Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

In This Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Learner-Centered Philosophyas a Paradigm for Administration . .6How Our Pedagogy Can Inform Our Management Practices

Joni Schwartz

The New AccountabilityRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Point-Counterpoint on NRS and WIA

NIFL-NLA discussion list participants

Assessment and Accountability . . .18A Modest Proposal

Heide Spruck Wrigley

What’s It All About? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Reflections on the Workforce Investment Act and Its Implementation in New York State and City

Paul Wasserman

Adult Literacy Public PolicyOrganizing in Massachusetts . . . . . .31A Participant’s ReflectionsDavid J. Rosen

Is There Room for FamilyLiteracy in a Work-FirstEnvironment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Jamie Preston

The Need for Leadershipamong Adult Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Archie Willard

Literacy Harvest Spring 2001

The Journal of the Literacy Assistance Center

Leadership in an Era of Change

Founded in 1983, the Literacy AssistanceCenter (LAC) is a not-for-profit organizationthat provides essential referral, training,information, and technical assistance ser-vices to hundreds of adult and youth literacyprograms in New York. Our mission is tosupport and promote the expansion ofquality literacy services in New York.

Funding for the LAC is provided by the NewYork City Mayor’s Office of Adult Literacy,the New York State Education Department,and a wide range of philanthropic founda-tions, corporations, and individuals.

Literacy Assistance Center32 Broadway, 10th floor

New York, NY 10004www.lacnyc.org

phone: (212) 803-3300fax: (212) 785-3685

Executive DirectorMichael J. Hirschhorn

Deputy DirectorElyse Barbell Rudolph

Director of External RelationsGeoffrey M. Glick

Director of Finance & PersonnelCraig A. Tozzo

Publication of Literacy Harvest is supported by theNew York City Mayor’s Office of Adult Literacy andthe New York State Department of Education aspart of the New York City Adult LiteracyInitiative.

For permission to reprint any portion of thisjournal, please contact Jan Gallagher, Director of Publications, publications@lacnyc.orgor (212) 803-3332.

© 2001 Literacy Assistance Center.All rights reserved.

Editorial BoardFaigy BerkovichAgudath Israel of America

Claire HarnanLiteracy Assistance Center

Elyse Barbell RudolphLiteracy Assistance Center

Sheila RyanBrooklyn Public Library

Shirley ThomasMayor's Office of Adult Literacy

K.C. WilliamsForest Hills Community House

EditorJan Gallagher

Interior Design & LayoutAlison Kaplan

Cover DesignDonald Peete

Literacy HarvestThe Journal of the Literacy Assistance Center

Spring 2001

L i t e r a c y A s s i s t a n c e C e n t e r

Spring 2001 3

Participants in the National Institute for Literacy—NationalLiteracy Advocacy (NIFL-NLA) listserv include Bob Bickerton, MassachusettsState Director of Adult Education; Kathleen Bombach, El Paso Community College; GeorgeDemetrion, Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford; Gloria Gillette, NE ABLE ResourceCenter; Tom Sticht, consultant; and Regie Stites, SRI International. The list is moderated byDavid J. Rosen.

Jamie Preston is Family Literacy Coordinator at the Philadelphia Mayor’s Commission onLiteracy. From 1998 to 2000, she was the Philadelphia Field Coordinator of the FamilyIndependence Initiative, a project of the National Center for Family Literacy.

David J. Rosen is a member of the Massachusetts Coalition for Adult Education PublicPolicy Committee. He is the National Literacy Advocacy list moderator and director of theAdult Literacy Resource Institute in Boston.

Joni Schwartz is director and developer of the Brooklyn Tabernacle Adult EducationMinistry and a doctoral student in adult education at Rutgers University. Her reflections onadult education philosophy in management stem from her experience as program manager ofDiscipleship Educational Center in Brooklyn.

Paul Wasserman is the director of the Adult Learning Center of Lehman College in theBronx, part of the City University of New York (CUNY). His reflections on the WorkforceInvestment Act come out of a CUNY staff development effort last year.

Archie Willard learned to read at the age of 54 after struggling with dyslexia. He foundedVALUE, Voice for Adult Literacy United for Education, a national organization of adult learn-ers, and now serves as VALUE’s chairman emeritus.

Heide Spruck Wrigley, Ph.D., is a senior researcher with Aguirre International,where she specializes in issues related to language, literacy, and learning. Her interest in assess-ment stems from long years of working with immigrants and refugees whose true knowledgeand skills are seldom captured on tests.

Contributors

Literacy Harvest4

Literacy Harvest is back, with a new lookand a renewed commitment to encourag-

ing thoughtful reflection on critical issuesamong literacy professionals both in NewYork City and nationwide. The LiteracyAssistance Center (LAC) is pleased to bringyou this issue of Literacy Harvest, whosetheme is Leadership in an Era of Change.

Literacy professionals—particularlythose who work in publicly funded pro-grams—will not be surprised to learn thatan issue of a professional journal that wasoriginally slated to focus on the subject ofleadership in general quickly began to focuson the changes in the field brought about bythe Workforce Investment Act (WIA),which went into effect last year. Programmanagers, local policymakers, and others inpositions of leadership have been askingthemselves and each other, “How can wemeet the new accountability requirementswithout diverting precious resources fromour instructional programs? What can we doabout what many see as a central philosophi-cal difference between what adult educatorsperceive to be our mission and what legisla-tors seem to expect of us? What does itmean to lead in the face of fundamentalshifts in focus?”

In the lead article, Joni Schwartz lays aphilosophical foundation that can informadult education leadership no matter whatshifts in public policy may take place.

Drawing on the authors who, many agree,lay the groundwork for adult educationalphilosophy—Dewey, Freire, and Linde-mann—Schwartz suggests that adult educa-tors who become managers must remaintrue to the principles of learner-centered,emancipatory education by involving allstakeholders—staff, learners, and others—indecision-making. Schwartz argues that sucha participatory management model yieldspositive, measurable results such asimproved staff and learner retention andbetter student outcomes.

Ah, yes, outcomes. Perhaps no aspect ofWIA has engendered more controversy andanxiety than the requirement that adulteducation programs be evaluated on thebasis of their ability to demonstrate learneroutcomes—and face the possibility of losingfunding if they do not meet establishedgoals. Several adult education leaders—including a state director, program man-agers, and educational consultants andresearchers—participated in an extendeddiscussion last year on the National Institutefor Literacy’s National Literacy Advocacylistserv (NIFL-NLA). Partici-pants express avariety of viewpoints on WIA’s accountabil-ity requirements and what they mean forprograms, wrestling with the roles they andothers in positions of leadership must playin order to implement WIA requirementsthoughtfully while simultaneously advocat-ing for change, particularly in methods ofassessing learner achievement.

In This IssueJan Gallagher, Editor

Spring 2001 5

It seems that no one is happy with standard-ized tests as the primary measure of learner out-comes, but few adult educators have been ableto commit themselves to finding alternativesthat will meet funders’ requirements. HeideSpruck Wrigley offers “A Modest Proposal” thatnot only acknowledges the weaknesses of relyingon standardized test scores but also outlines aprocess for replacing standardized tests withmore authentic performance- and portfolio-based assessments. Such assessments, saysWrigley, not only more accurately reflectstudent progress but also can be standardized in order to allow comparisons among learnersand among programs. Establishing and stan-dardizing authentic assessments is only thebeginning, argues Wrigley. Adult educatorsmust work together on the local, state, andnational levels to ensure that their work isembraced by policymakers.

The next two articles focus, then, onbroader issues of philosophy and policy. PaulWasserman’s impassioned critique of WIA andits implementation in New York State and Citystarts by noting what he sees as “policy agendasto which [many adult educators] are deeplyopposed politically and philosophically”—including not only reliance on standardizedtests but also a heightened emphasis on work-force preparation and a standpoint that reduceseducation to yet another consumer commodity.Equally troubling, argues Wasserman, is thefact that new requirements do not come withadditional resources to help programs implement the requirements.

Adult educators in New York and otherstates with similar concerns about WIArequirements and the resources that go withthem may be encouraged—and inspired—by

David J. Rosen’s account of almost 20 years ofpublic policy organizing on the part ofMassachusetts adult educators. This effort hasled to an increase of $35 million in state fundsfor adult literacy in five years.

And what about the emphasis on work-force preparation? Must job preparation be thebasis of every initiative of every adult educationprogram? Or is there room for creative efforts in other areas as well? Jamie Preston’s descrip-tion of how a National Center for FamilyLiteracy initiative in Philadelphia helped learners get and hold a job shows that work-force preparation need not neglect learners’other needs. Indeed, as Preston puts it, “successat work begins at home.”

Finally, Archie Willard, founder of VALUE(Voice for Adult Literacy United for Education),reminds us that not all adult education leadersare education professionals. In an article origi-nally written for International Literacy Day2000, Willard calls on successful adult learnersto “serve as role models” for potential adultlearners and to push to be included in the liter-acy field’s discussions of important issues.

I hope this issue of Literacy Harvest willprovoke honest reflection and meaningful dia-logue among adult education stakeholders. Ifyou have feedback about this issue of LiteracyHarvest, please write me at the LAC, 32Broadway, 10th floor, New York, NY 10004 orat publications@lacnyc.org.

In This Issue

Literacy Harvest6

When adult educators become managers, theyhave—but often overlook—an opportunity

to incorporate adult education philosophy into themanagement of the organizations and institutionsof which they are a part. To help administratorsadopt a management style that corresponds withtheir educational philosophy, this article will definea philosophy of adult education, outline the bene-fits this philosophy affords to manage-ment, and suggest ways for the field tobegin to effect change. New York Cityprograms that have successfully trans-formed their management structureprovide examples of how to put theoryinto practice.

Defining Adult EducationPhilosophy

Adult educators come from a variety of back-grounds and bring a variety of core beliefs to theirwork. Many, however, espouse a philosophy ofadult education variously known as learner-centered,participatory, or emancipatory education, transformativelearning, and so on. Whatever it is called, theessence of adult education is the centrality oflearner-driven instruction and the belief that learn-ers are partners in all aspects of their education.Learners share in decision making with respect to

their individual learning goals, their collectivelearning in the classroom, and the larger organiza-tion or institution of which they are a part.

Adult education philosophy draws from,among others, the work of Brazilian educator PauloFreire and Americans Eduard C. Lindeman andJohn Dewey. From Freire, we recognize that in

learner-centered education the curriculum origi-nates from the needs and desires of the learners,with the teacher as co-learner. In his now-classicPedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire talks about powerand transformation. Like many other adult educa-tion theorists, Freire believes that true educationtransforms an individual, giving that individualaccess to power. Whether that power is political,organizational, or instructional, shared power isessential in adult education.

Eduard C. Lindeman, a less well-known butnevertheless influential writer, social worker, andscholar, has provided an important perspective on

Learner-Centered Philosophy as aParadigm for AdministrationHow Our Pedagogy Can Inform OurManagement Practices

by Joni Schwartz

Often adult educators who become managersrevert to corporate/traditional management

models instead of incorporating the adulteducation participatory/communal model.

Spring 2001

Learner-Centered Philosophy

7

adult education. For Lindeman, education meanslearning from participation, experience, and reflec-tion; experience is the adult learner’s textbook.

John Dewey, in Democracy and Education andelsewhere, speaks of the communal nature of educa-tion. In community, power is shared, and individ-ual transformation becomes possible. Dewey,Lindeman, and Freire contend that educationshould not be separated from life; rather, it shouldbe integrated into life through community—boththe classroom community and the larger commu-nity, including, for Dewey, our democracy.

