[NLA] Discussion: Adult Learners with Trauma

[Eileen Eckert]

Debbie wrote: "...maybe it is the absence of a policy that is
>necessary!  I can't imagine running an adult ed program without open
>enrollment.  What's going on?"

In response to Nancy's raising the issue of adult learners affected by 
trauma, others have said they don't understand how programs can put in place 
policies that keep such learners out. I'd like to give a hypothetical 
example of how such a thing can happen. First, imagine Nancy hasn't yet 
raised the issue:

Step One. The scene is a state capital, a department of education office, 
sometime in 1999. Jane, a program administrator with responsibility for 
adult and family literacy programs has just read a research study, or more 
likely a report that interprets several studies, or even more likely an 
executive summary of the report. Jane calls in her boss, Lee, and says, "I 
just read this report that says adult education students who attend classes 
5 days a week made significantly higher gains in reading than students who 
attend 3 days a week or less. You know we're trying to come up with 
indicators of program quality in response to the new accountability 
requirments that we evaluate programs every year. I think we need to bring 
this to the next directors' meeting." Lee agrees, and it goes on the agenda.

Step Two. Three months later, directors of adult and family literacy 
programs across the state meet with Jane, Lee, and other administrators from 
the department, and one of the items on their two-day-long meeting agenda is 
accountability measures. They have two hours to discuss and make a decision. 
Jane reports that the research says that students who attend classes fewer 
than 3 days a week do significantly worse than students who attend 5 days a 
week, among other research findings and indicators she has gathered. Lee 
reminds program directors that the state is required to evaluate programs 
every year, and that they need to develop indicators of program quality. By 
the end of the two hours, the directors have voted that a committee of 
directors will work with Jane to develop such indicators.

Step Three. By the time the indicators come out, mid-2000, one of them is 
that quality programs provide sufficient "intensity and duration of 
instruction" for learners to make gains. There is a parenthetical note that 
5 days a week of classes is sufficient intensity and duration of 
instruction. Simultaneously, the department releases program evaluation 
guidelines, one of which says that reviewers will look at both student 
attendance records and pre- and post-test scores.

Step Four. Programs all over the state need to decide how to respond to 
these missives from the department of education. Program A continues its 
open enrollment and attendance policy, while providing support for students 
as needed. Program B institutes a policy of "three unexcused absences and 
you're out." In 2001, the reviewers come to each program, look at the 
policies, attendance records, and test scores, and find that in Program A, 
there are no policies around enrollment and attendance, students come less 
than 3 days a week on average, and test scores show an average 8-point gain 
from pre- to post-test. They also find that in Program B, there are written 
policies communicated to all students, students attend 4 days a week on 
average, and there is a 9-point gain from pre- to post-test (not 
statistically significant, but they don't know that). Program A is found to 
be out-of-compliance and given 6 months to "improve." Program B is found to 
be in compliance.

Learners in crisis or dealing with the aftereffects of trauma are not 
considered from start-to-finish in this scenario, but they're there. It's 
only when you look at the issue from the perspective of those who suffer the 
unintended consequences of the policy that you can clearly see its 
shortcomings (though I deliberately made the contrast between the programs 
crude and clear).

Is this hypothetical situation unrealistic? How often does policy get made 
in similar ways? When advocating for policy around a well-defined issue 
(whether it's reading methodology, teacher preparation and certification, 
student access and attendance, etc) how well can you anticipate the 
consequences of that policy for other areas that affect students? Can we 
always see the "big picture" well enough to advocate moving decision-making 
power from the local to the state or national levels?

What if we concentrated on students, teachers, and programs, and gave them 
both the power to make the decisions and the resources (time, money, access 
to information) to develop the expertise they need to do so?

In order to achieve anything, you first need to envision it. Do we want a 
behemoth policy apparatus that tries to anticipate and deal with every local 
contingency through large-scale mandates, or do we want flexibility and 
responsiveness at the local level to local learner needs, including the 
needs of students dealing with crisis and trauma?









_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

_______________________________________________
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