it to do. We do not have a shortage of leaders--what we lack is ONE leader. While I for one am not unhappy, by any means, at the multiplicity of leadership and resources, unfortunately we must deal with the reality that business, government, and the proverbial "man on the street" cannot or will not expend the effort to "listen" to all these "voices". It is incumbent on all of us to set aside our legendary penchant for infighting and unite. We all know this. The question is: "Unite behind whom?" I used to look to NIFL, until my naivete evaporated when I learned that, as a government institution, NIFL is as vulnerable to political wrangling as any other government entity. As a volunteer organization, of course I look to Proliteracy, but the rest of the field does not. COABE's emphasis on professionalism, which I support, appears exclusive and far-removed from volunteer literacy. And the research centers, are, well, research centers. The National Coalition has its hands full just dealing with legislation, and is not structured to provide support to the field. Of course, the fact is education in this country remains a LOCAL responsibility, with state oversight in some respects. The national role is largely the safeguarding of equal opportunity through categorical funding, and certainly not to provide leadership, as Tom Sticht pointed out. And so we are left to choose from among many leaders in the search for mentorship, support, best practices, a "voice". I could ask "what's so bad about that?", but we all know that one of the primary reasons why we work in a "marginalized" field is because we lack a champion to fight for us, for all of us. Suppose for a moment that we all agreed on a fundamental "manifesto" about the importance of adult development and how to foster it. Then what? Deborah W. Yoho Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv President, SC Adult Literacy Educators Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council 2728 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205 803-765-2555 Fax 803-779-8417 dwyoho at earthlink.net _______________________________________________ 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 earthlink.net Mon Oct 28 10:28:38 2002 From: dwyoho at earthlink.net (Debbie Yoho) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:28:38 -0500 Subject: [NLA] "The Seeds of Destruction" Message-ID: <41200210128152838125@earthlink.net> >From Tom Sticht: "One of these misunderstandings, was ... the idea that the AELS is a temporary, remedial, second-chance education system that will go away once the K-12 system is fixed. Clearly, Pam?s comments indicate that the idea that I referred to as a misunderstanding is not confined to those outside the adult literacy education field, and that has led me to wonder how many agree with the position that Pam has taken, that is, once the K-3 or K-12 system is fixed, there will be no need for the AELS." Giving Pam the benefit of the doubt, she might be forgiven for perhaps unconsciously absorbing a view that is indeed prevalent, both in and out of the field. Too often I have listened to well-meaning practictioners justify funding for AELS as an opportunity to "invest" in the future productivity of adult workers, assuming that these adults are unproductive now. Indeed, this is the premise behind the entire WIA. I recognize this as the business model that many on this list oppose, but others have swallowed the premise, (and with it the associated stereotypes) hook, line and sinker. Thank you, Tom, for identifying one more opportunity to reposition our own thinking away from the influence of this cynical notion. I challenge all advocates to think hard about the "seeds of destruction" you may be sowing, even unconsciously, when making the argument that adult ed "pays for itself" (even though it does), and America should help these poor downtrodden helpless people who are a drain on the system. Here is a place when our good friends in community ed can be our natural allies, who are more likely to make the case that lifelong learning has intrinsic value. Although, by the way, I have also heard community educators argue for community education as a "funding mechanism" for the AELS. More destructive seed planting.... Deborah W. Yoho Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv President, SC Adult Literacy Educators Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council 2728 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205 803-765-2555 Fax 803-779-8417 dwyoho at earthlink.net _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Oct 29 08:54:39 2002 From: Awilderast at aol.com (Awilderast at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:54:39 EST Subject: [NLA] Working Toward Self-Destruction Message-ID: Dear Tom, What do you see as the function of AELS if the k-12 system gave all students an adequate education? 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 cb.king at verizon.net Tue Oct 29 14:04:42 2002 From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine B. King) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:04:42 -0800 Subject: [NLA] Research in adult literacy education References: <1576.207.167.70.108.1035129590.squirrel@la.znet.com> Message-ID: <006701c27f7e$305244e0$f507f843@VZres087lb> Hello Eileen, Debbie,Tom and Colleagues: [this is long, but addresses (1) remediation, (2) "getting jobs" and (3) giving solid and long-term ground to both adult education programs and the form of specific research. Much of the first part is quotations from other notes.] First, Tom' posted on October 5 (Research in adult literacy education) with his re-post of the note entitled "Perennial Issues for the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELs) of the United States." In the repost, Tom says: "Since the signing of the Adult Education Act of 1966, which formed the AELS, there have been a half dozen issues, besides the search for more funding, that have consistently been raised as in need of research and action. These include: 1. Determining the Scale of Need: How