Although this summary has simplified the the-ories of Freire, Lindeman, and Dewey, it conveysthe basic point that transformative learninghappens in a learner-centered framework where allparticipants—teachers and students—share poweras a community of learners.

In an ideal learner-centered model, learners areinvolved in community and decision making in thefollowing five areas:

1. Governance. Learners serve on boardsand committees that decide classroomand/or program policy.

2. Curriculum and methodology. Learners and teachers collaborate todevelop and publish curriculum.

3. Administration. Learners are involved inpublic relations, recruitment, fundraising,and office work.

4. Staff development. Learners participatein tutor training and evaluation, in thehiring of new teachers, and in staff devel-opment retreats and workshops.

5. Assessment. Learners complete self-evaluations and participate in interdisci-plinary evaluation groups that set goalsand monitor progress toward those goals.

An adult educator or adult education program thatemploys all five of these areas of learning wouldcertainly be putting adult education philosophyinto practice. In reality, most educators and pro-grams incorporate some of these areas as they strivetoward attaining all five.

Adult Education PhilosophyBenefiting Management

Management theorists have long written on thevalue of shared control, decision-making, andpower, along with team learning, personal mastery,and creativity on the job. But often adult educatorswho become managers revert to corporate/tradi-tional management models instead of incorporatingthe adult education participatory/communal model.Most programs are administered as traditional cor-porate hierarchies—while the teachers remain iso-lated in their classrooms, struggling to implementbeliefs they know to be sound. There is a schismbetween what adult educators are trying to achievein their practice and the way the larger institutionor organization—be that the library, the board ofeducation, or the local nonprofit—manages. Thetraditional corporate management style flies in the face of what adult educators know to be in the best interest of a learning community that promotes student learning. This schism under-mines outcomes for learners, reduces staff produc-tivity and retention, and reduces an organization’sability to raise funds.

When nonprofit social service organizationsand public education institutions use adult education philosophy to inform management prac-tice, they have an opportunity to mend the schism.Applying a participatory and emancipatory modelof management, one that involves students andteachers in all five areas outlined above, has threemajor benefits for the organization or institution:ownership, empowerment, and community.

Literacy Harvest

Schwartz

8

Students and teachers who are involved in governance, curriculum development, administra-tion, staff development, and assessment have asense of ownership in the organization. Staff andlearners participating in the governance of an orga-nization through boards and committees with realdecision-making power remain in the organizationlonger. Students and teachers who “own” an organi-zation work longer hours and produce more, thusincreasing student learning and staff productivity.Better retention and increased productivity areultimately cost-effective for the organization.

Students and teachers who are involved in theprocess of change feel a sense of empowerment, aterm some may think “outdated.” Its use here isappropriate because power is key. Without powerto change, organizations become antiquated.Relying on the decision making of a few, usuallythose at the top, often leads to decisions that are“out of touch” with the real needs, issues, andproblems of learners and teachers. Giving studentsand teachers decision making power and access tothose who make decisions is essential to keep anorganization integrated with the life of the learningcommunity and the larger community of which itis a part. Organizations that encourage shared deci-sion-making create innovative approaches to pro-gramming and learning, thus attracting funderswho are looking to support “cutting-edge”approaches to education.

Adopting a management model informed byadult education philosophy creates community.For adult educators, life and learning take place incommunity; therefore the life of a healthy learningorganization takes place in community. It is notdifficult, when visiting organizations, to identifythose that are defined by strong community asopposed to those that encourage little interpersonalconnection among staff members. A healthy com-munity within an organization attracts healthy,

smart, creative staff who are willing to take risks,try ideas, and grow professionally—once againenhancing productivity, retention, and outcomes,and with them the potential for funding.

Adult Education ManagementEffecting Change

The field of adult education, although still in itsformative stages as a profession, has a tremendousamount to offer to management theory as it appliesto nonprofit and community—based adult educa-tion programs. With a full grasp of adult educationphilosophy and a firm resolve to apply that philos-ophy to their management practices, organizationsand institutions can transform themselves into vitallearner-centered communities.

Two small local Brooklyn programs that haveexperimented with, and to some degree succeededin, this transformation are the Open Book andDiscipleship Educational Center. For years theseprograms have strived to involve students in allaspects of decision making, including hiring deci-sions, curriculum development, fundraising, andstaff development. Students serve on boards andparticipate on advisory councils. In addition, theseorganizations have endeavored to empower staff aswell as students through shared decision making.Both have succeeded in building strong commu-nity learning centers.

I know something of this process firsthand,having been first a teacher and then manager ofDiscipleship Educational Center from 1985 to1997, with additional senior management experience in the Center’s larger organization,Discipleship Outreach Ministries, Inc. (nowTurning Point/Discipleship). At its height Imanaged approximately 25 staff, youth workers,and volunteers at the Educational Center.

Spring 2001

Learner-Centered Philosophy

9

At the Educational Center, located in theSunset Park section of Brooklyn, I fostered learner-centered models in my classrooms. When Imoved from classroom teaching to management, Imade a conscious effort to take what worked in the classroom into my management practice. Webegan with the center’s philosophy. A staff andstudent community drafted a written philosophy, a six-month journey involving staff and studentcommittees, teachers, counselors, and administra-tion. It was a time of heated debate, resistance,compromise, and collaboration, because, as individ-uals, we were invested in the process. Once drafted,our philosophy set the stage for action.

We set out to create new practices or expandexisting ones in keeping with our philosophy. Thestudent advisory council applied for and received amini-grant to write a handbook, expanded itsmembership, and nominated students to the organization’s board of directors. Staff, students,and outside consultants taught staff developmentworkshops. Student groups interviewed potentialnew employees. Decisions about a person’s role onthe job were made based on the person’s skill,expertise, and interest rather than on the jobdescription. Shared power was discussed andencouraged. My performance evaluation was doneby my staff and volunteers as well as through myown reflection in my journal.

Subsequently, the Discipleship EducationalCenter has experienced excellent staff retention,with many staff members making adult educationtheir career choice. Student retention has beencompetitive with rates for larger adult educationcenters, averaging 65 to 75 percent over an aca-demic year. In addition, the educational center isextremely cost effective, working, in some cases,with half the budget given to other facets withinthe same agency while serving two to three times

the number of clients. In terms of real outcomes,the center annually has 30 to 50 GED graduates. It has two alumni with master’s degrees andnumerous alumni currently in college. In 1999,five Discipleship students received full four-yearcollege scholarships.

The process of change was slow and deliberate,sometimes meeting with resistance and misunder-standing. Reflecting back, I know it was right.Retention of staff was high, achievement by students was clear, a community of learners wasbuilt, and the center grew through increasedfunding and visibility. Later, when I became asenior manager in the larger parent organization,the difference between programs with a traditionalmanagement model and those that espouse a participatory model, as the Educational Center did, were evident. Principles of adult education canand should be applied to management throughthoughtful, deliberate methods.

Theory into Practice

Supposing that adult educators are ready to applyour philosophy to management practice, where dowe begin? Change should begin with research thatlinks philosophy and practices, examines the adap-tation of adult education paradigms in manage-ment theory, and studies how organizations thatintegrate adult education philosophy in theiradministration operate. Researchers looking closelyat the two Brooklyn programs mentioned above, orat other similar organizations, can ascertain howthe change began and whether these organizations’practices can be expanded to other programs.Researchers should compare various managementstyles in adult education programs in terms oflearning outcomes. If this research validates thatparticipatory management practices yield real outcomes in terms of staff/student retention, cost-

Literacy Harvest10

Schwartz

effectiveness to organizations, and organizations’response to community needs, this validation willaid fundraising efforts. Such research can be doneas a part of practitioners’ doctoral dissertations ormaster’s research projects or as independent studiesat universities. Teachers can undertake researchprojects with grants such as those offered by theLiteracy Assistance Center and NYC ProfessionalDevelopment Consortium or, on a larger scale,using the Literacy Leader Fellowship Program fromthe National Institute for Literacy (NIFL).

Another place to begin is for adult educatorswho move into management positions to hold fastto our convictions about learning, so that we seekto model management based on adult educationphilosophy. We can start by being well read in thefields of adult education theory and managementtheory. An understanding of the theory behind ourpractice enables us to articulate our philosophy toothers in our organization.

Next, as professionals in adult education and inmanagement, we need to reflect on our organiza-tions in light of our classroom philosophy and askquestions: How are staff and students involved inall areas of the organization? Who has the decision-making power, and what types of power? Wherecan decision making be shared?

Recognizing that change often comes gradually,we can begin to implement management practicesone at a time, moving us closer to our vision. Forexample, during the first year of transformation, a manager might work on integrating students into staff development retreats, or ask students toparticipate in curriculum development for the newcomputer lab, or invite staff to meet informally

with the executive director and board for a brunch,or include staff in the hiring of a new coordinator.These are small steps toward shared participationand decision making, but they are a beginning.

In addition, we must understand that, particu-larly at the management level, community is thecore of adult education. And we should ask eachother: Does the organization reflect the communityit serves? Is there a sense of community on staff?Do the staff and students “own” the organization?Have we articulated our philosophy to the board?Do our funders understand that we have a well-thought-through philosophy?

Finally, adult educators have to fight discour-agement. Adult education is a profession in its ownright; educators must not be discouraged by trends,policies, and decrees that sometimes seem counterto sound practice. Adult educators must continueto believe that they have much to offer the organi-zations and institutions to which they belong.Employing and modeling adult education philosophyin administration makes for sound managementpractice. Adult educators need to take the best ofwhat they learned while managing classrooms anduse it in the management of organizations.

ReferencesDewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education.

London: Macmillan.Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed.

New York: Seabury.Lindeman, E. (1961). The meaning of adult

education. Montreal: Harvest House.(original edition 1926, New York: New Republic).

Spring 2001

The New Accountability RequirementsPoint-Counterpoint on NRS and WIA

by participants in theNIFL-NLA listserv

11

Bob Bickerton, Massachusetts State Directorof Adult Education

I’d like to check in with some very basic questions:

1. If WIA and the NRS are too narrow, shouldn’twe be pushing for a more complete vision of whatour work is about at the state level? WIA providesstates with the flexibility to do this. Then the NRScould simply become a sub-set of what’s looked atfrom the broader perspective of each state, i.e.,nothing more than a report, unfortunately incom-plete, but without the power to narrow the impor-tant breadth of our work.

2. If quantitative measures alone are inadequate todescribe the work of our field and our students,shouldn’t we be working to find consensus acrossour field to articulate the qualitative dimensions?WIA provides states with the flexibility to do this.I imagine the most difficult part of this dialoguewill be reaching consensus across diverse constituen-cies, particularly when it comes to who may be able

to make judgments about what’s credible and reli-able. But it seems to me it’s well worth the effort.

3. If large cross-sections of students can articulateimportant aspects of what they want to know andbe able to do, shouldn’t we be working across our field and in partnership with our students tocapture this? And if these turn into a rich, but necessarily incomplete set of learning/content standards, shouldn’t we at least honor this achieve-ment? Whether it’s EFF or other similar efforts tosurface such skills and abilities sought after by stu-dents, shouldn’t we find a way to agree to makesuch “learning/content standards” a part of thefoundation of our work (including articulating thisfoundation with valid and reliable assessment pro-cesses)–always acknowledging that this is a sub-setof this universe and that we all need to continue tolisten/hear and respond with an even richer set ofteaching and learning experiences? I’m concernedthat so much energy continues to go into finding

Editor’s note: Last year participants in the National Literacy Advocacydiscussion list sponsored by the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL-NLA)conducted a sustained dialogue about the accountability requirements of theNational Reporting System (NRS) under the federal Workforce InvestmentAct (WIA), which includes the adult basic education. This Internet-basedelectronic discussion group provides a forum for adult education professionalsto air their opinions and seek consensus on issues of concern. The commentsthat follow, part of a much larger discussion accessible at www.nifl.gov/lincs/discussions/nifl-nla/nla.html, were compiled by David J. Rosen, the listmoderator, and by Steve Reuys, editor of All Write News, the newsletter ofthe Adult Literacy Resource Institute of Massachusetts. This compilationfirst appeared in the September/October 2000 issue of All Write News(Vol. 17, No. 1) and is reprinted by permission of All Write News andthe NIFL-NLA participants.

