NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF STATE DIRECTORS OF ADULT EDUCATION
And
THE NATIONAL ADULT EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM
REAUTHORIZATION
OF THE
ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY ACT
TITLE II, THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998
Priority Areas
Identified, Federal Register, May 28, 2002
Submitted November, 2002
REVISED RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED IN THE MAY 28,2002 FEDERAL REGISTER
1. NARROWING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
The 1992 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAALS)
indicated that approximately 90 million adults were reading at levels that were
insufficient to allow them to fully participate in the economy and obtain new
skills necessary for success. In 2002, and updated version of NAALS will be
conducted, which will likely indicate that tens of millions of Americans
continue to live with low literacy. Yet programs funded under the Act
currently serve only about 2.7 million individuals each year. This disparity
between available resources and need is likely to persist in the foreseeable
future.
a)
How can we improve the targeting of Federal resources on effective
programs that will produce the greatest return on the Federal investment?
Probably the best potential resource that we have to
identify exemplary programs is the accountability system that we have in
place, but further investment of time and money needs to be made in that
system to make it truly reflective of program quality.
Recommendation 1.a.1: Invest in, and improve,
the quality of the accountability system. Use that system to identify
successful programs. Using accepted research techniques, carefully examine
those programs for effective practices. Coordinate the resources of NIFL,
the Department, the recently enacted Institute of Education Sciences, the
States (through their Consortium and State in-service mechanisms) and the
resources provided to the National Institute of Child and Human Development
(NICHD) via the LIFT legislation to introduce those effective practices into
each State, first on a pilot basis and then Statewide.
b)
What are the features of effective adult education and literacy programs
that should be given higher priority for Federal resources?
In the early 1990s
Development Associates reported two factors related to effective programs – 1)
the presence of full-time teachers, and 2) linkages to at least five (5) other
agencies.
1. Full Time Teachers:
Adult Basic Education teachers, eighty percent (80%) of whom are part-time,
often are expected to be prepared to teach five subjects, at twelve grade
levels, contextualized to the work, family, and community learning needs of
adult learners, half of whom could have a learning disability. There are few
accessible resources to help them solve the vast array of instructional issues
that arise from that teaching assignment. Even though adult education does not
need an entirely full-time faculty, a cadre of full time instructors provides
opportunities to develop curriculum and strategies to customize instruction
around the complex needs of the participants. Full-time teachers may also
collect and organize resources and act as models, providing technical assistance
to part-time instructors and to volunteers.
Because of the beneficial effect
of full-time teachers, we submit:
Recommendation1.b.1:
That in re-authorized legislation a new consideration (13) be added to Section
231(e)(13) to read,” whether the instructional staff are provided accessible
technical assistance to meet the complex demands of adult learners – including
the presence of full-time teachers who may serve a resource persons for
part-time teachers and volunteers”.
Recommendation1.b.2:
Increase funding to provide for full-time teachers who would serve as resource
persons for part-time teachers and volunteers.
2. Linkage with five other agencies: Undereducated
adults have educational needs, surely, but they have any number of other needs
that adult education programs do not provide. These needs, if left unmet,
interfere with adult learners’ participation. It is an example of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs at work, that is, it is difficult to focus on higher level
learning needs if more basic issues of food, shelter, illness, or abuse are
unresolved.
Thus, it is not surprising that
Development Associates found that effective adult education programs are linked
with other community services. Of course, the purpose of WIA was to bring those
services together in the One-Stop but as you will see in Question 3 below, the
survey conducted by our Consortium reports an unrealized potential.
Recommendation1.b.3:
Amend SEC. 231 to read” whether the activities are planned and coordinated
coordinate with other available resources in the community, such as by
establishing strong links with elementary schools and secondary schools,
postsecondary educational institutions, one-stop centers, job training programs,
and social service agencies, and other community-based providers.”
c)
How can we improve the performance of adult education programs,
increasing their success in not only increasing the number of completers, but
also generating more rapid knowledge and skills gains?
Performance can be improved by 1) conducting more
targeted, coordinated research, 2) translating that research for integration
into entire state systems, and 3) supporting its integration into entire state
systems.
1. Conducting more targeted,
coordinated research. There is too little research in adult education.
Historically, research funds have been sparse. To complicate the scarcity,
there has been no research agenda to give continuity, sequence and integration
to research efforts. To counteract this historical drag on knowledge
generation, our Consortium in collaboration with OVAE established a National
Programs Workgroup that devised a research agenda, created a matrix of current
research by OVAE, NIFL, NICHD and the recently enacted Institute of Education
Sciences to try to organize the work and pinpoint the gaps, and began to think
about how to prepare the state directors to receive research findings.