many adults in the nation (or state/local region) are in need of the services of the AELS or other literacy providers? Or, as is sometimes stated in a military metaphor, what is the size of the 'target population' for adult literacy education providers?" Tom goes on to talk about how many people are out of school with no high school diploma. I'd like to ask: Is being out of high school with no diploma a the basic criteria that decides "need"? If so, then Tom's and others' lament--about defining adult education as only a remedial notion--is cemented in the assumption about what "need" means. That is: If only K-8 and high schools would do their jobs (and they aren't, i.e., the proliferation of HS dropouts), then adult education programs would not be necessary. Second, Eileen says: ". . . there are myriad formal non-remedial lifelong learning opportunities like continuing education, professional development, higher education degree and certificate programs, etc, plus as many informal activities as there are people. I don't feel the need to preserve a certain level of illiteracy to ensure myself a job, and I doubt there are many who do!" This is true, however, these all cost quite a bit--so you have to have money most of the time in order to participate. Thus, the loss of governmental support for basic adult education further calcifies the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots." Third, Debbie says, speaking of self-destructive notions underlying adult education programs: "Too often I have listened to well-meaning practitioners justify funding for AELS as an opportunity to 'invest' in the future productivity of adult workers, assuming that these adults are unproductive now. Indeed, this is the premise behind the entire WIA." This is true also, and is related to: Fourth, in his Oct. 14 note Tom quotes Assistant Secretary D'Amico from the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, about the new research funding: "'This type of in-depth study is crucial to understanding the best ways to teach low-literate adults,' said Assistant Secretary D'Amico, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. 'Armed with scientifically-based reading instruction methods we can equip adults with the reading and writing skills needed . . . for better jobs and opportunities.'" Considering the above, First, we all know that SOME of our programs legitimately deal with remediation, and that SOME of our adults are in dire need of remediation based on the real failure of K-12 where that failure is a complex of family, culture, individual psychology, history and K-12 education. However, though the above is true, we all seem to be searching for foundations for adult education that will reach far beyond the remediation as a criteria for legitimation. Those foundations will feed directly into our notions of "need" and further will provide the ground for the questions we ask in any and all research we undertake. And our fears are right: That is, If our research is founded on the notion that--"If we could just get these people literate, and fix K-12 so that everyone has a HS diploma, then the whole "welfare" program will go away,"--then we are, indeed, involved in a self-destructive project--not only of the adult education programs in the U.S., but, as I have argued here before, of the democratic process itself. Second, D'Amico's preparing adults for "better jobs" is also a legitimate goal of adult education. (I don't know what he means by "opportunities.") However, there has been over the years a slow migration of thought towards equating adult education in the United States with preparing adults for "better jobs" as the ONLY legitimation of adult education programs. This drift is particularly dangerous --particularly in our heads of government--as it splits the ground of adult education along lines of "only for those who work" and drops a general educative movement of (1) adult's self- defined needs and (2) a democratic and dialogal culture, and an educating electorate ,in a culture self-identified with freedoms and "justice for all," off the radar screen of governmental support. The split is defined thus: Instead of a "capitalist democracy," we are now merely a "capitalism." Drop the "democracy" part and forget the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. Education is only for those who can afford it or who want to work. In short, like "remediation," the drift towards "getting jobs" ALONE is not enough to define "need," as it changes the meaning of education itself. It is no longer directly connected to the ongoing development of a vibrant democratic culture. This split at our departments of education couples with the palliative notion that Debbie speaks of, namely, the "myriad formal non-remedial lifelong learning opportunities like continuing education,. . . " But with few exceptions and with a drying up of funds to support them, these lifelong learning opportunities all need to be paid for. And for many--those in our culture whom we serve--these forms of education have become the last thing that they can afford, either in time or in money. With this foundation, many of our clients become non-persons in a "capitalist" culture rather than in a democracy that is also capitalist. "Remedial," "getting jobs," and even creating "opportunities," whatever that means, are all legitimate criteria for defining "need." And, as Debbie says, there are other avenues for adult education, though their development rests on our having the money to pay for them. As foundational for the entire field, then: (1) "remedial" alone is short-sighted, marginalizing, self-destructive, and is the language of failure for our adults from the get-go; (2) "getting jobs" alone changes the meaning of education and ties it and our teachers to corporate training--severely limiting our function to the whims of the "marketplace." Here, teachers are not tied to a democracy developing a vibrant culture of educating dialogue, but rather to a non-or undemocratic capitalist corporation; and our adults' own choices, or their