Literacy Harvest

NIFL-NLA listserv

fault with everyone else’s proposals that we’re notmaking as much progress as our students need anddeserve from us—to make our work truly account-able to them! So my final question:

4. Are we afraid of any form of accountability withconsequences, including to those we profess to serve?

Regie Stites, Center for Education and HumanServices at SRI InternationalI think the questions that Bob posed (or are theysuggestions?) point us in the right direction towardworking out answers to concerns about standards,accountability, and assessment systems. What these

questions/sugges-tions imply isserious work ondeveloping perfor-mance assessments.In an earlier post,George Demetrionreferred to the cre-

ation of “rubrics” as a (poorly defined) step towardmaking qualitative standards (like EFF–Equippedfor the Future) count as primary quantitative mea-sures for the NRS. Development of performanceassessments (whether as guides for instruction orfor accountability measures) does involve creationof rubrics—and much else. Rubrics are centralbecause they are the mechanism for translatingdetailed qualitative descriptions of performancegoals into quantitative measures of levels of perfor-mance. At this point, the qualitative/quantitativedistinction begins to break down. To make thismore concrete, a rubric is needed whenever wewant to judge performance that is more compli-cated than a set of correct/ incorrect responses totest questions. Teachers and students commonlydevelop and use rubrics to evaluate the quality ofwriting, oral presentations, project work, etc. If

tasks are well structured and the criteria forjudging performance (rubrics) are clear to learnerand teacher, then assessment gets folded seamlesslyinto instruction. This is what I mean by perfor-mance assessment, and I believe that it can bemade to work for accountability (probably first atthe state level as Bob suggests) as well as forinstructional purposes.

Kathleen Bombach, El Paso Community CollegeI have several concerns. One is that something likeNRS standards (really outcomes) have been triedbefore, under JTPA. The result was that the popu-lation was creamed in order to meet the mandatedoutcomes. The expensive apparatus and processthat developed around meeting these outcomesgrew immensely in order to weed out anyone whomight not, because of skill levels, English speakingability, race and ethnicity, gender, or personal/motivational factors, succeed in earning a GED orgetting a job. Less and less money actually flowedinto direct instruction and services for the partici-pants who made it through the maze.

The other side of this creaming was that low-income people who could have striven for morewere diverted into the JTPA system because theycould provide quick positive results. I remember a program we did under JTPA. A number of theparticipants decided they wanted to go to collegeand got through the acceptance process, only to be told by their agency counselor that they were notallowed—they had to go back for job placement or job training in one of the infamous 13-weekprograms. (In one national study, 13 weeks was the average amount of time for JTPA vocationaltraining programs.)

Are we afraid ofany form ofaccountability withconsequences,including to thosewe profess toserve?

12

Spring 2001 13

The New Accountability Requirements

Since I did JTPA between 1983 and 1995, Iobserved every trick in the book to make sure only“winners” were served. In the beginning I bought

into it and partici-pated unquestion-ingly. After a year, Ibegan to questionand try to makechanges to addresswhat I thought werethe real needs ofpoor people, having

been one most of my life until that point. It didn’twork—the necessity to meet outcomes was toostrong even when coworkers were sympathetic. Ifthe person was not going to result in a success in arelatively short period of time, they were divertedinto someone else’s program—often the adult liter-acy programs. Of course, no money for the learnerwent with the referral.

The second concern I have gets at the differencebetween outcome measurements vs. accred-itationrequirements. In an accreditation process, one looksat the inputs, the activities, and the outcomes. In asystem where the only things that matter are theoutcomes, any way you can get those outcomesbecomes paramount, including not providing ser-vices but pretending that you did.

We have tried the outcomes-based approachbefore and it failed to serve most of the people whotried to enter the system it spawned. Now we arestuck with it again because it is politically appeal-ing and sounds so good! EFF is one way to keep thefocus on the learner, not the outcome, and to lookat multiple aspects of providing a quality programdefined as meeting the needs of learners, not thestate or the private sector. If we can unify behindan approach that may not be perfect to all, but hassubstance and some earned momentum, as well as

reflecting a lot of work over a period of years by alot of knowledgeable people, we may have a long-term chance of changing the dynamic from one offeeding the machine with workers to a balance ofhome and family, citizenship, and work. And aes-thetics, spirituality, and whatever else matters toindividuals. If we cannot push a broader agendabecause we cannot agree on the nature of ourutopia, we will be stuck with recycling the sameinadequate system under a different name for thenext hundred years. However, we must continueour internal debates over the nature of perfection.

Gloria Gillette, Director of the NE ABLEResource Center, in OhioThe NRS has done three very important things forour state. It has forced us to analyze: Who do weserve? How we do we serve them? How do wemeasure our effectiveness? There has been a lot offlotsam and jetsam, but in the end I think it hasbeen a very good process of self-reflection. And Ithink, in the end, we have developed a system thatboth embraces our goals and maintains the realityof the system in which we work, while respectingthe integrity of the students we serve.

Tom Sticht, researcher and consultant in literacy and adult basic educationRecently Bob Bickerton addressed some questionsto several NLA list participants, including me. Hereare my responses to Bob’s questions and comments.

Reply to Bob’s Question #1: It did not takeWIA or the NRS to provide states with the flexi-bility of “pushing for a more complete vision ofwhat our work is about at the state level.” Stateshave always had that flexibility and presumablyhave operated by some sort of vision over the lastthirty years. In realizing their various visions, dif-ferent states have made different uses of differentstandardized tests. I understand that in New York,

We have tried theoutcomes-basedapproach beforeand it failed toserve most of thepeople who tried toenter the system itspawned.

Literacy Harvest14

state-funded programs have had to use the TABE tomeasure growth in learning; in California, Oregon,Washington, Connecticut, and other states, visionshave been put into practice using the CASAS teststo assess gains in learning; other states have includedin the realization of their visions other standardizedtests in measuring parts of their “visions.”

So as I understand it, then, the only thing newnow is that the NRS is systematizing the gatheringof data using standardized reporting forms andextending the need to provide learning outcomedata in some systematic way. Also, as I understandit, the NRS has the blessing of the Council of StateDirectors of Adult Education. It is, as you say,merely an accounting system for keeping track ofoutcomes. It in no way narrows all the other typesof information of which states may wish to keeptrack. But I think that the idea that funding maysomehow be tied to the outcome data is a newthing under the WIA. At the state directors level,that may not be a problem because the data areaggregated across local programs and the state isaccountable only for the aggregated data. It ishighly unlikely that any state personnel will losetheir jobs because of failures to show learning out-comes in line with their approved five-year plans.But folks in a given local program may be a littlebit nervous if they can’t meet state goals. Somehave told me that they worry that their jobs maybe on the line.

Reply to Bob’s Question #2: States have always had the flexibility to articulate “qualitativedimensions” of the work of our field and our students. WIA does not prohibit such descriptions,either. It just does not include them in the coreindicators of learning. Instead, the NRS discussesimplementing the WIA requirements for data onlearning outcomes by suggesting a number of standardized tests with standards for indicating

achievement at each of the six levels of ABE andESOL. The NRS also permits other sorts of stan-dardized, quantitative indicators of learning such asperformance assessments that indicate learning ateach of the six levels of ABE or ESOL. Portfolioscan be used, too, but there must be some way ofproviding scores ranging from at least one to six sothat progress up through the six levels of learningcan be indicated. This may be done using variousscoring guides, that is, rubrics that permit theassignment of ranks to performance indicators.Whether or not most states will opt to use themore time-consuming methodology of perfor-mance/portfolio assessment over standardized testsis unknown by me. But at the present time, I think that most states have opted for traditionalstandardized tests. I have not found any thatpropose to use the TALS, the commercial version of the NALS, perhaps because it is too time consuming. (It uses performance tasks and hand-scoring of various responses using rubrics forscoring.) Apparently, ease of administration andscoring is a matter of some concern to programs. So maybe the search for qualitative dimensions(note that anything with dimensionality can bequantified!) may not be worth it to programs ifthey are too much trouble and too costly to use.

Reply to Bob’s Question #3: From what I have heard over the years talking with many teach-ers and administrators, almost everyone thinks thattheir program and their teaching reflects whatadults have said they want to know and be able todo over the years. In short, they seem to think theyhave been capturing what their adult learners havearticulated as their learning needs and desires. Butwhen some adult learner says he or she wants to be able to pass the driver license test, they don’tmean driver license tests in general, as some sort of general competency statement or “content stan-dard” such as “convey ideas in writing” or “solve

NIFL-NLA listserv

Spring 2001

The New Accountability Requirements

15

problems and make decisions” or “completes appli-cation forms” but rather as the specific vocabularyuse, reading, writing, spelling, problem solving,and decision making they have to do to pass thespecific test they have to take in their state andlocale to get their driver license. But the sorts ofthings they have to learn in the specific do notusually show up on the general assessment toolsthat are based on broader competency or learningcontent standards, such as the TABE, ABLE,AMES, NALS, TALS, CASAS, or any other stan-dardized tests. Hence, though programs may strivecontinuously “to listen/hear and respond with aneven richer set of teaching and learning experi-ences,” they do not always make much happen thatshows up on the assessment devices that are usedfor accountability. In my experience, this appears to be what frustrates lots of teachers and learnersabout various attempts to create generally applica-ble content standards and the present stock ofassessment tools. In going from the specific to thegeneral, most of the actual learning seems to getstripped away.

Reply to Bob’s Question #4: Most of theteachers and administrators I have spoken with arenot afraid of accountability with consequences solong as the accountability is based upon what theythink they can do and are doing as adult educators.They express some concern about being heldaccountable for things like job placement andincome earnings, which they see as beyond theirprofessional responsibilities. They express concernabout the use of standardized tests like thoseincluded in the NRS guidance papers because they do not seem to relate much to what they areteaching and they think the tests do not accuratelyreflect what learning does take place in their pro-grams (see above). Regarding those they serve,survey after survey has rewarded teachers andadministrators with positive feedback statements

from those they serve. If funding was based on theaccountability reflected in the praise adult learnershave for their teachers and programs, the AdultEducation and Literacy System (AELS) in theUnited States would not be in the obscenely under-funded position it is presently in.

George Demetrion, Director of LiteracyVolunteers of Greater Hartford, in ConnecticutThis is an excellent and highly relevant discussionon standards. Thanks to Regie Stites for definingthe term, “rubric.” I think I get that now. Whetherit’s the GED writing test or EFF standards, variouscriteria areassigned a number(or, to use NRS terminology, alevel) that wouldallow a quantita-tive measure.Regie feels thatthey could bemade to work atthe state level foraccountability aswell as instruction,though Tom Stichtargues that most states in the current NRS require-ments are opting for the easier-to-administer standardized tests. One wonders also, in light ofthe NRS mandate and time frame, how many statesare willing and perhaps able to incorporate themore qualitative indicators of assessment that well-constructed rubrics (depending on what they’relinked to) might begin to capture. As Regie pointsout, there’s much more than rubrics involved inestablishing good assessment measures. And eventhe development of these within a state contextthat would involve more than the few “pilot” states that are attempting this now in response tothe NRS would be a long way off, if ever. In the

Most of the teachersand administrators Ihave spoken withare not afraid ofaccountability withconsequences solong as the account-ability is basedupon what theythink they can doand are doing asadult educators.

meantime, states have to respond to the pressingrequirements of the NRS at this time, and most aregoing to rely on standardized tests.

