[NLA] Toward a "Foundational Understanding"

[Catherine B. King]

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: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20021031/bd41e5d8/attachment.htm