intellectual, ethical and political development, become ordered by a corporation--rather than supported by a democratic government whose leaders understand their continuing education as an essential "brick" in not only the economy, but also the democratic process that supports it. Under these limiting premises, and as long as we receive state and federal funds, the democratic government is in fact a working part of the corporate culture rather than the corporation being a working part of a democratic culture. Welfare-to-work may be good on many grounds, but it makes education a kind of "welfare" program (defined as a miserly "hand-out"). It is not an adequate foundation for adult education in a democracy, any more than "remedial" is. A full identity of education with "getting jobs" also de facto limits our clients as sheer numbers. That is, you have to want or need a job to apply--no more learning to read with my grandchild--your "education" is limited to what training the job requires, and once you get a job, it is presumed you need no more development, or can afford it on your own-- if you have time. These kinds of funding channels suggest that a democratic government "of-for-by the people" doesn't need or support you as a citizen of a culture, but rather as a competitive individual responsible only to myself, in a land of other competitive individuals who are only responsible for themselves (like many of our corporate heads), and where "haves" are valued over "have-nots." And if you don't have, you don't exist. We should, rather, define adult education's foundations as a part of "provid(ing) for the general welfare," "in order to form a more perfect Union" and "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." What does this mean-- in such a complex and developing culture as ours--if not to identify adult education for everyone, regardless of income or other "need," as the fundamental source of order for this to happen? Where else is it going to come from? In any democracy, there is already a foundational identity with community-state-federally funded adult education. In our case, and in our U.S. Constitution, the philosophical mandate for affirmative policy is provided for in the "general welfare" of-for-by "the people" as the fourth branch of government, and an ongoing securing of the "blessings of liberty" for everyone regardless of income. This foundational identity is, in fact, that on which legitimate "remedial," "getting jobs" and even "opportunities" stands. Cementing this foundational understanding in the minds of our policy makers, our government leaders, and our own teachers and program directors, if we choose to do so, will serve to identify adult education programs as a long-term "need" that will and should-- (1) help develop ourselves and our adults to live in "liberty" outside the corporate framework and beyond our "remedial" needs; (2) continue to change and develop along with the changing "needs" of a vibrant culture (e.g., technology and new work and living opportunities) without looking for a new foundation by which to legitimate ourselves with every change; and (3) give foundational ground (and to form some of our questions) to whatever research we decide to take on, e.g., how to develop reading skills. Sorry this is so long. Catherine King Adjunct Instructor Department of Education National University San Diego, CA . _______________________________________________ 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 znet.com Tue Oct 29 14:15:26 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:15:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [NLA] Working Toward Self Destruction Message-ID: <1092.207.167.70.156.1035918926.squirrel@la.znet.com> Eileen asked for more information about reformulating the mission of the AELS. In my post I mentioned that for the Literacy Summit of February 2000 I prepared a paper entitled The Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) in the United States: Moving From the Margins to the Mainstream of Education in which I wrote a section called Rethinking The Basic Nature and Mission of the Adult Education and Literacy System in which I called attention to what I thought were a number of misunderstandings of the AELS. One of these misunderstandings was the idea that the AELS is a temporary, remedial, second-chance education system that will go away once the K-12 system is fixed. I failed to point out in my earlier post that the paper I referred to is available online at www.nald.ca under the Full Text Documents pages searched by Authors using S for Sticht. This paper represents my attempt to begin a reformulation of the understanding of the AELS, defined as that system of programs funded in part by the State Grants of the AEFLA Title 2 of WIA. The paper also addresses other problems for the adult literacy education field, such as cultural beliefs about intelligence and aptitude, early childhood education and others, which act to keep it marginalized, much as dos the belief that it will go away once K-12 is fixed. I hope this is useful in getting a dialogue started on reformulating the mission of the AELS and the adult literacy education field in general. 