The adult literacy education system in the United...
Transcript of The adult literacy education system in the United...
Background paper prepared for
Education for All Global Monitoring R
Literacy for Life
The adult literacy educationUnited States
Talmadge C. Guy 2005
This paper was commissioned by the Education for Albackground information to assist in drafting the 2006 report. It hThe views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of thattributed to the EFA Global Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. Tfollowing reference: “Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Mfor Life”. For further information, please contact efareport@unesc
2006/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/37
the
eport 2006
system in the
l Global Monitoring Report as as not been edited by the team. e author(s) and should not be he papers can be cited with the
onitoring Report 2006, Literacy o.org
1
Talmadge C. Guy, Ed.D. The University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia, USA 1.0 Introduction
Over the past 20 years, adult literacy has received significant, though perhaps
misleading, attention from the media. The public perception of the “illiterate” as well as
of the extent of the literacy problem in America flows not from research or from
informed practitioners (Quigley, 1997). The media characterize illiteracy as a crippling
limitation, a barrier to individual and social advancement and as a problem to be fixed.
Instead, there is substantial research to suggest that literacy is very complex. Major
surveys of adult literacy skills have adopted fairly broad definitions of literacy. The
results of the National Assessment of Literacy Survey (NALS) suggest that while
functional literacy proficiency is a real challenge for many adults from all walks of life, a
complex mix of variables influence literacy proficiency resulting in the conclusion that
no simple profile of illiteracy in America exists. How do we understand the phenomenon
of literacy in America? And how does adult literacy education respond to this
phenomenon?
The picture that has emerged is that low literacy proficiency is relatively common
with somewhere between one in five and one in three adult Americans with sufficient
difficulty in reading or computation to be challenged by the ordinary tasks of everyday
life and work. To the casual observer these figures may seem surprising—even shocking.
Indeed, public reaction has alternated between shock and disbelief. For a society as
economically and technologically advanced as the United States, it might seem
implausible that such a large proportion of the adult population is in need of literacy
education. Yet, there is persistent inequality grounded in historical marginalization of
2
African Americans, Hispanics, the poor, and the under educated1. One explanation for
the documented large number of adults identified as low literate or functionally illiterate
is the growing emphasis on educational credentialing for the demands of family,
employment, and civic life (Comings, Reder, and Sum, 2001). In turn, this increased
demand for literacy proficiency in adult life has led to an increased focus on the need for
higher literacy skills.
Against this backdrop, I provide an overview of the adult literacy education
system in the United States focusing on policy developments, programs and participants,
research findings, and challenges for the future. In discussing the adult literacy education
system, it is important to clarify that adult literacy education occurs in many arenas of
American society including schools and colleges, social service agencies, community
organizations, libraries, museums, companies, union halls, churches, and in homes. It is
beyond the scope of this paper to document and to discuss the full range of adult literacy
education. The focus of this paper is the adult literacy education system funded by the
United States Department of Education under the auspices of national legislation. Senge
(1994) defines system as “the perceived whole whose elements ‘hang together’ because
they continually affect each other over time and operate toward a common purpose" (p.
90). It is in this sense that I employ the phrase “adult literacy education system” to refer
to the policies, programs, agencies, participants, and personnel that "hang together" under
a common, though multiple and sometimes conflicting, set of purposes.
1 I use “under-educated” to denote those persons who lack sufficient educational credentials to compete successfully in the labor force. While this standard changes over time, it is commonly considered in today’s economy that a high school credential or its equivalent is minimally necessary to compete. In actuality, postsecondary education is rapidly becoming the standard as measured by estimates of lifetime earnings of persons less than high school, high school diploma, some college, or a baccalaureate degree. See U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Earnings of College Graduates in 1996, available online at: http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/loc_text/employ/3college/article4.htm .
3
In the United States there are a number of terms and acronyms which refer
broadly to adult literacy education and which can have overlapping meanings, often in
ways that are confusing to those outside the field. Federally funded adult literacy
programs encompass a range of educational levels such as Adult Basic Education (ABE),
Adult Secondary Education (ASE), and English as a Second Language (ESL). ASE
programs lead to the high school credential or its equivalent—the General Education
Diploma or GED. Practitioners may employ any of these terms to refer to educational
activities that, broadly speaking, may be grouped together under the heading of adult
literacy activities. Common usages among practitioners include ABE, which may refer to
grade levels 1-8, or adult low-level literacy, which can refer to grade levels 1-4. Some
curricula focus on life skills as opposed to mastery of coding/de-coding skills and also
may be identified as ABE.
As Sparks and Peterson (2000) note, the term adult basic education may also refer
to any fundamental set of skills that are necessary for functioning as an adult. The skills
may not necessarily be those traditionally regarded as skills relating to reading or writing.
