[NLA] Proposed FY04 Budget (long)

[Thomas Sticht]

I think David and George’s recent posts about the FY 04 proposed national
budget by the President opens up some needed discussion. Here are some of
my thoughts. Tom Sticht

Regarding the name issue, the FY 04 budget request is identified at the ED
web site as

Adult Education (Adult Basic and Literacy Education)

This indicates that the primary title is "Adult Education" with a
sub-title of "Adult Basic and Literacy Education". I’m wondering if this
might suggest a return to the pre-1991 name of " Adult Education" for what
the National Coalition for Literacy now refers to as the Adult Education
and Literacy System (i.e., the state grants part of the WIA, title 2). The
Adult Education Act of 1966 changed the name of the program from Adult
Basic Education when it was part of the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act 
legislation. It was thought by adult educators that the word "basic" in
the title implied a too limited and too low a level of education for a
viable adult education system. For that reason it was renamed the Adult
Education Act (AEA) when it was taken out of the EOA of 1964 and
reauthorized in the federal education budget in 1966. In 1991 when the AEA
was renamed the National Literacy Act, the USED Division called the Adult
Education Division was renamed the Adult Education and Literacy Division,
a name it still carries at this time. I used that name when I called the
state grants set of programs the Adult Education and Literacy System of
the United States. Perhaps now there will be a shift back to Adult
Education System, or, as David states, perhaps the name Adult Basic and
Literacy Education (ABLE) name will emerge as the preferred name for this
system. This raises the issue once again of whether the term "basic" is
too limiting or misleading for an adult education system that not only
teaches communication skills, including math, but also some quite
sophisticated knowledge such as medical, health, abuse, etc. knowledge not
found in elementary or secondary schools (or most universities I would
guess).

The US Education Department web page about the FY 04 budget for Adult
Education states:
Start Quote: "The Administration plans to propose amendments for the
reauthorization of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act to increase
the focus on building stronger skills in basic reading, math, and English
acquisition for adults who need to strengthen weak literacy skills or want
to earn their high school diploma or its recognized equivalent (the GED).
Among other things, proposed amendments would revise current
accountability provisions, add a new State requirement for developing and
implementing educational standards for adult literacy activities leading
to high school-level proficiency, require that teachers be trained in the
use of research-validated instructional practices in reading, math and
English fluency, and strengthen provisions for employer partnerships and
for the participation of community- and faith-based organizations in the
program."End Quote


This seems to construe the Adult Education system once again  as a second
chance system (and hence a second-rate system in the margins of education
in the U.S.?) for the K-12 system by focusing upon the addition of  "a new
State requirement for developing and implementing educational standards
for adult literacy activities leading to high school-level proficiency,"
as though getting a high school diploma or something called "high
school-level proficiency" is the primary business of the Adult Education
system and that success in this business should be contingent upon meeting
"educational standards" leading to a high-school level of proficiency in
something (biology?).


This raises serious issues about how the Adult Education system should be
construed. Is it to be thought of as essentially a remedial, second-chance
education system or as a quality, publicly-supported education system
valued in its own right for its contributions to the educational growth of
adults in many domains of learning?


The USED web site goes on to say: Start Quote:"The request includes $6.7
million for the National Institute for Literacy, with the expectation that
new authorizing legislation would continue support for its communication,
capacity-building, and policy analysis activities. No funds are requested
under the current, separate National Leadership Activities authority. The
reauthorization strategy will address national activities, including
technical assistance and evaluation, as part of the proposed State Grants
program." End Quote

 David picked up on the last sentence above and said: Start Quote:"We do
have some major problems that cannot be solved by the states alone:
national support for adult literacy education research, curriculum
(especially Equipped For the Future,) and assessment."End Quote


In these concerns, it should be noted that national research for adult
literacy education research includes other funding than that of the state
grants. It includes the $2 million plus per year NCSALL gets from the
federal education research institute, the TECH21  Program that the NALD
participates in, and the $18 million over five years that the NIFL, NICHD,
and USED are involved in. It is still not clear just how this research
will benefit the field but there is always hope. (As an aside, I have
noticed that most of the nationally known researchers that I know of do
not often post messages on any of the lists that the NIFL archives. Nor do
state directors of adult education, either).


David also mentions the need for national curriculum and mentions the EFF
project from the NIFL. Presumably funding for this project is contained in
the NIFL budget. I’m also wondering just how well EFF is doing in
demonstrating in a research-based manner that it is improving adult
education somewhere. When I looked at the EFF discussion list I noticed
that from a high of 489 messages posted in 2001, it fell to just 257 in
2002. By comparison the NLA list had 1252 messages posted in 2001 and 2073
messages posted in 2002. If the growth in the amount of discussion on
these lists is any indication of how well the field is responding to an
innovation like EFF, it suggests that the EFF project has a way to go in
whatever reforms it is hoped it will bring to the field.


David went on to say:Start Quote:"I am especially concerned that we will
not be able to address serious deficiencies with the current assessment
instruments used to meet National Reporting System requirements.  We need
a major and long-term national commitment to develop valid and reliable
instruments, including direct measures as well as tests. As Paul Jurmo
noted, practitioners want to know how the administration can require
accountability but not support the development of research; and I would
add, valid and reliable assessment instruments needed in order to be
accountable.  To solve these problems we need national leadership." End
Quote


I know that assessment is a continuing concern of adult literacy
educators, just as it is for Preschool and K-12 educators. But when I
looked at the NIFL Assessment discussion list, I found that there were
only 170 messages posted in 2002, and a lot of them were mundane
announcements of events and not substantive discussions of issues. I’m
wondering just how much the field feels that assessment is a major issue
and if so, who should address these issues. Should ProLiteracy Worldwide
take on the responsibility of improving the assessment approach of the
federally administered National Reporting System, as George seems to
suggest? And just what are "valid and reliable"  "direct measures" versus
"tests" that David talks about? In my reading, the National Academy of
Science’s report on assessment in adult literacy education does not seem
optimistic about developing "performance assessments" that are comparable
across programs and states to permit the type of comparison of achievement
that accountability evaluators seem to be demanding. Nor has the K-12
system with hundreds of millions of dollars in research over the last
quarter century accomplished this in a manner that is acceptable to the
professional field of accountability.  So I’m not certain that the problem
is in need of national leadership. Perhaps it is in need of the voices of
tens of thousands of adult students who demand that their judgments of the
value of their learning be accepted along with the judgments of their
tutors, teachers, and others with whom they have a special relationship, 
as just as valid and reliable indicators of learning as are nationally
developed "objective" tests.


At the very least, there are a great number of questions raised in my mind
when I read the FY 04 budget statement from the US Education Department. I
wonder if these issues will be discussed on the Focus on Basics (FOB) (for
research),EFF (for curriculum), Assessment, or other lists that are
archived on the NIFL 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