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 tsticht at znet.com Wed Oct 30 13:33:38 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:33:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [NLA] End of celebration of AELS Message-ID: <1405.207.167.70.220.1036002818.squirrel@la.znet.com> Concluding a Celebration of 35 Years of the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States Tom Sticht, International Consultant in Adult Education Early in fiscal year 1967, the Congress of the United States passed the Adult Education Act and President Lyndon Johnson signed it. This act created the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States as a publicly supported education system alongside the public K-12 school system for children and the public higher education system for young adults. In FY 2002, this system was in operation for 35 years. To celebrate 35 years of the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States, organizations in six states invited me to make presentations on adult education and literacy development that included one of the following two topics: A Lifetime in Adult Basic Skills: Some Lessons Learned The POWER of Adult Education: Moving From the Margins to the Mainstream of Education All presentations included implications for advocacy, policy, and practice. Some sponsors used the presentations to attract media attention for advocacy purposes. The Circle of Celebrations The Celebration of 35 years of the AELS started on the Atlantic seaboard when Elyse Rudolph of the Literacy Assistance Center of New York City organized a meeting at its offices near Ground Zero in April. Later, working from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts, Deborah Simmons organized a celebration for the Minnesota state adult educators at Breezy Point, Minnesota; David Godsted arranged a celebration by the New Mexico Coalition for Literacy in Las Cruces, New Mexico; I arranged a celebration in San Francisco, California for the International Reading Association; Mathew Scelza and Jose Cruz arranged for celebratory presentations for the meeting of California Literacy, Inc in Sacramento, California; and Delight Willing arranged a celebration in Seattle, Washington by Seattle University. Finally, in October, Charlie Houghton brought the celebration tour full circle, and I made a final presentation on the East coast in Marlborough, Massachusetts for the Massachusetts Coalition for Adult Education. Altogether, over 2,000 adult educators, volunteer tutors, students, business leaders, government officials, and members of the press celebrated the 35 years of progress and accomplishments of the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the sponsors of the celebration speaking tour, the 2,000+ participants, the NLA list members, and the hundreds of thousands of others who have worked over the last 35 years to make this unique federal/state/local educational system for America?s adult learners the third branch of publicly funded education in the United States. During the last decade of the 20th century the AELS had over 38 million adult enrollments. This offers dramatic testimony to the valuable place that non-credit, lifelong, adult education plays in contemporary times. It is my sincere hope that in the first decade of the 21st century, the services of adult educators in the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States will reach tens of millions more of America?s neediest adult learners. CONGRATULATIONS ON 35 YEARS OF 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 dwyoho at earthlink.net Wed Oct 30 14:22:02 2002 From: dwyoho at earthlink.net (Deborah W. Yoho) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:22:02 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Toward a "Foundational Understanding" Message-ID: <410-220021033019222331@earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljhoover at hotmail.com Wed Oct 30 14:48:45 2002 From: ljhoover at hotmail.com (Linda Hoover) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 13:48:45 -0600 Subject: [NLA] CAAL Report: NCL Options for the Future Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cb.king at verizon.net Thu Oct 31 13:13:56 2002 From: cb.king at verizon.net (Catherine B. King) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:13:56 -0800 Subject: [NLA] Toward a "Foundational Understanding" References: <410-220021033019222331@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <004001c28109$64f10100$9507f843@VZres087lb> Hello Debbie and Colleagues: Since Lyndon Johnson was such an advocate for civil rights in this country, it should be no surprise to any of us that he also signed the Adult Education Act, as Tom's note reminds us. My guess is that President Johnson knew the importance of a government supported educational system in a democracy for those who cannot afford it. Voting and civil rights is one thing, but the ignorance or wisdom behind either is quite another. AE is not only good for the individual, but for the entire polity in a democracy, for everyone to be able to improve themselves, especially at the core where literacy lives. When viewed in relation to our civil rights legislation at the time and the "need" that it addressed, the relationship between adult education and democracy comes even more clear. Just as the need for civil rights remains, so does the need for AE remain. And if it ALL has to be paid for by the client, then we should qualify the preamble to the U.S. Constitution with "for those who can afford it or who want to get a job in, e.g., a factory." Though it doesn't say, "Only for those who can afford it or who want jobs," we have been proceeding on the track that would assume so of the entire project of democracy. Namely, without government supported adult education, and under the current foundational structure, if a poor person wants to improve themselves, there is no institution in the world to help them do so. I think I was just coming in on this discussion when the Adult Education Act was being dissolved and when WIA was coming forward, and if I remember correctly, I could not believe then that adult education was being placed under any notion of "workforce training." It just rips away the entire foundational meaning of adult education in a democracy on which "workforce" stands, if you see the irony of trying to place something so big on a little, teeny foundation of something so small. If we don't know who we are, it's at least in part because our foundations are broken or even missing. When that happened, grassroots was all there was left, and a continuous scrambling and begging for funds ensued. If I have it right, Tom Sticht has been trying give adult education a systematic order since then; but from reading his AELS page--briefly at this point--I don't see the foundations there either, and I think "systematics" without the foundation reeks of more privatized capitalism in