[NLA] NIFL Board

[George E. Demetrion]

Colleagues:

Let me try a response.  First, Daphne, let me say that I share all of
your concerns.  I appreciate very much how you have articulated them. 
Obviously, there are many of us who view literacy similarly.  Perhaps the
silence reflects a combination of the complexities of the quandaries
facing those who interpret literacy differently than the current
Administration, a certain amount of battle fatigue (this issue has been
discussed and discussed a thousand and more times on this list), and just
the time factor of what is involved in responding cogently, for if not in
that manner, why bother?

In terms of what is facing us, first, I would stress that the
Administration's viewpoint on literacy (i.e., reading) is one grounded in
conservative thinking that has been achieving a political groundswell
since 1990.  With Bush in power, conservative educators are very focused
and intentional in infusing their beliefs into federal policy.  That
train has been on the way for a very long time and is part of the
"revolution" that the current US Department of Education has charted out
for itself in its strategic plan. 

Short of a Republican defeat in 2004, the new paradigm, reflecting a very
sharp conservative ideological viewpoint, can only become more and more
embedded into law.  What is also important to keep in mind what the
conservative educators and policy makers have targeted, the progressive
educational movement, extending back to the early work of John Dewey. 
Let's not make any mistake about that.  What is being attacked, are the
very premises by which you and I and very  many others define literacy.
The reconstruction of NIFL is very much part of this anti-progressive
objective.  Based on this assumption,  I can only conclude that  HR 1261
(the WIA Re-Authorization) was, if not authored, very highly influenced
by the U.S. Department of Eduaction.  

Let's take a quick overview of the portion on NIFL (pp.151-166).  In
those pages, the phrase, scientific based education, research, or reading
instruction is mentioned 16 times.  Whatever else those terms may mean in
terms of legitimate educational research, in the context in which it is
used in the legislation, it has a profoundly political purpose.  That is,
it seeks to definie the realm of legitimacy in a constrictive way that
seeks to deconstruct 100 years of the progressive educational movement. 
Does a single person on this list think that I am exaggerating one iota
in making this assertion?  If so, study the relevant documents and tell
us how you interpret them.

The legislation goes on to state that the purpose of "a National
Institute for Literacy [is] to provide national leadership in promoting
reading research, reading instruction, and professional development in
reading based on scientifically based research..."  Does anyone happen to
have a copy handy of the National Literacy Act of 1991 to compare this
rendition with the setting up of .the National Institute for Literacy in
1992?  

Based upon the stated purpose of the legislation, what are we to make of
the status of EFF?  Remember its original mission as a consensus-driven
framework, linking pedagogy, assessment, accountability, and policy for a
21st century reform system of adult education?  Remember how EFF is
designed to integrate the basic skills, life-long learning, and the
knowledge and skills toprogressively master the critical social roles? 
Remember its constructivist educational principles.  All of these
dimensions of the EFF project are off the table in the logic of the
current legislation.  Let's make it clear here that it is government that
is the de-stabilizing factor not the limitations of the EFF framework!
Does anyone think all of this is simply an oversight rather than a very
intentional redefinition of the meaning of literacy by the current
Administration?  Whether EFF survives remains to be seen.  The best case
scenario as I see it, is that a vestige will remain linked to the Content
Standard, Read With Understanding, with the possibility of being reborn
in a Democratic Administration in 2005.  

Short of that, I don't know how this framework cannot ne consigned to the
graveyard, which would be a grave injustice given all the excellent work
that has gone into this experimental project over the past decade.  Given
a receptive political climate, along with some modification of its
internal framework, it has the potential of offering the field a
wonderful frame of reference to ground adult literacy practice.  

I also believe the full dimension of the EFF project could be re-born
within a neo-conservative political framework, given the generally
assimilative intentions of the project designers to in creating a susyem
whereby adult literacy students can become more fully integrated into the
main fabric of the US life.  This would require at least three things for
which I see little evidence to date; that the President put substance to
his rhetoric of "compassionate conservatism" (so far I see the
conservatism), that the mandate of "corporate responsibility" be taken
with utter seriousness (so far, little proof of that), and that the
Administration's literacy theorists take a balanced approach to reading
theory, allowing legitimate room for "context" as well as reading skills,
and support, therefore, for all of the EFF Content Standards.  After all,
none of these are radical in the political sense, as defined, for
example, by the precepts of critical pedagogy.  Thus, in principle, the
entire EFF framework could be integrated within at least a somewhat
moderate, somewhat open neo-conservative world view, but not the current
rendition, which takes an all or nothing approach and seeks to radically
re-invent educational theory, practice, and policy.

So this is where I think we are, which is both problematic, but then
again, opens up opportunities, particularly for the community-based
sector of the adult literacy/ESOL movement.  While I think there are
opportunities for going in a different direction, and I'm sure others
have ideas, too, I don't want to pursue them in this message, which stays
focused on problem identification.  

The question becomes, how much space is there to operate within the given
paradigm, given the reality of the Administration's educational policy? 
Also, hat would be involved in creating an alternative vision that would
have to stem from energies emerging from the field, but hopefully gain
legitimacy in the process of constructing (I should say, reconstructing)
a movement from the ground up?  I do believe there are resources,
ProLiteracy America being one of  the keys, if it is willing and able to
pick up the gauntlet.

Truly, what do others think?

George Demetrion
sophocles5 at juno.com
(ancient Greek tragedian)


________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
_______________________________________________
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