[NLA] Return on Investment

Wed Apr 2 15:16:18 EST 2003

I think Lloyd's comments are most appropriate, however, the original
question was whether there has been published research on the "return on
investment" for adult ed.  Lloyd, do you know of any?  Thanks, Debbie

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

> [Original Message]
> From: Lloyd David <lloyd_david at ceilearn.com>
> To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
> Date: 4/1/2003 5:46:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [NLA] Return on Investment
>
> I have been following this discussion with a great deal of interest. It
> appears we need to set some parameters around the term "return on
> investment". I always saw this term used with regard to workplace
> education/literacy programs since businesses are accustomed to looking at
> costs, expenditures, and "return on investment" when determining whether
or
> not to set up an educational or training program. Many government
sponsored
> or funded programs have goals and objectives which are written with
> percentage changes which often can be calculated in the end. For example,
if
> a business can reduce employee turnover as a result of the establishment
of
> a workplace education program every one benefits. The employee learns to
> read, write, speak, and understand better, and the business saves money.
In
> the process the work environment should have improved since the company
> gains a better understanding of the workers  and the workers feel
> appreciated because the company has decided to invest in them by giving
them
> the classes that they need. For years I have believed  the workplace is a
> perfect venue for basic education classes. Our potential students are
> already there as are facilities for class. In order to make this happen
we,
> the adult educators, have to learn the language the business speaks.  In
> order for the workplace education program to succeed the needs of the
adult
> learner also have to be addressed. Having a curriculum that deals solely
> with the office or shop floor will not work since the students may have
> other more pressing needs which have to be included. However,by showing
such
> things as reduction in scrap or waste, lowering of employee turnover,
> reduction in customer complaints due to confusion on the telephone, and
> decrease in accidents  we can speak of return on investment.  In the end
the
> students benefit the most since they now have better skills which can lead
> to a diploma or degree and ultimately more money and a better life for
them
> and their families.
>
> Lloyd David, EdD.
> President/Exceutive Director
> Continuing Education Institute/CEI
> 108 Water Street
> Watertown, MA 02472
> 617-926-1864
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eileen Eckert <eileeneckert at hotmail.com>
> To: nla at lists.literacytent.org <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
> Date: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [NLA] Return on Investment
>
>
> >Andrea said:
> >"It is not  the contribution to the economy that I am getting at, though
> >maybe others are.  I am considering what the return on investment is
worth
> >to the individual--ability to afford health insurance?  That would be a
> nice
> >return if so."
> >
> >Heidi pointed out the the ROI is different for people of different
> >races/ethnicities, and George also pointed to the many facets of
"returns"
> >on investment. I see what you're all saying. I guess the ROI language
makes
> >me uneasy. To me, it connotes a purely financial perspective on
education,
> >with the investment being the investment of taxpayer money rather than
> >learner time, and the return being increased productivity and employment,
> >reduction in welfare, etc. In another message, Andrea said something to
the
> >effect that as a taxpayer, she wants to know that the programs her taxes
> >support are effective. In his original question, I understood Ira to be
> >asking for research on the ROI, with the idea that there might be some
> >documented "average" economic gains as a result of participation in
> literacy
> >education.
> >
> >It seems to me this is the question of accountability again. If we accept
> >the broader concept of ROI as returns to the learner on their investment
of
> >time and energy, then aren't we more likely to both see and document such
> >returns if we know what each individual participant wants, what returns
> they
> >are looking for, and how they use their developing knowledge and skills,
> >instead of trying to account for any gains through scores on standardized
> >tests?
> >
> >To whom are we accountable? I would argue that by holding ourselves
> >accountable to each learner who participates in a program (and sharing
that
> >responsibility with them, so that our accountability is not control or
> >charity), we would be more likely to contribute to and document
meaningful
> >gains. It seems that programs that do so are more and more likely to do
it
> >at the cost of any federal money and its attached strings. So, does
federal
> >money become a barrier to true accountability?
> >
> >For a compelling view of becoming accountable, I urge everyone to read
> >Shirley Wright's article, "Learners First," in the June 1999 issue of
Focus
> >on Basics. The URL is
> http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ncsall/fob/1999/wright.htm
> >
> >and here's an excerpt:
> >
> >"Our program had missed the boat on accountability. We were highly
> >accountable to our school system. It said that 16 credits equaled one
high
> >school diploma, and we would never issue a diploma to someone who had not
> >met this requirement. The system said that an "A" meant achievement. We
> gave
> >out lots of A’s. So why were our adult learners still unable to find
> >employment? Why were they still on welfare? Why couldn’t they remember
> >anything that we had taught them? In our small town, we saw students
often
> >and asked them about the impact that attending our program had made in
> their
> >lives. Participation had, in many cases, not made a difference and had
not
> >improved their quality of life.
> >
> >"Our program team, which consisted of the director (me) and four
teachers,
> >began to scrutinize what we were doing and why. We asked ourselves: Who
are
> >we really accountable to? Our answer was that we were accountable to our
> >learners first and to the system second. With that in mind, we began to
> >build a new program, one that focused on the learner while satisfying the
> >state and federal government as well as our local school district. We are
> >still in the process of making this change, and it is working extremely
> >well."
> >
> >My point is that accountability loses its meaning when it is imposed and
> >orchestrated from the outside (at the state or federal levels) rather
than
> >generated from the inside, and that we lose the richness of the effects
> (and
> >maybe even the effects themselves) when we do not recognize, reflect on,
> and
> >articulate or document the differences that education makes in people's
> >lives.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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