Recommendation 1.c.1: OVAE should
recommit its support to the National Programs Workgroup in order to
stimulate systematic findings that states can use to improve program
performance.
2. Translating that
research for integration into entire state systems. Historically, research
projects have disseminated their findings through presentations at national
conferences and technical reports that came out of OMB after the project had
ended and staff had gone on to other projects. What has been missing is the
translation of those findings into applications and implications that State
Program Offices can use to make decisions regarding their applicability to the
state’s adult learning system.
Recommendation 1.c.2:
OVAE and NIFL should commit National Program funds to establish translation
guidelines based upon valid research that are included in the RFPs for all
funded projects for preparing translations for state policy and practice
consideration.
3. Supporting its integration
into entire state systems. We believer that in order to impact the field,
findings should be integrated into entire state systems with the training and
support to ensure their success. Thus, once the translations are in hand, State
Program Offices judge findings, select those that hold promise, pilot test them
to adapt them to fit other parts of their systems, and develop the professional
development and financial resources to support their integration throughout the
system. The State Director’s Consortium (NAEPDC) has developed training for
Adult Education State Directors and State Staff in locating, judging, and
integrating findings into their state systems.
Recommendation 1.c.3:
OVAE should commit National Programs funds to supporting, either in
collaboration with the State Directors Consortium (NAEPDC) or through other
training activities, to a) train new state directors to integrate findings into
their systems and b) update research translations annually and review them with
all state directors.
d)
How we can expand the array of services available to support adult
learners who are currently not accessing learning through the present system?
In 2002, the State Directors Consortium (NAEPDC) in
collaboration with OVAE brought together a number of states interested in
developing their non-classroom/distance learning capacity. As a result of
that collaboration, fourteen states are currently funding a) an assessment
working paper to address questions of distance assessment, b) a handbook of
distance learning, c) an online course for distance instructors, and d)
individual state research projects to yield program planning information.
(See Project IDEAL
http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/ideal/). These products will be
shared with other states as they are developed. This undertaking by the
states without further federal support is commendable. However, the states
discretionary funds are severely limited. Because these products are of
national importance and use, it is appropriate for OVAE to identify
products, training, and other resources that would promote further
development and expansion of distance learning and provide the financial
support to complete them.
Recommendation 1.d.1:
Section 243 National Leadership (1) (C) calls for technical assistance in
distance learning and promoting and improving the use of technology in the
classroom. OVAE should continue its support for technology in the
classroom and also commit National Programs funding and other support to
expanding the distance learning capacity building that the states have begun.
e)
Can non-traditional service providers be better integrated into a
multi-faceted delivery system? What changes would promote the delivery of
high-quality, accountable services by community-based organizations and
faith-based organizations and businesses?
We believe that diverse providers contribute to the
success of adult education programs. We also believe that funding too many
independent providers fragments services. When those diverse providers
collaborate in service provision, all providers and learners benefit.
Collaboration also minimizes hindrances to participation by non-traditional
providers.
1. Community and faith-based
organizations - as a part of the quality and accountability requirements for
adult education and literacy programs, states have established professional
development and data management systems that naturally require staff and support
resources. When providers collaborate in program provision, non-traditional
providers, especially the small specialized organizations with strong links to
segments of the community, can focus on their instructional specialty and
minimize the need to create and manage professional development and data systems
on their own. States have developed resources to guide collaborative planning
local programs including the Virginia Comprehensive Planning Guide
Recommendation 1.e.1: To
the Local Provisions section on Considerations in awarding grants or
contracts, add SEC. 231 (e) (13) Whether the local plan was developed
in collaboration with provider and support agencies.
2.
Business - work continues to evolve from “lift and put” jobs to
“information-based” ones requiring educating the workforce to support new
technologies. Employers prefer to retain loyal employees but need to upgrade
skills to compete in world markets. A natural outgrowth, especially in the
South, has been the development and expansion of workplace education service
inside industries for incumbent workers. Basic skills instruction is customized
to meet the job retention and upgrade needs of employees and employers. Where
separate state funding has not been available to support this expansion, local
adult education programs have contracted with the employer to provide the
service for a fee. A critical component of this fee for service has been the
development of workplace education brokers who understand ISO 9000 as well as
basic skills instruction. By being “bilingual and bi-cultural” in industry and
adult education and literacy issues, they have been successful in helping
industry understand their basic skills needs and adult educators understand the
industries needs. As a result, significant expansion of adult education and
literacy services have been achieved with small investments of public
funds—primarily for training the brokers and providing training for teachers in
customizing instruction. Two models are the Workforce Improvement Networks
(WIN) in Virginia (http://cep.jmu.edu/workforce/)
and Pennsylvania (http://www.able.state.pa.us/able/cwp/view.asp?a=3&Q=39462&ableNav=|2620|2983|).