Basic skills education may involve literacy skills but may also involve skills required to
perform to some levels, such as operating a computer. It is in this sense that literacy can
be attached to particular tasks as in computer literacy or a particular domain of adult life
as in civic literacy. Literacy in this latter sense is outside the scope of this paper.
2.0 Theoretical Perspectives on Literacy
Education is fundamentally both cultural and ideological. It is cultural in the
sense that it must be meaningful and mesh with the values, norms, traditions that are
meaningful within the social system of the society. It is ideological in that any given
4
policy or program is constituted within a nexus of conflicting interests relating to
purpose, goals, needs, and outcomes. Because debates over adult literacy policy and
programs involve assumptions regarding these elements of policy and programming, it is
vital to understand the theoretical perspectives on literacy to assess current policy and its
impact on service populations and programs. In the following discussion, three views or
models of literacy are presented: the school-based, functional, and socio cultural/
ideological.
2.1 School-based literacy
Following the passage of the 1965 Adult Education Act, federally funded adult
programs generally followed a school-based model. Literacy was understood primarily
in terms of school grade levels. Grade levels one through eight constituted adult basic
education. Adult basic education programs in turn were subdivided into low-level
literacy (grade levels one through four) and midrange literacy (grade levels five through
eight). Grade levels nine through twelve constituted adult secondary or GED. Assessment
instruments used to evaluate literacy levels such as the widely used Test of Adult Basic
Education (TABE) were designed to yield grade level equivalents. The standardized tests
used in adult literacy have been predominantly adult versions of standardized
achievement tests used for children (Askov, 2000).
The assumption on which the school-based model rests is that skills and
competencies assessed in the classroom are directly transferable to other contexts.
Knowing how to read and write is treated as if it were an "autonomous" phenomenon,
independent of the context in which it is used (Street, 1984). In this view, "writing
presents utterance and thought as uninvolved in all else, somehow self-contained,
5
complete" (Ong, 1982, p. 132). A logical extension of this idea is that the meaning of
any given text is assumed to be unambiguous and independent of context or the
subjectivity of the reader or the author. Consequently, school-based literacy assumes that
once literacy skills are mastered in the classroom, learners can apply the skills in any
reading task whether that is in the workplace, the home, or any other settings of public
and private life.
2.2 Competency-based or Functionalist Model
In the 1970s the Adult Performance Level (APL) study was a serious attempt to
define and assess literacy competencies required for adequate functioning of adult roles
in modern society. Another development was the California Assessment of Student
Achievement System (CASAS) that was designed around the knowledge required to
perform in particular life situations. While both approaches garnered wide attention,
neither system achieved universal adoption. Nevertheless, they did have a significant
impact in the way literacy was conceptualized (Merrifield, 1998). Literacy gradually
became understood as context-dependent (Hunter and Harman, 1979).
In this model, literacy is understood as the basic language skills required to meet
the responsibilities of adult life. This concept of literacy is closely associated with the
idea that adults have specific functions or roles to fulfill (Sparks and Peterson, 2000).
Literacy is more than just being able to code and decode text—it is the ability to
comprehend, interpret, analyze, respond, and interact within the variety of complex
situations in which adults encounter various kinds of information. Each context—school,
work, military, civic and family—requires a different kind of literacy competency (Sticht
and Armstrong, 1996). Competency-based literacy is "the possession of, or access to, the
6
competencies and information required to accomplish transactions entailing reading and
writing" (Levine, 1986, p. 43). In any particular context, then, literacy is for the purpose
of performing some accepted social role. Most importantly, it is not assumed that literacy
skills transfer automatically across contexts.
2.3 Socio-Cultural / Ideological Literacies Model
While the functional view of literacy is more context specific than the school-
based model, it nevertheless overlooks the fact that learners come to the educational
setting with different experiences, perspectives, values, and beliefs. It understands
literacy as related to the tasks to be performed in particular settings, but ignores the
subjectivity of the learners themselves. In effect, the cultural background of the learner is
viewed as marginal to the requirements of teaching functional literacy (Guy, 1999).
In this third perspective on literacy, the importance of the social, political, and
ideological context is central to understanding how literacy is practiced. As an example
of this approach, Ferdman (1990) related literacy to identity. He argued that literacy
develops as one masters the communication processes, the symbolic media, the cultural
norms, values, and beliefs of a particular community. Rather than execute a prescribed set
of tasks to perform a particular social role, the socio-cultural model understands literacy
as constituted through particular practices so that individuals construct their identities
based on their acculturation and participation within socio-cultural communities (Gee,
1991; 1996). From this perspective, understanding spoken or written communication,
involves knowing who is reading and who is authoring as well as the context and purpose
of communication (Merrifield, 1998).
7
This view of literacy is “ideological” because it entails sets of power relations
between author and reader, and between speaker and listener. Central to this model of
literacy is the idea that literacies are multiple and are arrayed against each other in terms
of societal relations of power. Dominant literacies are associated with dominant groups
and marginal literacies are associated with marginalized groups (Gee, 1991; 1999).