This brings us then to Bob Bickerton’s pointon the freedom and flexibility allowed by theWIA. . . . [G]iven the complexity of the issue—creating relevant standards that capture significantaspects of what students achieve through participa-tion in adult literacy/ESOL and GED classes, inways that are meaningful and can be applied toinstruction as well as used for reporting purposes—does the WIA legislation facilitate that process orretard it? In theory it could do both, yet as Tompoints out, the practical impact is that in the vastmajority of states, it is only going to reinforce thepervasive tendency already to rely on standardizedtests as the “primary” measure, premised, obviously,on the quantitative metaphor. I recently purchaseda book from Peppercorn Press that addresses theissue of assessment. (This is an excellent clearing-house of student-generated and Freirian-inspiredresources located at 693 Snow Camp, NC 27359,telephone (336) 574-1634. Give them a call ifyou’d like to obtain a catalogue.) The book, calledLanguage and Communication, identifies the follow-ing principles for assessment:

1. Assessment should reflect what has actually been taught.

2. Assessment should serve instructionrather than drive it.

3. Assessment should fit in with theapproach to teaching and reflect its value system.

4. Assessment should yield reliable and valid results.

5. Assessment should give learners a sense oftheir own progress.

6. Assessment should not be culturally orlinguistically biased.

7. Assessment should allow for comparisonsof learner progress within and betweenprograms.

8. Assessment should be integrated withininstruction (formative) and be incorporatedat the end of learning cycles (summative).

These are obviously big challenges, and noone’s saying development of assessment standardsbased on these principles is easy. My concern is,given the current climate based on the quantitativeand reductionism mandates of the NRS/WIA,these principles aren’t even on the radar screen.They may be “nice,” but don’t count in the “realworld” of policy, power, and funding.

If there is a wayout of this morass, Idon’t know, but I’dlike to briefly sketchout a possible world.First, any way out ofthis morass wouldrequire at least a one-year moratorium onthe imminent imple-mentation of theNRS. Very difficult,to be sure, since theNRS train has wellleft the station. Butan imminent train wreck is on the horizons. I say,“Stop! Halt! Screech! Watch Out! Put on theBrakes!” There is simply no way, given currentpressures and limitations of resources, that thecurrent ABE system can step up to the plate, asboth Bob and Regie are suggesting, to create thekind of complex, multi-dimension assessmentsystem needed to come close to capturing theactual learning that is taking place in classroomsand tutoring sessions across this great land. Whilein principle the NRS allows for freedom and flexi-

Literacy Harvest16

NIFL-NLA listserv

As long as adultliteracy is viewedas a subset ofcurrent socialpolicy linked tothe maintenanceof the globaleconomy, themore narrow viewof the field asimplied by theWIA/NRS willprevail.

Spring 2001 17

The New Accountability Requirements

bility (that Tom says the states already had withoutthe NRS), the reality is that it will only reinforcethe current emphasis on quantification, standard-ization and a very limited legitimate view of adultliteracy education. That is the reality.

Is there another model? Here’s one that wouldneed much amplification. At the end of eachfunding cycle the state office would have to issue anarrative report on the programs that are funded byfederal money. The report would be based on thenarratives that the programs provided that thenwould be summarized, synthesized, and analyzedby the state offices of adult education. This wouldbe an ongoing progress report. A broad range ofinformation would go into the report at both thelocal and state level and there would be no need ofa “one size fits all” approach. May 1,000 flowersbloom. Obviously, certain criteria would be needed,though the plurality of the system in a given statewould also be respected. (Why should a town-runABE program be judged on the same criteria as acommunity-based literacy program?)

This scenario would include quantitativeinformation, but more as support (secondary measures) that would amplify or help explain the primary story told through narrative. In thisscenario, sampling—rather than focusing on quantitative information on each student—wouldbe more pervasive. Given the narrative focus, therewould be an emphasis on development such as:

a. This is where we’ve been.

b. This is what we attempted to achieveduring this funding cycle.

c. This is what we actually accomplished,including unanticipated breakthroughsand a whole host of projects and initia-tives that flowed out of our work

d. These are the problems that we stillhave—some of which we have the capacityto improve on, some of which we don’t,given current resources.

e. This is where we’d like to go for the nextfunding cycle.

This report could be developed by a representa-tive team from both the field and the state officewith consultative support from a research institute.The information would flow back to the programsas well as upward to the federal government andwould be a format to stimulate discussion, analysis,and program development as well as “data” fornational accounting. I could go on here, but youget the point.

Improbable, you say. Perhaps so, given thecurrent official mentality grounded in the assump-tions of standardization, quantification, and “objec-tivity,” behind all of which is a quest for control—control of the system, of the information, and ofthe lives of the students to be channeled withincertain realms of behavior—get a job, get offwelfare, stay out of jail, vote, read to your kids. As long as adult literacy is viewed as a subset ofcurrent social policy linked to the maintenance ofthe global economy, the more narrow view of thefield as implied by the WIA/NRS will prevail. Abroader and humane view would move in a direc-tion like the one I am suggesting or in somesimilar way that captures the qualitative dimen-sions of what our field is about.

To assume that my suggestion is “subjective” as opposed to the “objectivity” provided by a quan-titative, measurable, and standardized format thatdrives the assumptions of the NRS is to assumethat numbers accurately depict reality rather thaninterpret it. I do not make that assumption.

18 Literacy Harvest

At times it seems that everything there is to say about testing and assessment in adult

literacy has been said. By now, practitioners andadministrators alike can cite the shortcomings ofstandardized tests using multiple-choice formatsand are familiar with the inadequacy of grade levelsas indicators of what adult learners know and areable to do.

Yet paper-and-pencil multiple-choice testscontinue to be used not only as placement instru-ments but as measures of learner gains and evidenceof program success. Given current report-ing requirements, their use is likely toincrease, at least in the near future.

From the perspective of programs,there seem few viable alternatives thatwould meet the information needs offunders interested in reliable data that indicate howa program is doing overall. Portfolio approaches,for example—considered the last great hope a fewyears back—have not matured to the level wherethey might be used to report and aggregate learnergains by group (although they are invaluable asevidence of individual learner progress), largelybecause the field has not invested in the develop-ment of benchmarks and rubrics.

Local approaches have remained just that, local approaches, primarily because there has notbeen enough field testing to establish the reliabilityof these measures and there have not been sufficientefforts to implement alternative assessments acrossprograms. Even programs that have been enthusi-astic about developing an assessment system that captures what they consider to be worthwhileoutcomes are becoming distressed about theprospects of an alternative system being able torival the standardized tests currently in fashion.

It is an unfortunate fact of adult literacy thatprograms that help those “hardest to serve”—forexample, learners who are both new to Englishand new to literacy—have the greatest difficulties

showing gains, not only because their learners needa great deal of time until progress is evident, butbecause the kind of progress they are making is noteasily captured by standardized multiple-choice,paper-and-pencil tests. In addition, programs that

Assessment and AccountabilityA Modest Proposal by Heide Spruck

Wrigley

It is entirely possible to design a frameworkthat allows learners to demonstrate what

they can say and understand in Englishdespite limited proficiency.

Reprinted by permission from Adventures in AssessmentVolume 11 (Winter 1998), SABES/World Education.

Spring 2001 19

Assessment and Accountability

serve these students—often community-based organizations—don’t have the resources to set uptesting alternatives appropriate for a low-literacypopulation.

There is a danger, then, that programs willdecide to focus their efforts on those students whomost easily advance, in a process known as “cream-ing.” ESOL programs, for example, might decide tofocus the curriculum on immigrants with higherlevels of education rather than serving ESOL literacy students.

Alternative Testing for Low-Literate Students

What might an assessment that measures the incre-mental changes that occur at the initial levels oflanguage and literacy development look like?

It is entirely possible to design a frameworkthat allows learners to demonstrate what they can say and understand in English despite limitedproficiency. It is also possible to design a “can-do”literacy assessment, of the type first suggested byLytle and Wolfe, based on the kinds of texts andtasks that those new to literacy deal with every day.Tasks could be designed that allow learners toselect pieces of print that they can recognize fairlyeasily, as well as some items that give them somedifficulty and others that pose a still greater chal-lenge. For instance, the range of items for onelearner might include a McDonald’s logo, salesigns, 50% off promotions, the learner’s own streetaddress, and a letter from the INS or TANF office.After selecting these print pieces, learners read theitems once together with the friendly teacher/facili-tator/ assessor and then try a few text pieces thatthey have selected on their own.

The assessor rates individual performance on ascale without making a big deal of it. On the thirdround, the assessor might select an item that isslightly more difficult than the previous one,

again encouragingthe person to discussthe item and inter-pret what it says.Through assessmentsof this sort, weshould be able to tell to what extentlearners can handle a variety of literacytasks at varyinglevels of confidenceand proficiency. Wewould see evidenceof skills worthhaving, such astelling an electricity bill from a phone bill or anotice from the INS from a notice from school.

This technique—asking learners to select tasksthat they can do with confidence as a starting pointfor assessment and moving up from there—is notlimited to the domains of practical literacy. Forthose interested in the subtasks of reading, one-on-one student-initiated assessment can show to whatextent learners have developed the phonemicawareness that allows them to select familiar wordsthat start with the same consonant or to identifywords that rhyme. Those interested in basic writingproficiency can ask learners to select an evocativephotograph or some other prompt, discuss it withthe facilitator, and then write the response.

Building an AssessmentFramework That YieldsWorthwhile Results

Developing an assessment that captures gains at thelower levels is only the starting point in a largereffort to build a system that works.

Other efforts are needed at both the local andthe state levels so that we don’t end up with anaccountability system driven by what current stan-

If we want thequality of adult literacy toincrease, we needan approach thatmeasures to whatextent learnersare acquiring theknowledge, skills,and strategiesthat matter in thelong run.

Literacy Harvest20

Wrigley

In the course of a three-hour workshop facilitated by Jane McKillop of City College in1998, the literacy staff of the Brooklyn Public Library (BPL) Literacy Program defined a

rubric for scoring learners’ writing samples. The rubric defines five levels, with descriptorsfor each level, so that literacy instructors can report student progress in a way that bothinstructors and funders can understand.

BPL literacy staff brought to the workshop writing samples representing the full contin-uum of writing skills among BPL learners. McKillop broke the staff members into workinggroups and instructed them to begin by defining characteristics of writing at either end ofthe four-level scale she proposed. Thus the groups first defined what constitutes a “1” and a“4” writing sample, attaching the samples they had brought as examples. The small groupsreported back to the whole group, which then discussed and reached agreement on thecharacteristics of writing at the ends of the scale.

Having defined the ends, the groups tackled the middle levels using the same process.They decided, based on the writing samples, that there were three, not two, levels in themiddle of the scale, so that they ended up with a five-level scale of writing skill:

1. New writer2. Emerging writer3. Developing writer4. Fluent writer (since amended to “Confident/Fluent”)5. Independent writerEach of the five levels on the scale has 9–11 defining characteristics. Below are portions

of the descriptors for the first two levels, as they have been refined since the 1998 workshop:

After the rubric had been in use for several months, the literacy staff met to discusswhat did and didn’t work, making modifications that included revisions to descriptors andthe change in name noted above for level 4.