league with business (another half-truth) with various insider-outsider entrance exams too, at its roots. But I guess that's yet to be seen. I do think WIA is a grossly misappropriated idea to hold what adult education is really about in this country. Considering history, there is also a great irony in the Kennedy support of AE. But I thought then, and I think now that the move from the Adult Education Act to WIA reveals a great loss of vision on the part of our policy makers--a vision that we know Lyndon Johnson had, i.e., his powerful stand on civil rights. Whether that vision is lost (1) out of ignorance or (2) is intentionally put aside in the effort to disconnect education from the underpinnings of a developing democracy (where "democracy" means inclusion of everyone in the polity) in favor of a "econ-ocracy" (where those who have power and capital continue to keep it, and those who do not, remain without resource, save to work for the company) is a matter for further exploration. I have my suspicions, i.e., who benefits when all government funding allocated supports the half-truth of "workforce training," where what is needed in the workforce systematically trumps learners' needs or what educators know is needed for a full education for their adult learners? and where the CIO directs the teacher? (trainer?) . . . and where a general education can only be qualified in terms of the other half-truth of "getting off welfare"? Again, who benefits from aligning with only a small part of what is good about adult education, namely, workforce training, and dispensing with all the rest that would support a "vibrant democracy" where the polity is in a constant state of self-development and where they MAY come to ask questions about the way things are? Frankly, I doubt if corporation heads and policy makers are dumb or distracted enough to fail in recognizing the colossal import of the change from Johnson's AE to the CIO's WIA. (Chief Investment Officer). I don't, and I don't think teachers should. Where else should these questions be raised but from the "fourth branch"--the people--who are educated enough to know who they are, and from educators in a democracy? Regards, Catherine King Adjunct Instructor Department of Education National University San Diego, CA ----- Original Message ----- From: Deborah W. Yoho To: NLA list Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:22 AM Subject: [NLA] Toward a "Foundational Understanding" from Catherine King: "....identify adult education programs as a long-term "need" that will and should-- (1) help develop ourselves and our adults to live in "liberty" outside the corporate framework and beyond our "remedial" needs; (2) continue to change and develop along with the changing "needs" of a vibrant culture (e.g., technology and new work and living opportunities) without looking for a new foundation by which to legitimate ourselves with every change; and (3) give foundational ground (and to form some of our questions) to whatever research we decide to take on, e.g., how to develop reading skills. " Thank you, Catherine, for enunciating thoughts many feel "in their gut" but have trouble putting to words. I agree 100%. Incidentally, your posting ascribed to me several ideas actually from Eileen's post, but I don't mind if she doesn't. Lately most of my reading has been on the foundations of this country, namely, the revolutionary and Confederation periods. I've just finished CW Brands' biography of Franklin. Like Catherine, I see the purpose of the AELS as inextricably tied to our most cherished democratic ideals, and I could make the case that the so-called founding fathers also saw education and legitimate government as subsets of one another, and both preeminent over commerce. The cynicism of our age has made it not only unfashionable but even counterproductrive, in some quarters, to openly proclaim the simple truth that we do what we do because it is the right thing to do and it benefits everyone. In this day we must "prove it", "demonstrate the bottom line", show we are using the "best practices" based on "rigorous scientific research". If Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams and yes even Hamilton had thought that way, there would be no such thing as the United States of America. Deborah W. Yoho Moderator, NIFL-Health Discussion Group Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council 2728 Devine St. Columbia, SC 29205 803-765-2555 dwyoho at earthlink.net _______________________________________________ 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: From tsticht at znet.com Thu Oct 31 13:13:58 2002 From: tsticht at znet.com (Thomas Sticht) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:13:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [NLA] Working Toward Self-Destruction (long) Message-ID: <1302.207.167.70.145.1036088038.squirrel@la.znet.com> Both Eileen and Andrea posted messages for my response. Eileen said: I'd love to have a different framework for understanding our work, one that doesn't put us all in the position of simply remedying a lack and then going away. I wonder how much that idea of the system contributes to a deficit perspective of the learner. Can you post a statement that distinguishes your conception of the mission of the AELS from the above understanding? Andrea said: What do you see as the function of AELS if the k-12 system gave all students an adequate education? My response: Below is an adapted extract from my paper on moving the AELS from the margins to the mainstream of education in the U.S. It is a beginning of a refomulation of the idea of the AELS away from a remedial, second-chance system to one of a lifelong education system that differs from higher education, yet serves an important educational function for adults who desire additional education, perhaps in improving their literacy and other communication, reasoning and other cognitive skills and/or who desire help in learning some fairly complex information. It addresses, at least obliquely , Andrea?s idea of an "adequate" education