[NLA] Low Expectations for USA Policy Makers

[Catherine B. King]

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: <Nashansen at aol.com>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
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