A rubric is valuable for both instructional and reporting purposes. When a teacherdescribes a learner’s writing skill as a “4,” another teacher knows what she means and howto begin instruction with that learner. An instructor can report, “James has moved frombeing a 1 writer to being a 3 writer because his writing now shows the following character-istics.” The program as a whole can report progress that funders can understand. By scoringa baseline writing sample at the beginning of the semester and a second sample at the endof the semester, the program can show how many learners progressed and by how much.At this writing, BPL is in the process of developing a reading rubric to be piloted in the earlysummer of 2001.

EMERGING WRITER

♦ Can write name and address

♦ Can write simple sentences

♦ Uses invented spelling

♦ Knows letters can be written inupper- and lowercase

NEW WRITER

♦ Can write or copy own name

♦ Can write or copy part or all ofown address

♦ Can write or copy simple words

♦ May invent spelling

♦ Does not distinguish upper- andlowercase letters

DEVELOPING A WRITING RUBRIC AT THE BROOKLYN PUBLIC LIBRARY

Spring 2001 21

Assessment and Accountability

dardized tests are able to measure. If we want thequality of adult literacy to increase, we need anapproach that measures to what extent learners areacquiring the knowledge, skills, and strategies thatmatter in the long run: how well they are gainingmeaning from various print sources important totheir lives, communicating their thoughts and ideas,learning how to learn, using resources effectively,and learning with and from others—along with thesub-skills that help learners become increasinglymore proficient in these areas.

At the local level, a three-pronged approachmight be necessary. Literacy practitioners will need to:

1. Find a way to live with the currentlyavailable standardized tests, keeping inmind the principle of “first, do no harm.”

2. Convince the state that the data aprogram has provided over the years are atleast as valid and reliable as standardizedtests such as the TABE, and that theprocess should therefore continue.

3. Work with others to develop an assess-ment system that reflects the realities ofadult learners’ lives and focuses on whatparticipating programs have deemed to be the core sets of knowledge, skills, andstrategies.

Components of an AlternativeAssessment System

What might be the components of such a system?To start with, any program concerned about servingdifferent groups of learners equally well needs tocollect demographic information in order tocapture the learner characteristics and experiencesthat affect school success. In order to see whichlearners are being served and which are not, weneed to know:

♦ What learners want and need to do withEnglish and literacy, given their currentcircumstances and their goals for the future

♦ How much schooling they have had andhow successful they were

♦ What print and communication chal-lenges they face in their everyday lives

This descriptive information allows us to seewhich learners are succeeding in our programs andwhich are languishing (or leaving) because theirneeds are not being met.

The information can be collected in profilesthat travel with the student and to which teachersand learners contribute on an ongoing basis. Inaddition to background variables such as age,employment status, years of schooling, country oforigin, and languages spoken, these profiles can:

♦ Capture current literacy practices: who isnow speaking to the doctor without atranslator, who has started to pick up anewspaper to check the weather

♦ Chart shifts in learner goals

♦ Record changes in life circumstances thatare important to stakeholders, such as a newjob, citizenship, or economic self-sufficiency

In such profiles—also known as “runningrecords”—progress can be captured as it occurs,requiring a teacher to write only a line or two at atime for two or three students per class. Profileshave the added advantage of encouraging teachersto create opportunities for learners to discuss whatis happening in their lives as the teacher observes.Such profiles can be connected with portfolios thatdemonstrate student progress through writingsamples, reading inventories, and performancetasks. If a standardized test is used, results can beincluded in the profile as well, helping to flesh outthe general picture of achievements and struggles.

Literacy Harvest

Wrigley

22

From Learner Success toAccountability

While an approach that combines rich profiles andindividual portfolios will produce important infor-mation on individual students and provide insightsinto the relative success of certain learner groups,such an approach does not, in and of itself, yield the kind of data needed for accountability. After all, we cannot ship boxes of profile folders tofunders to have them realize what a great job we are doing. To make profiles work for funders, afurther step is needed, one that yields data in aggregate form so that policymakers can get apicture of the shape and size of the forest, not just a close-up of the trees.

If a program wants to create an assessment that works double duty as the basis for bothprogram improvement and accountability, it must develop scales, rubrics, and benchmarks that indicate the expectations for any given leveland show to what degree learners are acquiring theknowledge, skills, and strategies that are a core partof the curriculum.

Rubrics indicate both what the expectationsare for any given area—such as face-to-face commu-nication, dealing with print, accessing resources,and so on—and what constitutes evidence ofsuccess. The scales that accompany the rubrics allow programs to document where learners fall ona continuum of proficiency, showing what they cando with relative ease, where they succeed with somehelp, and where they are struggling.

Since rubrics and scales can be designed for different skill domains—SCANS skills, communi-cation strategies, navigating systems, civic involve-ment, learning how to learn, empowerment, and so on—and for various contexts—school, family,community—they can easily be matched to thegoals of learners and adapted to the focus of a

particular program. They also allow students tocontrol task selection as discussed above.

Once rubricsand scales are inplace, meetingaccountabilityrequirements thatcall for aggregatedata becomes rela-tively easy. Sincethe descriptors on ascale can be num-bered—say, from 1for “struggles” to 6for “no problem”—assessment resultscan be compiled,summarized, ana-lyzed, and reportedout. If matchedwith demographicprofiles, theseresults allow aprogram to seewhich groups oflearners are beingwell served andwhere the program must change in order to serveother groups better.

The Pros and Cons ofAlternative Assessment

The beauty is that this approach functions as standardized tests do: learners are assessed on avariety of skills under standard conditions withcommon instruments on similar tasks, even as theyare given choices in task selection and affordedmultiple opportunities to shine. However, unlikethe standardized tests currently available, profileassessments do not rely on multiple-choice, paper-

If a program wantsto create anassessment thatworks double dutyas the basis forboth programimprovement andaccountability, itmust developscales, rubrics, and benchmarksthat indicate theexpectations forany given level andshow to whatdegree learnersare acquiring theknowledge, skills,and strategies thatare a core part ofthe curriculum.

Spring 2001

Assessment and Accountability

23

and-pencil items. Rather, they give learners theopportunity to demonstrate what they can do with language and literacy through more open-ended assignments.

Furthermore, profile approaches to assessmentcan be adapted for specific learner groups and mod-ified to match the focus of a particular program, beit workplace education, family literacy, citizenship,or whatever. Most importantly, perhaps, profilesprovide rich information that makes sense to teachers and learners—information that is useful to programs, not just to funders.

Why then, are we not seeing more of this kindof assessment? While they are both worthwhile andvalid, such assessments carry a significant burden:they require a consensus both on what is worthteaching and learning and on what evidence ofsuccess looks like for any given skill domain. To be successful, profiles and portfolios have to beintegrated into the curriculum. Either ongoingassessment must be part of day-to-day teaching, or time must be set aside at intake to establish a baseline and toward the end of a teaching cycle to document progress. If that means the end ofopen-entry/open-exit as we know it and forces usinto shorter instructional cycles that have a clearteaching/learning focus, so be it. To give such aframework a chance, a significant amount of teacherorientation, training, and buy-in will be needed.

Not many adult literacy programs have thecommitment, energy, and resources to embark onthat endeavor. However, given sufficient advocacyfrom local programs—along with a modicum ofpolitical will on the part of state directors and otherfunders—teams, working groups, and consortiacould be set up to develop assessment frameworksthat are based on, or at least include, profiles.

Where We Go from Here

What then is the bottom line, given the currentclimate of accountability for accountability’s sake? We have two options: we can decide that cynicism is the only sane response to the currentrequirements, live with standardized tests as best as we can, and try to lay low, figuring “this too shall pass”; or we can commit ourselves tofighting for a saner system for our own sake andthat of our students.

On the local level, we must be prepared towork with others to decide on the focus of our programs and to map out core sets of knowledge,skills, and strategies. At the federal level, we mustpush for an accountability system that is driven notby what the current standardized tests are able toassess, but by outcomes that reflect what soundadult literacy programs should be all about.Furthermore, if we are asked to be accountable for outcomes and impacts, we must be given theresources to document success in meaningful ways.

Finally, while we may need to play the account-ability game for the time being, we can work towardbuilding a system that measures effectiveness whereit counts—a system that shows adult learnersacquiring the kinds of knowledge, skills, andstrategies that are important to them now and thatmatter in the long run. If we give up too soon, wewill only marginalize adult literacy further.

ReferenceLytle, S. L., & Wolfe, M. (1989). Adult literacy edu-

cation: Program evaluation and learner assessment.Information series no. 338. Columbus OH:Center on Education and Training forEmployment. (ERIC Database #ED315665)

Literacy Harvest24

T he 2000-2001 school year has been a tryingone for those of us in leadership positions in

adult education programs in New York City. Thestate and city agencies that fund our programs havehanded down an array of new procedures, structures,and requirements for intake, assessment, levelplacement, goal setting and impact follow-up. The details of these new requirements were spelledout in a plan developed by the New York StateEducation Department in response to federal man-dates included in the Workforce Investment Act(WIA) and the National Reporting System(NRS). Because decisions about futurefunding will be made in part on the basis ofhow well our programs meet a variety of per-formance targets under the new guidelines,adult education program managers have beenunder pressure to adjust program structures and procedures to enable us to deliver impressivestatistics in various WIA/NRS categories.

This adjustment has been complicated by a number of factors. Many of the guidelines in the state plan are vague or confused; some seem contradictory or unrealistic. Implementing the newmandates requires significant extra staff time and

resources, but for months it appeared that programswould receive no additional funding. Ultimately,most programs did receive modest increases, but notnearly enough to implement the new requirements.Furthermore, funding decisions were not made untilthe middle of September, when most programs’intake and initial assessment processes were alreadyunderway. Meanwhile, central data systems, strug-gling with unclear guidelines and complicated newrequirements, were slow to adapt their structures toWIA and NRS frameworks.

Fortunately, state and city literacy officials andstaff from the Literacy Assistance Center, whichmanages New York City’s central adult educationdata system, have been open to ongoing dialoguewith practitioners. After several meetings, someareas of confusion have been clarified and someunrealistic expectations have been altered. Still,more than halfway through the school year, anumber of key issues remain unresolved and datasystem problems continue. Feelings of frustration

What’s It All About? Reflections on the Workforce Investment Act andIts Implementation in New York State and City

by Paul Wasserman

Adult education program managers havebeen under pressure to adjust program

structures and procedures to enable us todeliver impressive statistics.

Author’s note: The following is an abridged and updated version of a piece that originally appeared in amanual published by adult education staff developers from the CUNY (City University of New York) Officeof Academic Affairs in September 2000. The manual compiled recommendations for intake and assessmentprocedures developed by adult educators from throughout CUNY during a series of summer workshops. Theseworkshops provided a context for teachers and program managers to explore common approaches for implementingthe requirements of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and the National Reporting System (NRS), federalundertakings seeking to restructure and systematize key aspects of the work of adult education programs.

Spring 2001 25

What’s It All About?

and resentment have been widespread amongprogram administrators—accompanied, for many of us, by an underlying concern that the newrequirements reflect policy agendas to which we are deeply opposed.