by pointing out that what is "adequate" at one time may, and has in the past, become inadequate at a later time. This may be a reason for some adults to seek help in learning in the AELS. I should also note that in a very first step in reformulating the AELS, I had to first come up with a new name for the 3-4,000 programs that are funded wholly or in part through the state grants of the WIA, Title 2: AEFLA and operate by the rules of that law. To move people away from thinking about these state grants as simply a federal/state/local "program", to thinking about a new "system" of education, I changed the name of the State Grants program to the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States. Prior to my renaming of the State Grants program, no one referred to the AELS. By giving the State Grants a new name, a new identity emerges, that is, the AELS as the third branch of publicly funded education in the United States. This provides an alternative to advocating for adult "literacy" in some abstract manner, and typically with some demeaning, marginalizing references to "illiterates", and makes it feasible to advocate for the Adult Education and Literacy System in a positive light, much as we advocate for the K-12 system and Higher Education and their positive contributions to a person?s life. All this transformation from a federal program to a national system of adult education is a work in progress and I hope others will find ways to contribute to the transformation. Tom Sticht Following is my minimally edited extract from a paper entitled The Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) in the United States: Moving From the Margins to the Mainstream of Education: section on Rethinking The Basic Nature and Mission of the Adult Education and Literacy System (the paper is available at www.nald.ca under full text documents). Extract: Misunderstandings about the adult education and literacy system have contributed to its being considered by many as a temporary, remedial, second chance system for undereducated, marginalized adults that will not be needed once the schools are reformed and all children master the basic skills before graduating. One misunderstanding is that adult "basic education" consists merely of recapitulating what children learn in the elementary and middle grades of the K-12 system. Because millions of adults need to improve their reading, writing, and other communication skills, many tend to think of them as receiving "basic education" like children do in the elementary grades. That is why they think of the adult education and literacy system as a "remedial" or "second chance" program. But nothing is farther from the truth. Of course, most adult "basic education" consists of learning that includes the improvement of communication and mathematics skills. But the adult programs tend to develop these skills in the context of the acquisition of knowledge that is not ordinarily taught to children in the public schools of the K-12 system, or for that matter in most colleges. This includes much practical "life skills" knowledge about health care, parenting, transportation, legal services, consumerism, and so forth. Because this knowledge is not generally taught in the K-12 system, the adult education and literacy system offers the "first chance" not the "second chance" for millions of adults to learn this important knowledge. A second misunderstanding in thinking about the adult education and literacy system as a "remedial," "second chance" education system is the idea that the system serves only adults who have had a first chance at an education in the K-12 system. But this is incorrect. Today, large numbers of those adults who seek education in the adult education and literacy system are immigrants who have never studied in the United States. They are seeking to learn English as another language. Many may be highly educated in their native language, while many others may not be well educated or educated at all in their native language. These millions of immigrant adults are getting their "first chance" at an education in the United States. A third misunderstanding leading to thinking that the adult education and literacy system is a "remedial," "second chance" system that will go away once the K-12 system is reformed is based on the incorrect idea that educational standards are static and once people are educated to the contemporary standards they will not need the adult education and literacy system. But this is inconsistent with the obvious fact that new knowledge is constantly being created so rapidly that no one?s education during childhood is adequate for them to meet the new demands for learning that the ever changing world creates. And as standards have increased over time, more and more adults whose knowledge and skills were once adequate, find themselves losing ground and millions of them seek out the adult education and literacy system to bring their knowledge and skills up to the new standards. This ratcheting up of educational standards is a process that is likely to continue during the "information and internet age" of the new century. Finally, misunderstanding of the nature of adult "illiteracy" as something that must be "stamped out" instead of recognizing that "literacy" is something to be "stamped in" as a continuous process of acquiring new knowledge and skills has lead to false expectations that the "problem of illiteracy can be solved." Many past and present "campaigns" in both developed and developing nations have sought to "eliminate adult illiteracy once and for all." Other attempts to "fix the problem at the source" have focussed billions of dollars on early childhood and primary school programs. However, as indicated by the OECD, the surprising fact is that, while industrialized nations have gotten almost all native born adults to some degree of literacy over the last half century, what has happened is that there has been a growing demand by millions of these literate adults for more education to develop higher and higher levels of literacy. So