Recommendation 1.e.2: OVAE should
commit National Programs funds to promoting expansion of workplace education
programs within and among the states by adding SEC. 243.1. (D)
assistance related to states developing and using workplace education
services for incumbent workers.
f)
How should our national program funds be target to help states close
the achievement gap?
In the sections above, we have identified a number
of emphases for national program funds. They include the following:
Recommendation 1.c.1:
OVAE should recommit its support to the National Programs Workgroup in order to
stimulate systematic findings that states can use to improve program
performance.
Recommendation 1.c.2.:
OVAE should commit National Program funds to establish translation guidelines
that are included in the RFPs for all funded projects for preparing translations
for state policy and practice consideration.
Recommendation 1.c.3:
OVAE should commit National Programs funds to supporting, either in
collaboration with the State Directors Consortium (NAEPDC) or through other
training activities, to a) train new state directors to integrate findings into
their systems and b) update research translations annually and review them with
all state directors.
Recommendation 1.d.1: SEC. 243 National
Leadership (1) (C) calls for technical assistance in distance learning and
promoting and improving the use of technology in the classroom. OVAE should
continue its support for technology in the classroom and also commit
National Programs funding and other support to expanding the distance
learning capacity building that the states have begun.
Recommendation 1.e.2:
OVAE should commit National Programs funds to promoting expansion of workplace
education programs within and among the states by adding SEC. 243.1.(D)
assistance related to states developing and using workplace education services
for incumbent workers.
2. INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR STUDENT
PERFORMANCE
The Act establishes a student and
program accountability system that holds States and other grant recipients
accountable for meeting annual agreed-upon levels of performance on a set of
“core indicators” specified in the Statute. Do these core indicators measure
performance and demonstrate impact of the Federal investment well? How could
data be reported differently to enhance their meaning to the public, to students
and to policy makers?
The indicators in the current
statute comprise a reasonable set of measures of program performance and
impact. States and Outlying areas are permitted to add their own additional
indicators should they so choose. This may occur once the growing pains
connected to the current set are gone. With respect to States and Outlying
areas, the major problems are three-fold. The first is the inability of certain
States to access the UI database because of a State prohibition against use of
Social Security numbers as system identifiers. The second is the inability of
some States to operate a reliable accessible database, and the third is a
concern that some State alternative assessment systems are less rigorous than
others – giving certain States an unfair advantage in State by State
comparisons.
State Program Offices are very
hesitant about putting remedial measures into law for fear of hardening what is
at present a very fluid situation. Accordingly, we make the following
recommendation:
Recommendation 2.a.1: The
Department, the State Directors, and other representatives of the field should
continue to consult on strategies to allow all States access to reliable
databases and assure all States that use alternative assessment systems meet
rigorous standards.
With respect to how well the core indicators
describe to the public what is happening in our programs, the post program
employment and further education and training indicators are generally
understandable by the general public, although work still needs to be done to
allow even those States that data match an opportunity to capture all four
quarters of achievement on the employment measures. The concept of “gained a
level” is certainly less translatable to the general public.
Recommendation 2.a.2.
The Department and the National Institute for Literacy should work to improve
the National Reporting System’s ability to report learning gains in a manner
easily understandable to policy makers and the general public.
3. COORDINATION WITH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
PROGRAMS.
Title I of the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) created a one-stop delivery system that links multiple
Federal education and training programs in order to make them more accessible to
the public, to reduce duplication of services, and to facilitate coordinated
planning across programs. Adult education and family literacy programs
supported by the Act are “mandatory partners” that are required to
participate in the one-stop delivery system. They are also represented on local
workforce boards that govern the one-stop system in local areas.
Issues raised in Question #3(a)
with respect to the effectiveness of the One-Stop system and recommendations for
change are contained in the “Survey on WIA Cross-Title Activity” that is
attached to this testimony. The survey responses suggest that in many cases the
One-Stop system has fallen short of its goal to improve public access to adult
education, although in some situations it has proven successful. These
successful programs need to be studied to determine how best to produce similar
results more broadly. The survey goes on to suggest the keys to better results
for adult education lie in:
1. better representation on
local WIA boards;
2. changes in accountability
requirements for Title I programs that serve adult
education students;
3. uniformity of
interpretation of the Act with respect to what services can be
provided to adult education
students without having these students enter the
denominator of participants
for whom employment is an expected outcome; and
4. equal access by all States and Outlying
Areas to timely and reliable Unemployment
Insurance database information on
employment of enrollees.