As a program manager, I have been grapplingall year with the challenges presented by the needto implement WIA requirements. In the process,I’ve worked closely with colleagues at my homebase in the Lehman College Adult Learning Center,with fellow program managers and staff developersin the City University of New York (CUNY) adulteducation community, and with practitioners fromcommunity-based programs throughout New YorkCity. Together, we’ve tried to devise strategies forcomplying with WIA and NRS requirements thatmake sense for our programs, meet the needs of our students, and correspond with the visions andvalues that underlie our work as educators. For me, this effort has included maintaining a criticalstance toward the larger frameworks that are generating the changes coming our way and speaking out against aspects of WIA and its implementation that seem problematic. Whatfollows is an overview of some key WIA-relatedissues. While the opinions expressed are my own,they grow out of extensive discussions with manycolleagues, and express, I believe, concerns that arewidespread among adult educators.

Fuzzy Benchmarks

I feel strongly that the whole endeavor at the heartof the WIA/NRS system to evaluate programsbased on their ability to reach percentage targetsfor key “indicators of program effectiveness” isfraught with pitfalls. For one thing, many of thepercentage benchmarks seem quite arbitrary. I amalso concerned about the population base againstwhich percentage targets will be calculated. Sincestudents enter programs at various points during

the school year, to expect the same levels of gain orjob placement for students with only a few monthsin a program as for students who have been in classesfor an entire year seems neither fair nor logical.

On the other end of the scale, WIA and NRSindicators provide no way of measuring studentprogress over the course of two or more years.Given the educational deficits with which manystudents enter adulteducation programs,it is unrealistic toexpect them to showsignificant gain afteronly 100 or 200hours in classes, theonly time frames inwhich the new guide-lines—as well as previous ones—allowus to measure educa-tional gain. WIA andNRS proceduresprovide no mecha-nism for measuring the profound growth we oftensee in students over the span of two or more years.

Yet the ability to retain a significant number ofstudents and help them progress over a period ofseveral years is perhaps the most significant indica-tion of program effectiveness. The entire structureof relying on one-year-only percentage targetsraises a fundamental question: Is our goal to movestudents through our programs as quickly as possi-ble—to zip them through a few classes, record theirdata, and send them off into the workforce? Or isour goal to work with students for as long as ittakes to help them grow and attain their goals aslearners? The question brings up fundamentalphilosophical issues about the purposes of our workas adult educators.

Is our goal tomove studentsthrough our pro-grams as quicklyas possible? Or isour goal to workwith students foras long as ittakes to helpthem grow andattain their goalsas learners?

Literacy Harvest26

Wasserman

Philosophical Issues

Vibrations from the political frameworks shapingeducational policy at all levels of governmentpulsate throughout the state and federal WIA andNRS documents. The documents reflect the themesthat have shaped the dominant dialogues amongpolicymakers in the 1990s: an emphasis on workpreparation as the primary purpose of education, areliance on high-stakes standardized testing as theprimary measure of student ability and programeffectiveness, a desire to apply the values and logicof the marketplace to the world of education.

Certainly, some of the language in New YorkState’s Workforce Investment documents pulls inother directions: a continuing emphasis on educa-tional goals, an acknowledgement of the need fornon-standardized assessment tools, a stated com-mitment to providing education for those most inneed. One can almost feel the tensions at work inthe larger political arena playing themselves outhere in the adult education world, as those assignedto write the New York State guidelines seek to pre-serve some of the traditional language and valuesframing past dialogues in the adult education fieldwhile striving to implement the new agendas of the policymakers.

This tension also leads to varying interpreta-tions of the ultimate significance of the newsystems adult education programs are being askedto work under. For some, WIA/NRS structuresmainly involve changes in language, not in sub-stance. Programs, according to this interpretation,may have to tinker with intake procedures and datasystems, but the nature of our work won’t beaffected. But for others, there is great concernabout the future of adult education. From thisview, the thrust of adult education policy andfunding decisions in recent years seems to indicatea lack of commitment on the part of policy makers

to support meaningful and effective educationalprograms for low-income adults.

Work Preparation

“We are educators, not job developers.” This senti-ment, voiced frequently by many in the adult edu-cation field, expresses a widespread concern thatfunders and policymakers are seeking to shift thefocus of our work. The change from the AdultEducation Act (AEA)—the original federal legisla-tion providing funding for adult education programs—to theWorkforce InvestmentAct—into which AEAhas essentially beenfolded—seems intendedto signal such a shift infocus and emphasis.The majority ofCongress seems to feel that education inand of itself is not asignificant enough undertaking to warrant even aminimal commitment of funds unless it can be justified as contributing to the process of preparingpeople for work. Adult educators have already feltthe impact of this attitude in the context of welfarereform legislation and the subsequent removal ofmost students on public assistance from adult education programs. Placement in workfare assign-ments and low-wage jobs with no future wasdeemed more important for low-income studentsthan allowing them to continue their education.

Certainly, helping adult students betterprepare for meaningful and rewarding workinglives is one of the central goals of our programs,and getting a good job is a prime motivating factorfor most of our students. But many of us have a different understanding of how the educationalprocess can serve this goal than do the workforce

Our hopes forthe kinds ofworking livesadult studentscan build differsgreatly from thenotions of thepolicymakers.

Spring 2001 27

What’s It All About?

investment planners, and our hopes for the kinds ofworking lives adult students can build differsgreatly from the notions of the policymakers.

I for one am not interested in helping provide astream of bodies for low-wage, oppressive labor. Idon’t believe that the existence of high levels ofunemployment and the need for public assistancein poor communities is a problem caused primarilyby the inadequacies of the people in those commu-nities. The fact that unemployment rates droppedsignificantly during the recent economic “boom”indicates to me that unemployment results fromstructural realities in the economy, not from lazi-ness or lack of skills on the part of the unemployed.

Behind all the talk of “jobs first” and “work-force investment” lies a fundamental avoidance ofresponsibility on the part of policymakers—aresponsibility to do something about the largerstructural realities that generate poverty and unemployment. One of the greatest sources of myuneasiness with the Workforce Investment projectis that it seems to be part of a broader undertakingto shift responsibility for dealing with deeplyrooted social inequalities onto the shoulders of poorpeople, poor communities, and the educational programs that serve them.

High-Stakes Testing

The reliance on standardized tests as the primarymeasure of student progress and program effec-tiveness in WIA guidelines is also part of a largernational trend. Linked to a determination to “raisestandards” and hold educational institutions“accountable,” the growing emphasis on standard-ized testing is having a profound impact on educa-tion at all levels. From elementary school throughcollege, standardized tests are reshaping the educational experience of virtually all students andteachers in New York and narrowing the opportu-

nities available to educationally disadvantaged students. The heightened emphasis of standardizedtests in WIA and NRS guidelines seems to be anattempt to bring the adult education world morefully aboard the standardized testing bandwagon.

For sure, we need to maintain high standardsfor adult education students and programs, and weneed to hold programs accountable for deliveringquality education to students. But using standard-ized tests as the primary measures of studentachievement and program effectiveness is not theway to do that. Thoughtfully constructed and uti-lized standardized tests certainly have an importantrole to play in the educational process, but theybecome detrimental to quality education and effec-tive teaching when they are given too much weightand used as a major determinant of funding,matriculation, and admission. Over-reliance onstandardized testing results in de-emphasizing andmarginalizing other assessment tools. It pushesclassroom instruction more and more in the direc-tion of test preparation, narrowing the space forinnovative and creative approaches to teaching andcurriculum development.

Even the best standardized assessment instru-ments capture only a narrow range of student abili-ties and progress. They penalize students whosestrengths and accomplishments are not centered onthe specific literacy skills and cognitive processesthe tests measure. In spite of all the concern aboutlow test scores, there is a continuing reluctance of political systems at all levels to provide theresources necessary for true educational reform or toaddress the deep inequities in education funding.In this context, the rush toward high-stakes testingappears to be another instance of policymakersavoiding responsibility for social inequality andseeking, instead, to blame the victims and thosewho directly serve them for the failures of schools

Literacy Harvest28

Wasserman

to provide quality education for students and communities most in need.

Within this broader context, the heightenedemphasis on standardized testing in WIA and NRSguidelines is particularly troubling. While there ismention of the importance of other assessmenttools, only student progress measured by standard-ized instruments is used to evaluate program effec-tiveness. Particularly troubling are the inadequaciesand inappropriateness of the standardized instru-ments we are required to use. The NYSPlace testrequired for use with ESOL students in New York

State, though useful as avehicle for initial place-ment, is inappropriate asthe only standardizedassessment of students’abilities and progress. Forone thing, it measuresstudents’ speaking andlistening abilities only,with no assessment ofreading or writing. Foranother, it loses whateverusefulness it has as anassessment tool when

administered over and over again, the same pictures,the same questions, the same scoring protocol.

Adult educators have long questioned the adequacy of the Test of Adult Basic Education(TABE), New York State’s required assessment forbasic education students. Especially troubling hasbeen the requirement this year that beginningreaders, who previously were not measured by stan-dardized tests, be pre- and post-tested with theTABE or some other standardized instrument. Atthe other end of the BE spectrum, there is wordthat the policymakers want to replace the GEDpractice test (the most appropriate and helpful of

all the standardized instruments we use) with theTABE as the vehicle for assessing GED studentsand measuring their progress.

In all areas—ESOL, BE and GED—decisionsabout assessment seem to be driven by the need ofdata systems for simplicity and standardizationrather than by any concern about what is helpful to students and teachers. To me, when it comes toassessment, policymakers appear to be putting datacollection in the driver’s seat and underminingsound educational practice in the process.

The Language of theMarketplace

New York State’s WIA guidelines show evidence of an attempt to bring the logic and language ofthe business world into the realm of education.Students are increasingly referred to as “clients”and “customers,” programs are to be measured interms of “customer satisfaction.” While subtle, this language is further evidence of how the largerpolitical climate leaves its imprint on adult educa-tion policy. The push for vouchers, the growingdrumbeat for privatization of various aspects of theeducational system, the demand that educationalinstitutions address the needs of the business com-munity—these are all manifestations of a trend toopen up more and more human endeavors to profitmaking and profit seekers. Many educators—myselfincluded—would, by contrast, insist that we areinvolved in an intensely human undertaking, cen-tered on the relationship between teacher andstudent and among students, all working togetherin the classroom as a community of learners andseekers and creators of knowledge. Those of us whohold that view must reject the growing intrusion of the values and needs of the marketplace into thesphere of education as a further expansion of thecommodification of human relations into aspects of life previously protected from it.

The rushtoward high-stakes testingappears to beanotherinstance ofpolicymakersavoidingresponsibilityfor socialinequality.

Spring 2001 29

What’s It All About?

Lack of Resources andSupport

Perhaps the area of greatest concern for me andmany of my colleagues has to do with the mis-match between the work we are being asked to doin implementing the WIA guidelines and theresources provided by the New York State and Cityagencies that fund us. Adult education programshave always been woefully underfunded. I am per-petually embarrassed by the low salaries of teachersand office staff in my program and by the fact thatmost teachers work part time and without benefits.

Clearly, adult education programs and studentsare not high on the list of priorities of those whomake decisions about educational policy and funding.Even though the language in adult education legis-lation and requests for proposals always includes acommitment to creating stable, full-time jobs inour field, the funding is never provided.

Unfunded Mandates

Implementing the requirements of WIA andNRS—at least, doing so seriously and thought-fully—requires a significant increase in staff timeand program infrastructure. More extensive andintensive testing requires devoting more time toadministering and scoring tests. Reconfiguredintake processes, with the added dimension of indi-vidualized goal setting with every student, requiremore time on the part of teachers, counselors, andoffice staff. The follow-up work needed to meetWIA requirements to track students’ work, college,and training experience is particularly labor-inten-sive. Tracking the new categories of data we arerequired to report has become more complex andoften involves revamping existing filing and datasystems. Planning time to implement the guide-lines and monitor the effectiveness of new systemsadds to administrative workloads.