instead of regarding the adult education and literacy system as a system that will shrink and finally disappear once all adults are "fully literate," we need to understand that the rapidly increasing growth in knowledge has had and will for the foreseeable future continue to have the effect of constantly increasing the numbers of adults who can and wish to benefit from the non-formal, learner friendly, non-credit education system that we have evolved for adult education and literacy development in 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 DJRosen at theworld.com Thu Oct 31 20:01:37 2002 From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:01:37 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Message with virus attachment Message-ID: <3DC1D271.1030905@theworld.com> NLA Colleagues, Apparently a message sent out from the NLA list with the header below had a virus attached. This was a legitimate message -- but somehow it got an attachment with a virus. I recommend that you do not open the attachment. I'll try to learn how this might have happened and if it can be prevented in the future David J. Rosen NLA List Moderator -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Returned due to virus; was: [NLA] And the National Alliance of Urban Literacy Coalitions (NAULC) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:14:19 -0500 From: "Michael Hirschhorn" Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org To: _______________________________________________ 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 alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu Thu Oct 31 20:48:29 2002 From: alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu (Daphne Greenberg) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:48:29 -0500 Subject: [NLA] OERI Reauthorization Update Message-ID: This was passed around in my department and I thought that some of you may be interested in reading it: OERI Reauthorization Update, ED Report Special Supplement Reauthorization of the Office of Education Research and Improvement ? HR 3801 The passage of H.R. 3801, a bill reauthorizing the Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI), was one of the last acts of the 107th Congress prior to recessing for the mid-term elections in November. The President has not yet signed H.R. 3801 into law. The following is a summary of the key provisions in this significant revision of the federal government?s role in education research, a revision intended to increase the scientific credibility of education research and to model the enterprise after the prestigious National Institutes of Health. Title I Known as the ?Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002,? this Title creates the Institute of Education Sciences. A Director, appointed to 6-year term, will head the Institute. As in the past, the Director will be advised by a Board, whose members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The Board, working in concert with the Director, will establish the annual priorities that will drive the work of the Institute. The scope of research for the Institute is broadened to encompass early childhood through adult education, with specific mention of postsecondary education included for the first time. The goal of the Institute is to expand knowledge and understanding of education by supporting high quality research. Other functions of the Institute include the collection and analysis of relevant data and statistics, developing educational products based on research findings, and the dissemination of this information. The work of the Institute is further divided into 3 National Centers: the National Center for Education Research; the National Center for Education Statistics; and the National Center for Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Each Center will be headed by a Commissioner. The Director will appoint the Commissioners to head the National Center for Education Research and the National Center for Evaluation and Regional Assistance. The head of the National Center for Education Statistics is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. National Center for Education Research The Research Commissioner is charged with establishing peer review standards and standards for conduct and evaluation of all research funded through the Institute. This charge also includes making sure the research supported by the agency is relevant to educators. At least 8 Research and Development Centers must be funded and the agenda for these entities must include the following topics: adult literacy; assessment, evaluation and accountability; early childhood education; English language learning; improving low-performing schools; innovations in education; state and local policy; rural education; teacher quality; and reading and literacy. Though at least 8 R & D Centers must be funded, minimum grant sizes were not included in the legislation. The terms of these awards are for up to 5 years. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) The Statistics Commissioner is charged with the collection, analysis, reporting and dissemination of education data of interest and relevance to schools and teachers throughout the nation. Furthermore, the Commissioner is directed to assist the states in the development of longitudinal data systems and more accurate collection of critical data such as graduation rates. Competitive grants to States are authorized to assist with this data collection activity. The existing NCES is greatly respected by educators for the high quality of the reports that is produces and releases periodically to public. These responsibilities are not altered by the legislation. National Center for Evaluation and Regional Assistance This division within the Institute oversees the regional education laboratories, the National Library of Education and the national clearinghouses. The 10 geographically distributed regional laboratories competitively funded under current law will continue to be authorized. (This was an issue of intense debate during the