Received: from cal.org (cal.org [204.240.146.10]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA27487 for <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:04:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from CAL-Message_Server by cal.org with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:05:02 -0500 Message-Id: <s2ec99ee.001@cal.org> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:02:17 -0500 From: Fran Keenan <fran@cal.org> To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Subject: soup kitchen education? X-Status: Status: RO An active discussion about the field of adult literacy is ensuing on the NLA list. I am crossposting David Rosen's (NLA list moderator) thoughts about how literacy (and ESL) programs need to demand adequate resources to do our jobs well......Please respond to NIFL-ESL if this provokes you! (FK) On January 24th, David wrote: "Part of the "ineffectiveness" problem you refer to is certainly that we need more research -- to identify what IS working and why, and how effective models can be replicated. But a greater problem, I think, is that we are a marginalized field. Like day care, food, and temporary shelter providers who help people who are poor and often powerless, we accept unacceptable conditions and resources because we see so much need. How can adult literacy programs be effective if the average national expenditure is (I think well under $200 per student per year including matching funds but I haven't checked recently) ? How can programs be effective when the intensity of their services (number of hours per student per year) is in the tens of hours per year ? How can programs be effective if good teachers cannot afford to continue to work in the field unless they are supported by another job or person with a decent salary and health benefits? How can we be taken seriously if we do not demand high standards, reasonable resources and research and evaluation to help us improve what we are doing and to show what we can accomplish. I wonder why -- instead of refusing to turn away yet another person on a waiting list for a class already overcrowded -- we learners, teachers and other adult literacy practitioners don't organize state and national campaigns to expose this outrage and change it. Researchers could help us by identifying models that work, and for each of these (very different models, depending on their goals) identifying a reasonable cost per student, one that includes for examples: an effective service intensity level (how many hours per week, how many weeks?), staffing pattern, staff and program development allocation, adequate print and nonprint resources, and a reasonable budget for technology and technology staff development. As we look to new legislative proposals this year at the state and national levels we must ask for allocations of resources that are consistent with standards for achieving _effective_ programs -- not simply to offer more students "soup kitchen"* adult education. This may mean -- even with additional resources --that we must serve fewer students to increase the quality of what we offer each student." David Rosen NLA List Moderator, not feeling moderate today <DJRosen@world.std.com> * I am indebted to former Massachusetts Senator Gerald D'Amico, Chairman of the State Education Committee and Director of the Commonwealth Literacy Campaign who -- as a newcomer to the adult literacy field -- saw so clearly how inadequate our resources were and said that what he saw was the educational equivalent of soup kitchens.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 14:09:17 EDT