If adult education policymakers and the stateand city agencies that implement the new policiesare serious about seeing programs carry out WIAmandates, they will naturally provide additionalfunding for programs to do the necessary work. Inspite of record surpluses, however, neither state norcity budgets provided any increase in adult educa-tion funding for FY2001. There was a modestincrease in federal adult education dollars awardedto states, but only a portion of that was passed onto adult education programs in New York.

In short, adult education programs have beengiven a series of unfunded mandates. We are beingasked to carry out acomplex set of newresponsibilities, explainedin guidelines that areunclear and often unwork-able, with the knowledgethat our future fundingmay depend on how wellwe implement thoseguidelines—and we arenot being given adequatefunding to facilitate this work.

Mutual Accountability

Further complicating our work has been anongoing string of delays and systems problems onthe part of the state and city agencies overseeingour work, as well as difficulties in adapting NewYork City’s centralized data system to the new andoften changing data requirements. Confusion onthe part of those overseeing WIA implementation,ongoing problems with the central data system,continuing delays in funding decisions and indelivery of funds, along with the overall inadequacyof our funding, put those of us who administeradult education programs in a difficult situation.

Playing [thedata manipula-tion] gamehelps validatedirections ineducationpolicy to whichwe are deeplyopposed.

Literacy Harvest

While we have been working hard to imple-ment WIA guidelines effectively, our fundingagencies do not seem to have a reciprocal sense of seriousness. They are putting in place detailedsystems to hold adult education programs account-able for our performance as measured by their indi-cators, yet we do not seem to have any way to holdthem accountable for the untenable situation inwhich they have put us. Accountability ought to bea two-way street.

Playing the Game?

There is a body of opinion among adult educatorsthat the situation we are in is manageable. Theconsequences for programs of all the changes man-dated by WIA may not be all that great. If we just,on paper, give the overseeing agencies some of thedata they want to see, funding will continue moreor less as it always has. If our overseeing agenciesare just going through the motions of making majorchanges in the adult education world, we shouldjust go through the motions too. Among adulteducators one hears, more and more openly, talk ofstrategies for how to get the data to look right. Ifwe cultivate the art of playing with numbers,everything will be all right. That manipulation is

the direction in which we feel ourselves pushed.And, face it, that is the way the world works.

But there’s a problem here. All too often, thatis the way the world works. Dishonest dialoguesabound, in the education world as elsewhere. But if we are serious about reforming education, if wereally are committed to examining our work carefully and making changes that will allow us to serve our students better, then we need honest,open dialogue, including real data about significantaspects of our work. Perhaps implementing WIAjust means going through the motions. Perhapsprograms will not suffer great consequences if wejust “get the data right.” But playing that gamehelps validate directions in education policy towhich we are deeply opposed. Our programs maysurvive, but the language of “workforce investment,”of “jobs first,” of standardized testing über alles willhold sway. Only by articulating firm humanisticperspectives on crucial issues and by demandingadequate resources and clear, realistic guidelinesfrom our funders can we ensure that the adult edu-cation field will continue as a community dedicatedto—and capable of—providing thoughtful, mean-ingful, and supportive education for our students.

30

Wasserman

Spring 2001 31

Adult Literacy Public Policy Organizingin MassachusettsA Participant’s Reflections

by David J. Rosen

In the early 1980s, a small group of adult learn-ing and out-of-school youth program practition-

ers created an informal urban coalition known asthe Boston Network for Alternative and AdultEducation. Many of us worked in under-funded community-based organizations.Some had a commitment to socialchange. We all felt isolated.

We met regularly and spent time learningabout each others’ organizations and about eachother. We organized professional development sessions for ourselves. We worked on persistentproblems in the field such as our lack of knowledgeabout what other programs were doing, our needfor more training, inadequate funding, and lowwages for teachers. This was one of the firstattempts by Massachusetts practitioners to makesome changes in the field.

We Got Better Organized

In the mid-1980s, three Boston-area practitionerscalled a meeting to organize a Literacy Day to bringpublic attention to adult literacy issues. The ambi-tious group that showed up decided that instead ofa literacy day, we needed an adult literacy organiza-tion. Thus was born, in 1987, the Massachusetts

Coalition for Adult Literacy. Originally run by volunteers, the coalition soon won a grant from theGannett Foundation, which was then providingsupport to new state literacy organizations in

several places across the country. The coalition’sboard hired two paid staff: a director and a full-time state literacy hotline coordinator. The boardalso firmly established its volunteer public policycommittee, whose job was to inform legislatorsabout the issues and to begin to organize the field.

This initial literacy coalition had three goals:

♦ To increase public awareness of adult liter-acy in Massachusetts

♦ To facilitate the coordination of informa-tion on available literacy, ABE, and ESOLservices through the statewide hotline andpublications

♦ To seek increased state resources for liter-acy, ABE, and ESOL programs

We accomplished this work through severalcommittees. One of these, the Legislative

The ambitious group that showed up decidedthat instead of a literacy day, we needed an

adult literacy organization.

Literacy Harvest32

Rosen

Committee, later known as the Public PolicyCommittee, sponsored legislative briefing days. Italso created a telephone tree through which wecould reach programs quickly with critical informa-tion on public policy activities.

There Have Been Hard Times

In 1989, when the Gannett grant ended, the coali-tion’s board continued to carry on much of the orga-nization’s work through volunteer efforts. The PublicPolicy Committee persevered even without staffassistance. The statewide hotline service also survived,sponsored by another state-funded organization.

A Merger Made Two WeakOrganizations into a SingleStrong One

In 1991, the original coalition merged with the Massachusetts Association for Adult and Continuing Education to form a new, strongerorganization, the Massachusetts Coalition for AdultEducation (MCAE). This new coalition has receivedfunding from the state Department of Education tosupport its professional development activities,funding that has strengthened and stabilized thecoalition’s efforts. MCAE also has revenue frommemberships and from a successful statewide annualconference. With these funds, the coalition hasbeen able to support a director and a staff assistant.

MCAE’s well-organized Public PolicyCommittee, still composed of volunteers, has con-tinued and expanded many of the efforts of theearlier organizations. For example, we:

♦ Hold regular monthly meetings

♦ Spearhead an annual legislator “meet andgreet” campaign, in which adult literacyprograms either invite legislators to visit

with students or send students, volun-teers, and others to visit legislators’ officesto talk about adult literacy needs andpresent services

♦ Hold legislative briefings

♦ Inform adult literacy programs aboutopportunities to testify at state andregional adult education hearings

♦ Have sponsored postcard campaignsthrough which students who are put onlong waiting lists for adult education services have informed their representa-tives about the need for more services (see page 35)

♦ Have collaborated with otherMassachusetts organizations, such as theadult education committee that advisesthe Board of Education and the state ABEDirectors’ Council, to develop new adultliteracy public policy

♦ Led a successful effort to include adultbasic education in the MassachusettsEducational Reform Act—the first timeABE was included in statutory language

♦ Sponsored statewide “Tax Teach-ins” tohelp students understand state tax policyand where their tax dollars go.

Fast, Effective CommunicationRequires Planning in Advance

Massachusetts has over 400 adult literacy, ABE,and ESOL programs. They are sponsored by community-based organizations, community colleges, volunteer organizations, public schools,corrections institutions, public libraries, companies,unions, and other organizations. Through the stateAdult Literacy Hotline, MCAE has informationabout all of these programs. Using this information,as well as its regularly updated list of members, theMCAE Public Policy Committee uses a telephonetree, fax list, and email to reach coalition membersand other practitioners across the state.

Spring 2001 33

Adult Literacy Public Policy Organizing in Massachusetts

We Work Closely withLegislators

Over the past several years, MCAE Public PolicyCommittee members have worked with keyMassachusetts legislators who have, in turn, formeda legislators’ Literacy Caucus. This group meetsperiodically, files and supports legislation, andattempts to influence the budget process. We havefound that having this kind of leadership and orga-nization within the legislative body is essential.Building and maintaining interest in adult literacyamong legislators is a critical function of a state

literacy public policygroup. The LiteracyCaucus provides a way for adult literacypractitioners to keeplegislators informed. Itprovides opportunitiesto strategize togetherto find or make oppor-tunities for possiblenew resources. And ithas protected adult lit-

eracy both from inadvertent havoc or dismantlingas a result of efforts to consolidate employment-related services and from attempted takeover byother state agencies. Caucus members have alsoprovided us with important insights about ourstate’s legislative process.

We Follow “Tip” O’Neill’sAdvice

But how do legislators become interested in adultliteracy as an issue? Former U.S. Speaker of theHouse Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill used to say, “Allpolitics is local.” We know many legislators—andformer Governor Michael Dukakis, as well—whowere moved by a conversation with someone whosaid he or she could not read or write or with

someone who was helped to read or write by a lit-eracy program. It is eye-opening when these peoplein need of reading and writing help are working in positions where high literacy skills are taken for granted. Sometimes they are people whom the politicians know personally, without havingknown about their reading and writing difficulty.

Inviting the state representative and senator tovisit the literacy program and talk with studentsmakes a difference. Inviting legislators to speak atgraduations also has an impact. Here are a coupleof examples of what working at the local level hasdone for us. Early on, during the Boston Networkdays, a group of practitioners working in one areaof Boston invited three state representatives tobreakfast at a local restaurant. (The legislators paidfor their own breakfasts.) These representatives hadworked together before on other issues, but onlyone was aware of adult literacy. After they learnedhow great the need was for adult literacy services,they agreed to co-sponsor an increase in the adultliteracy line item. For two of these representatives,this was a basic services issue for their constituents.For the third, it was primarily a moral issue;although few of her constituents needed literacyservices, she felt that everyone deserved the oppor-tunity to learn to read and write.

In the late 1980s, when half the funding for the local literacy initiative in Boston was lost because of cuts in Community DevelopmentBlock Grants, one adult literacy program, whichwould have lost funding, convinced its statesenator, the powerful senate president, to see to it that the state made up for these lost funds. He added a significant $2 million to the state-wide Department of Education line item for adult basic education.

Building andmaintaininginterest in adultliteracy amonglegislators is acritical functionof a state liter-acy public policygroup.

Literacy Harvest34

Rosen

We Create a Statewide PublicPolicy Agenda Each Year, But...

The MCAE Public Policy Committee forms anannual agenda each fall, often seeking advice andinformation from practitioners as well as from thestate Department of Education. However, thisagenda is usually buffeted by the unpredictablewinds of politics. One year we began with a goal ofincreasing funds but ended up fighting efforts tosubsume all literacy services under an employmentand training agenda. Another year we began withthe same goal and spent the year fighting disas-

trous cuts in funding.One year we claimedvictory because adultbasic education was theonly discretionary lineitem in the stateDepartment ofEducation that wasn’tcut. One year wefocused on getting morefunding and settled forgetting the first statu-tory language recogniz-ing the legitimacy ofadult basic education.In some years we suc-

ceeded in getting line item increases in the statebudget; for fiscal year 1999, for the fourth year in arow, we increased the Massachusetts Department ofEducation line item for adult basic education—by$7 million, a remarkable 70 percent increase infunding over a five-year period.

In fiscal year 2000, we asked for an additional$7 million. This amount was approved by thehouse, but not the senate. The house/senate confer-ence committee settled on $4 million, which wouldhave been fine with us. However, at the last minutethe governor, who has not been a supporter of adult

learning and literacy, vetoed the increase.Nevertheless, the community colleges succeeded inadding $2.9 million to the higher educationbudget for adult learning literacy. So funding hascontinued to increase in the state budget.