reauthorization process.) The awards for the regional educational labs are for 5 years. The work of the regional labs focuses on research and development?conducting applied research that leads to the production of new educational products. Technical assistance is also provided through the regional labs. Title II A major topic during the development of H .R. 3801 was how to strengthen the link between local and regional needs and interests regarding education research and development and the work of the OERI. This new bill directs the Secretary of Education to convene Regional Advisory Committees throughout the nation. Each Regional Advisory Committee must conduct a needs assessment for their region. This information must be provided to the Secretary to guide the development of RFPS for next award cycle for Comprehensive Centers in 2004. Prior to that award cycle the law authorizes continued funding through 2004 for the Regional Technology in Education Consortia (R-TECS); the Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Consortia and the Comprehensive Centers. The competition in 2004 will be for at least 20 Comprehensive Centers directs the awardees. As providers of technical assistance to local school districts, comprehensive centers that emphasize reading, mathematics, science and technology will receive priority. In consideration of these foci, the new law does not reauthorize either the R-TECS or the Eisenhower Consortia. Though not explicitly stated in the law, it is assumed that the needs assessment information presented by the Regional Advisory Committees will also be used to develop the next competitions for regional labs. Title II also reasserts the autonomy of the National Assessment of Governing Board (NAGB) and directs the NAGB to release the data collected on an ongoing basis by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The authorized funding levels for H.R. 3801 include $400 million for research; $100 million for the regional education laboratories; $80 million for the comprehensive centers; and $112.1 million for the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the National Assessment Governing Board. Definitions Related to Research Title I includes several new definitions related to research. Both the terms ?applied research? and ?basic research? are defined. Applied research means research ?to gain knowledge or understanding necessary for determining the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met and that is specifically directed to the advancement of practice in the field of education.? In contrast, basic research is defined as research ?to gain fundamental knowledge or understanding of phenomena and observable facts, without specific application toward processes or products and for the advancement of knowledge in the field of education.? The Institute is authorized to conduct both applied and basic research. Scientifically valid research is defined as applied, basic and field-initiated research, which is developed in accordance with, scientifically based research standards. Scientifically based research standards are standards that: i)apply rigorous, systematic, and objective methodology to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs; and ii)present findings and make claims that are appropriate to and supported by the methods that have been employed. Furthermore, the law indicates that the following are included as a part of the standards, as appropriate to the research being conducted: i)employing systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; ii)involving data analyses that are adequate to support the general findings; iii)relying on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable data; iv)making claims of causal relationships only in random assignment experiments or other designs (to the extent such designs substantially eliminate plausible competing explanations for the obtained results); v)ensuring that studies and methods are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, to offer the opportunity to build systemically on the findings of the research; vi)obtaining acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal or approval by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective and scientific review; and vii)using research designs and methods appropriate to the research question posed. Finally, the law provides a definition of scientifically valid education evaluation as evaluation that: i)adheres to the highest possible standards of quality with respect to research design and statistical analysis; ii)provides an adequate description of the programs evaluated and, to the extent possible, examines the relationship between program implementation and program impacts; iii)provides an analysis of the results achieved by the program with respect to its projected effects; iv)employs experimental designs using random assignment, when feasible, and other research methodologies that allow for the strongest possible causal inferences when random assignment is not feasible; and v)may study program implementation through a combination of scientifically valid and reliable methods. Daphne Greenberg Associate Director Center for the Study of Adult Literacy Georgia State University University Plaza Atlanta, GA 30303-3083 phone: 404-651-0127 fax:404-651-4901 dgreenberg at gsu.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 Thu Oct 31 22:04:31 2002 From: DJRosen at theworld.com (David J. Rosen) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:04:31 -0500 Subject: [NLA] Re: Virus Message-ID: <3DC1EF3F.70603@theworld.com> NLA Colleagues, There's some information on the virus that was attached to Michael Hirschhorn's 10/31 message at the following Website: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/js.fortnight.html Apparently, this virus isn't terribly bad as they go - it's relatively easy to remove and isn't destructive, just a nuisance. And -- if you didn't open the attachment and deleted the message you shouldn't have a problem at all. 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