Hi Workplace list members,
A conversation that would be of interest to our subscribers is currently 
taking place on the AAACE-NLA list.  I'm copying the latest posts 
below.  It is related to our discussion started by David Rosen about the 
trends in workplace education.  If you want to take part in the discussion, 
the list info is at the end of the messages.  I will continue to follow the 
discussion and post anything that might be of interest.

Donna
Donna Brian
Workplace Literacy Discussion List Moderator
djgbrian at utk.edu



>-----Original Message-----

>From: aaace-nla-bounces at lists.literacytent.org

>[mailto:aaace-nla-bounces at lists.literacytent.org] On Behalf Of Connie

>Nelson

>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 4:52 PM

>To: aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org

>Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] Workplace Literacy -Friend or Foe?

>

>I think workplace education offers access to education for many workers, 

>particularly low-wage workers who must work multiple jobs and care for a 

>family leaving little or no time to study unless we go to where they 

>are--and they're usually at one of those jobs. I agree with David's 

>description of quality workplace education programming.  Here in 

>Massachusetts we are fortunate to have the "Planning and Evaluation Team" 

>model in which business, labor, provider and learner representatives plan 

>and oversee the program. I also recommend use of the Workplace Needs 

>Analysis to get specific ideas from all stakeholders on how the program 

>can meet employer, union, and worker goals and also what difficulties a 

>program might have or cause in a given workplace.  This is very important 

>in terms of setting reasonable goals and in logistical planning.  This 

>approach helps ensure that programs effectively meet (some of) the needs 

>of all concerned and guards against some of the concerns expressed on this 

>list. All of the programs in our network, the Mass. Worker Education 

>Roundtable, have union partners, which in my view, makes a more balanced 

>but also more complicated project. The Planning Team model also works well 

>in non-union workplaces.

>

>As to the question of programs continuing past their public grants, I did 

>a study following 50 workplace education programs here in Massachusetts 

>and found 48% did continue for at least a year in some form.  Some 

>continued more or less as they had been under the grant. Sometimes, 

>however, the form was quite different than it had been under the grant and 

>in a few cases would probably cross the line of good practice to most 

>educators.  I was glad to hear David's WIB rep friend credit organized 

>labor with bargaining programs into their contracts. This is an effective 

>way to sustain programs, and has the force of a legal contract when 

>competing against other claims on the budget. It doesn't always happen 

>though-there are a lot of items to bargain over in a contract and wages 

>and health insurance may take precedence, or the attempt to bargain for an 

>education program may not succeed. Though programs which continued in 

>union workplaces are more stable than those in non-union workplaces, and 

>they did occur slightly more frequently than programs in nonunion 

>workplaces, there was not a "statistically significant" difference in 

>frequency. Neither was there a difference by industry.  The big difference 

>was due to firm size-larger workplaces were much more likely to continue 

>their programs.  Those that did continue had the following elements in 

>common, regardless of size:  at least one internal champion (eg HR 

>manager, union rep, owner), an internal problem that the program was seen 

>as addressing, evidence that it did address this problem, and a strategy 

>on the part of the champion(s) for influencing the financial decision-makers.

>

>Anyone wanting more details can contact me directly at

>connie_nelson at hotmail.com.

>

>Connie Nelson, Director

>Massachusetts Worker Education Roundtable

>3 Harrison Avenue

>Boston, MA 02111

>tel. 617-983-3667

>fax 617-983-3669

>connie_nelson at hotmail.com

>

>

>

>

> >From: David Rosen <djrosen at comcast.net>

> >Reply-To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE

><aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org>

> >To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE

><aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org>

> >Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] Workplace Literacy -Friend or Foe?

> >Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:33:23 -0500

> >

> >Anthony and others,

> >

> >Some workplace literacy is great and some isn't. The best, in my

> >view,  involves uses a planning and evaluation process which has

> >business,  labor (if labor is involved) an education provider

> >(teachers) and  workers/employees at the table hammering out goals,

> >measures and  curricula which meet worker and employer needs.  This

> >Planning and  Evaluation Team model has been used for years by the

> >Massachusetts  Department of Education workplace education program

> >and was well  documented by Laura Sperazi, Paul Jurmo and me in the

> >late 1980's and  early 1990's.

> >

> >At the classroom level, again teachers and students need to

> >negotiate  the curriculum so that it meets worker/students needs.

> >Many workplace  education programs use the context of work and

> >work-contextualized  basic skills approaches.  Often this is very

> >effective, but not always.   It depends on the workers/students

> >perceptions of their needs.  As  Sheryl Gowen writes about in _The

> >Politics of workplace Literacy_  (1992, teachers' College Press)

> >uncritically accepting the company  definition of what is needed can

> >produce an education or training  program which is useless -- and

> >demeaning -- to workers.

> >

> >I recently posed a question to the NIFL-Workplace list about how

> >workplace literacy is doing now around the country, and

> >specifically,  if anyone knew of consortia of small businesses that

> >pay for workplace  basic skills seats in workplace or other

> >settings.  I have also been  asking colleagues in Massachusetts this

> >question.  So far, the must  illuminating answer came from a

> >Workforce Investment Board member who  said workplace education

> >programs which have support from organized  labor are the only ones

> >he has seen which continue beyond early public  funding and get paid

> >for by the company, often through bargaining  agreements.

> >

> >David J. Rosen

> >djrosen at comcast.net

> >

> >

> >

> >

>On Thursday, March 25, 2004, at 11:14 AM, ANTHONY GABRIEL wrote:

>I'm sure most of you are familiar with efforts to service adult learners 

>in the workforce through workplace literacy. Here in New Orleans, we are 

>using the Pennsylvania works model  which focuses on the development of a 

>foundation skills framework which centers around three themes, Basic 

>Workplace Skills, Basic Employability Skills, and Basic Workplace 

>Knowlege.  At the center of this wheel of skills is a Life Long Learning 

>component that's incorporated into the  employee's development. On the 

>surface, this is an excellent format to hopefully help more adult 

>learners, but I'm concerned about the sincerity of employers to really 

>want their employees to develop not just at work but as individuals in our 

>society. Some have described workplace literacy as the new Sharecropping 

>or Plantation System "of the new millenium. I hope they are wrong, but I 

>do see their point. I would love to hear my fellow list member views on 

>this matter.

>

>

>Anthony Gabriel

>Adult Education Instr.

>Literacy Advocate

>

>

>_______________________________________________

>AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org

>http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla

>LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy

>http://literacytent.org