We Helped Create aCommittee to Look at Needand Supply

Five years ago, working with the MassachusettsDepartment of Education and several other stateagencies that support adult education, a task forcecommissioned by the legislature was asked to lookat the need and supply of adult education services.The committee chose to distinguish need, based oncensus data, from demand, based on waiting lists.The committee recommended to the MassachusettsBoard of Education—which voted unanimously toendorse its recommendation—and to the state leg-islature an increase of $35 million over five years inorder to meet current demand. We are well on ourway toward achieving this goal, having achievednearly 75 percent of it in the last five years.

The MCAE Public Policy Committee has setits agenda for FY2001. We will request $9 millionfrom the legislature. If we succeed, we will havereached the total of $35 million. We are alsorequesting that a new commission be established tore-examine need/demand and capacity and to makenew recommendations.

We Link with National Efforts

The Public Policy Committee has shown interest in national adult literacy issues and has beenexploring how we might contribute at this level.Our state organization has been drawn into thenational arena by such issues as:

♦ The Workforce Investment Act

One year webegan with agoal of increas-ing funds butended up fight-ing efforts tosubsume all literacy servicesunder anemploymentand trainingagenda.

♦ Efforts—so far largely unsuccessful—toinclude adult literacy programs in thetechnology section of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act

♦ Concern about proposed national effortsto consolidate literacy into employmentand training agendas.

Some members of the Public PolicyCommittee have joined an electronic list of over600 people across the country who are interested inadult learning and literacy policy. The National

Literacy Advocacy (NLA) list (www.nifl.gov/lincs/dis-cussions/nifl-nla/nla.html), we feel, is doing for adultliteracy nationally what the Boston Network didfor us locally: introducing us to each other and pro-viding a forum for discussion. Perhaps out of thiselectronic list and other national organizing efforts,such as the National Alliance for Urban LiteracyCoalitions and the National Coalition for Literacy,will grow a strong national movement of adult literacy public policy advocates, a movement madeup of strong local and state coalitions.

Spring 2001 35

Adult Literacy Public Policy Organizing in Massachusetts

Below is a description of a postcard campaign which literacy advocates and adult basic educationprograms in Massachusetts have used to call state legislators’ attention to long waiting lists forESOL and ABE services. This has been one of several strategies which, taken together, haveresulted in the state line item for adult basic education increasing by 700 percent in five years.

PROGRAMS OVERCOME RELUCTANCE TO KEEP WAITING LISTS

The campaign begins with program waiting lists. Some practitioners may not want to keep awaiting list. They try to serve immediately every student who applies, even if this means crowdedclasses led by unprepared teachers—which results in high dropout rates. They also may not wantto spend the time needed to keep accurate and up-to-date waiting lists. Some colleagues mustlearn that while it may be painful in the short run to put students on a waiting list, with theincreased resources resulting from the demonstrated demand, they can offer higher-quality ser-vices to even more students.

STUDENT APPLICANTS FILL OUT POSTCARDS

When a student comes to a program and is told about the waiting list, the student is also handeda postcard, which he or she can choose to fill out, with reading and writing assistance, if needed.A postcard might look like this:

Dear [the student writes in the name of his or her legislator], My name is [ ]. I live at [ ]. I have recently visited the [ ] programwhere I have been put on a [ ]-month waiting list to begin [English, basic literacy, GED]classes. I would like to begin classes right away. I hope you can help by providing the fundsthis program needs to offer classes for me and others on the waiting list.

ADVOCACY BRINGS CONCRETE RESULTS

With waiting lists and other strategies, we have increased the expenditure in Massachusetts from$44 per student per year in the early 1980s to nearly $2,000 per student per year now. Withthese resources we can provide higher quality: higher instructional intensity, better preparedteachers, universally accessible facilities with regular access to state-of-the-art technology, seriouscurriculum and staff development that meet high standards, and ultimately better outcomes forstudents.

THE MASSACHUSETTS POSTCARD CAMPAIGN

Literacy Harvest36

T here were so many Cinderellas. Their storiesechoed through the huge ballroom of the Galt

House in Louisville, Kentucky, which was filledwith 2,000 family literacy practitioner-teachers andadministrators who spend most of their days tryingto help parents and their children make the difficultjourney from poverty to self-sufficiency. The practi-tioners had come to Louisville in April 1999 toparticipate in the 8th Annual National Conferenceon Family Literacy. At every meal in that crowdedballroom, there were thunderous ovations inresponse to testimonials from parents who hadtransformed hardships into triumphs through thehelp of family literacy programs. As I joined manyother conference-goers in brushing away tears ofjoy and pain, I wondered whether family literacywould be as resilient as the parents at the podium,or would the work-first frenzy of welfare downsiz-ing shrink the grand coach into a pumpkin?

To answer that question, I reflected on what I learned from working as the Philadelphia fieldcoordinator of the Family Independence Initiative,a two-year pilot program of the National Center forFamily Literacy (NCFL) designed to examine theprocess of blending work readiness with family literacy. The NCFL model integrates four compo-nents: adult education, parent time, parent andchild together (PACT) time, and early childhoodeducation. Under a Knight Foundation grant, family

literacy programs in five U.S. cities piloted aprogram to provide pre-employment and post-employment support to families striving to make thetransition from welfare to work. In Philadelphia,three literacy providers worked with about 50 families in the Family Independence Initiativeproject, coordinated by the Mayor’s Commission on Literacy. Two of the Philadelphia programsserved families whose first language was Spanish, so that lack of English proficiency was an additionalbarrier to work for some.

Family Literacy SupportsWork Readiness

The experience of one family highlights the differ-ence between family literacy and programs thatfocus only on adult education. A mother in thefamily literacy program was successful in finding a job. Her joy in moving ahead with her life wasnot shared by her son, who started disrupting hiselementary school class and falling behind in hisstudies. Feeling torn between her roles as parentand worker, the mother talked to the staff of thefamily literacy program, and they worked out aplan. An AmeriCorps volunteer for National Schooland Community Corps would act as a big brotherfor her son. If the boy was having a bad day, he

Is There Room for Family Literacy in aWork-First Environment?

by Jamie Preston

Reprinted by permission from Momentum, June1999, National Center for Family Literacy.

Spring 2001 37

Is There Room for Family Literacy in a Work-First Environment?

could come up and sit with the AmeriCorps volun-teer and the mother’s former classmates until hewas calm enough to return to his own class. Afterschool, he would get tutoring from the AmeriCorpsvolunteer while the boy’s mother watched andlearned how to give him the help he needed. If the mother could not be there for the tutoringsession, her sister would sit in for her. Because ofthe program’s family focus, the mother got thesupport she needed to be able to do her best in hernew job, and her child got the attention he neededto do his best in school. In a program with a morelimited scope, the worried mother might well havebeen distracted enough to lose her new job, and theboy could have begun the downward spiral thatresults in failure in school.

That is not to say that programs providingonly adult education or work-readiness training arenot helping some parents make the transition fromwelfare to work. However, family literacy has theflexibility that allows it to provide more of the supports that parents and children need duringperiods of enormous change in their lives.

Success at Work and at Home

Another strength of family literacy is that many ofthe programs are set in public schools, where variedwork experiences are available. Parents may beginwith job shadowing in the cafeteria, day care, classrooms, main office, maintenance department,and nurse’s office. In doing so, they develop positive work attitudes, a repertoire of skills, and a feeling for what kinds of occupations theyprefer. They also establish the networks that leadmany of them into paid employment in the schoolsystem, which allows them to stay close to theirchildren during work hours.

In work-oriented family literacy programs, jobskills such as interviewing, résumé writing, andknowing how to dress for work are importantpieces of the curriculum. But family literacy pro-grams also stress that success at work begins at

home. If the program shows a parent how to care-fully map out plans for household management,transportation, childcare, meal preparation,homework sessions,and even playtimebefore entering theworkforce, the odds of the parent keepinga job are much better,and the family canmake more informeddecisions about eachmember’s roles andresponsibilities duringthe transition.

While the parentsare building the foun-dations they need forsuccess in the work-place, the cross-curricular approach of family literacy is preparingchildren for the changes that the whole family willface when the parent gets a job. The program alsoacts as a constant in the child’s life when other routines are shifting and provides a touchstone for the parent during the transition period.

On reflection, my answer to the question ofwhether family literacy is viable in a work-firstenvironment has led me to two more questions. For families facing multiple barriers to self-sufficiency, how can we expect anything less than a comprehensive program to unlock thepotential of parents and children and allow them to succeed in work and school? If we attempt totake shortcuts by investing only in programs oflimited scope, what kind of legacy will we have left for the children of the next century?

For familiesfacing multiplebarriers to self-sufficiency, howcan we expectanything lessthan a compre-hensive programto unlock thepotential ofparents and chil-dren and allowthem to succeedin work andschool?

Literacy Harvest38

A s adult non-readers go through life, most donot have any visions for their lives and are not

ready to seek literacy help. Because of past experi-ences, they think they’re incapable of learning howto read. Many live their whole lives hearing voicesinside them that keep telling them they cannotlearn to read. A seed must be planted in theirminds that motivates them to want reading help.They need to know they are not alone. But beforeadult non-readers can becomeadult learners, they need to lookinside themselves to find thedesire to conquer those “voices”and make the decision that theycan and will succeed. Then they can take control of their own lives. The people who do this are theones who better themselves.

Through the years, many reading programsand materials have been developed to teach adultlearners how to read. But for literacy in thiscountry to move forward, the people holding thereins in the literacy field will have to digest andunderstand this process that adult learners need to go through. Until this happens, all the testingand reading materials will not be very effective. Weshould support adult learners in any way possible

to help them conquer their “voices” and fears. Thenwe will have helped them to take their first step inchanging their lives.

The literacy field needs to be looking insidethe adult learners who are entering adult readingprograms. We should look for the things they cando well to build their confidence. Many adultlearners will never become good readers but can

develop good comprehension and communicationskills that will help them function very well in life.We need to stop asking adult learners to come upto society’s level of reading and writing. Instead,we should meet them at their level and make theinformation we use understandable to everyone.

After adult learners have left their literacy programs, they should have a comfortable locationto go to in order to keep up with the changingworld and to continue making improvements in

The Need for Leadership amongAdult Learners

by Archie Willard

Written for International Literacy Day 2000 andreprinted by permission.

Who can best speak to the issue of illiteracy?Someone who has written and studied about it or

someone who has lived it each and every day?

The Need for Leadership

Spring 2001 39

their lives. This place should be for adult learnersas well as for former adult learners who now havebecome lifelong learners. Because there arelibraries in almost every community, I thinklibraries across the nation would be the ideal solution. The American Library Association wouldbe a good partner for this lifelong learning process.

We also need a process to identify adult learn-ers who can become leaders and to develop adultlearner leadership to encourage and support thosewho need reading help to enter reading programs.Successful adult learners can and should becomerole models for others. Adult learners need to keepasking the literacy field again and again to let ussit at the literacy discussion table; that way somedaywe will be there. Who can best speak to the issue

of illiteracy? Someone who has written and/orstudied about it or someone who has lived it eachand every day? If we keep speaking out, somedaywe will be understood.

If our nation is going to prosper and grow,society cannot afford to have between 40 and 44million adults who are classified at the level of“functional illiterate.” It’s going to take a mutualeffort from many literacy providers to meet the literacy needs of our country. We must all worktogether to solve our literacy problems. We willknow this has happened by one way only: whenadult learners walk out of their literacy programsfor the last time with a vision for their lives andwith more hopes and dreams for the future thanpainful memories of the past.