[NLA] Research in adult literacy education

[Catherine B. King]

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