Return-Path: <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id JAA01366; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:22:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:22:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5F6C7F4A7177D311A0C6002035687B8E04ACE8@exchange1.sos.state.mo.us> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Jones, Karen" <jonesk@sosmail.state.mo.us> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FAMILY:2749] RE: Family Literacy Policy Update X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Status: O Content-Length: 7616 Lines: 132 Is there any voice being raised to create alternative funding sources or streams for low-literate people where current funding cannot be used because of the structure and requirements of the funding? We all view things from the trenches in which we have worked: I work with library literacy programs and have taught in prisons and various community literacy classes. I don't think these concerns are at all unique to me. There seem to be several categories of people who will be excluded from services in just a few years under the current funding formulas and arrangements: 1) people who cannot reasonably get a GED or reach full literacy and need ongoing, life-long literacy support. (This probably includes a lot of folks who should be protected by ADA.) 2) adults who cannot progress upward at a steady pace but who would benefit from literacy classes that move them outward to a greater variety of literacy tasks and competencies at the level they can achieve 3) those whose time ran out and they were pulled from literacy/education programs and put in dead end jobs whether or not they were achieving (preempting these people's education does not benefit any of us) 4) anyone in a geographic area with shrinking population or where there isn't enough population to sustain the numbers required for an educational program funded under WIA or related acts. Libraries, faith-based organizations, civic organizations, and other local literacy organizations would often be willing to serve these people if some funding with different strings attached were available. Accepting some alternative assessments and goals might help, as might different attendance demands for those employed and those not employed. And the people who need lifelong literacy/numeracy support are apparently without any help under new funding. As much as we wish this weren't so, these people exist and even if we cannot serve them out of compassion we can realize that it is better for all of us if they have the support they need. Preempting problems is better and nearly always cheaper than fixing the consequences.(Personally, I cannot escape the sense that the people who constructed WIA had never met very many real adults with literacy needs.) Another group that seem to be disenfranchised are organizations that do not have the size and staff to meet the full criteria of the requirements and state plans being developed even though they may be effectively offering literacy services. Many of these small organizations could help fill the cracks and provide services in areas of low population where there aren't services otherwise if only a little financial help were offered. Some of the "hardest to serve" adults and children might be effectively reached by small alternative programs. There also seems to be a large lack of funds for programs, activities, and efforts that support other local literacy programs but are not full scale literacy programs in themselves. (Libraries fall into this category so I am particularly aware of there efforts.) Collaboration is supposedly encouraged, but not supported financially. -----Original Message----- From: Tony Peyton [mailto:tpeyton@famlit.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 4:00 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-FAMILY:2740] Family Literacy Policy Update Family Literacy Policy Update: With President's Day this Monday, February 21, the U.S. House of Representatives will be off taking a breather before launching into a variety of legislation. At the same time, the Senate returns from a weeklong recess, with the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions gearing up for its consideration of Congress' major education legislation for the year -- reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Few can predict the final outcome of the second session of the 106th Congress. Politics will no doubt enter into deliberations, with education debate including a discussion of issues such as school vouchers, choice, and the proper role of the Federal government in education decision-making. Budget politics will also weigh heavily on education policymaking in Congress -- with a projected Federal budget surplus of as much as $1.9 trillion over the next 10 years fueling a protracted debate over the allocation of taxpayers dollars and pit domestic investment against tax cuts, defense spending, and a variety of competing interests. And, while politics often enters into the policy arena, 2000 promises to be an even racier time for the creation of education policy in Congress as Republicans and Democrats try to position themselves in the most favorable light with the public as they enter a watershed election which will choose a new President, one-third of the Senate and every Member of the House of Representatives. The promise of opportunities for family literacy prevail, however, with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce recently approving, on a bipartisan basis, legislation (H.R. 3222, Literacy Involves Families Together Act or LIFT) to renew and expand the federal Even Start program and Senate Education Committee Chairman Jim Jeffords (R-VT) promising to support efforts to increase the statutory authorized funding level for Even Start to $500 million which, if appropriate, would represent a more than tripling of the annual budget for the family literacy program. In addition to increasing the authorization for Even Start, LIFT would also encourage the use of Title I, Part A funds for family literacy services when appropriate. It would allow Even Start to serve children eight years of age and older if schools use Title I, Part A funds to pay a portion of the cost of the services. In regards to Migrant and Indian Even Start, the bill increases the set-aside from 5 percent to 6 percent once the appropriations for Even Start reach $200 million. Indian Even Start programs would also be required to coordinate with other family literacy programs operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). LIFT also requires that within 4 years of enactment that a majority of individuals, whose salaries are paid for with Title I, Part B funds, providing academic instruction as part of an Even Start program have an AA, Baccalaureate, or advanced degree in early childhood, elementary school, or adult education, or meet the State qualifications for early childhood, elementary school, or adult education. Finally, this bill funds research to find the most effective ways to improve literacy among adults with reading difficulties. This research is to be carried out by the National Institute for Literacy through an entity with experience in doing such research. While the House of Representatives has already agreed to ESEA reauthorization legislation in a piecemeal manner, the Senate plans to keep the measure intact in committee deliberations and on the floor of the Senate -- with as much as a month dedicated to debate and voting on the measure. Some of the greatest heroes, starting with House Education Committee Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA), will be retiring at the end of the current Congress. Chairman Goodling is committed to instilling family literacy in federal programs -- and state and local efforts with federal encouragement -- prior to his retirement. For the next week, we stand ready to field your questions, provide you guidance on the development of policy on Capitol Hill, offer our opinions as well as clear up questions of fact, and generally engage in what we hope to be a wide-ranging and helpful discourse with you. Alan Lopatin Tony Peyton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:41:37 EST