Learners from marginalized groups that acquire dominant literacy risk compromising or
forsaking their cultural or social identity. On the other hand, there is a certain amount of
social capital to be acquired in acquiring dominant literacy. Building on Freire’s (1970)
view of literacy acquisition as a political act, to acquire dominant literacy is to acquire
knowledge of the world as socially constructed and leads to the realization that one’s
social location influences—but does not determine—one’s worldview (Guy, 1999).
These theories of literacy may be found to influence debates about literacy policy,
program curricula, and outcomes. Most importantly, the competing views raise questions
about the nature of literacy and how best to determine literacy proficiency. Depending on
whether one adopts a school-based, functional, or socio-cultural view of literacy, the task
of assessing literacy changes significantly.
2.4 Measuring Proficiency
No universally accepted definition of literacy exists. In the absence of any clear
policy directive on how to measure literacy, programs used very different systems for
measuring literacy learning. Following the school based model, many programs used
standardized measures such as Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) to initially assess
learners’ literacy levels and, when feasible, to place them in the appropriate curriculum.
Many programs also used it as a means to assess learners’ grade level gains. For
8
advanced learners, the GED test, or sometimes its “practice” versions, also became a
means by which learning gains could be measured. Utilizing these kinds of instruments
was important first because there was no standard curriculum for adult literacy or the
GED and second because many literacy programs did not produce large numbers of GED
completers. But, other cases, following a contextualized view of literacy, life skills
measures such as the Texas Adult Performance Level (APL) and the CASAS were
adopted by a number of states in the attempt to provide a means of measuring literacy
levels.
The push to measure literacy learning and outcomes accelerated following the
election of a Republican House of Representatives in 1994 with its conservative political
ideology, pressures increased to call for accountability in social programs (Hayes, 1999).
Conservatives called for a government that was less intrusive in the lives of citizens
which translated into calls for reduced federal support for domestic social programs. In
order to assess priorities, closer scrutiny was given to all social programs to be
accountable for program outcomes (Beder, 1999; Merrifield, 1998). As a consequence,
adult literacy education has experienced growing pressure to develop systems of
accountability for its programs. Merrifield (1998) cited five factors contributing to the
increased call for accountability.
First, research into the meaning of literacy has produced changing
conceptualizations of literacy. What it means to be literate may differ across contexts. In
addition, different racial, ethnic, or cultural groups within complex societies may hold
different understandings of literacy. Second, stakeholders are not accountable to each
other. Currently no coherent planning system exists to mediate the interests of different
9
stakeholders. Beder (1999) asks whether conflicting accountability systems, one to adult
learners and the other to society through policy making bodies such as Congress and
State Legislatures can co-exist, and if not, which will take priority. Third, if the
emerging system of literacy is to measure the achievement of literacy for a specified
purpose, a lack of clear objectives, at the individual level and for programs, makes
accountability more difficult to develop. Fourth, there exists a fragmented and incomplete
system of adult literacy education with multiple funding sources that have different
reporting requirements. Fifth, available tools for measuring literacy proficiency are not
up to the task of providing needed data for program improvement. Researchers have
criticized the use of standardized tests, the most widely used tool for measuring learning,
because they don't necessarily demonstrate what has been learned. Standardized tests are
conceptually incompatible with the view of literacy as social practices rather than isolated
skills.
In the end, the key questions in this discussion are: What are the desired outcomes
of adult literacy education? To develop productive workers? Good citizens? Or a more
literate adult population? These issues are taken up most directly in the adult literacy
policy debate.
3.0 Adult Literacy Policy and Federal Legislation
Current adult literacy legislation, Title II of the Workforce Incentive Act
otherwise known as the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), is
administered by the U.S. Department of Education through the Department of Adult
Education and Literacy (DAEL). AEFLA provides funding to states to support adult
literacy and basic education programs. The legislation defines “adult education” as
10
education below the post secondary level for individuals age sixteen and older. It is
estimated that approximately 51 million American adults fall within this target
population.
Over the 30 year period between 1966 and the mid 1990s, changes to federal
policy involved relatively minor adjustments such as: lowering the eligibility age from
eighteen to sixteen (1970); approving funding to non-profit organizations (1984); and
encouraging partnerships among Local Educational Agencies (LEAs), labor unions and
businesses to provide workplace literacy programs. In 1991 the passage of the National
Literacy Act (NLA) replaced the Adult Education Act of 1966 and expanded access to
federal funds for nonprofit education providers (Sticht, 2002). In 1998 Congress passed
AEFLA as Title II of the Workforce Investment Act (United Department Employment
and Training Administration, 1998). As indicated in Section 202 of the Act, this new
legislation represented a major redirection in federal policy with regard to adult literacy.
Its purpose is:
to create a partnership among the Federal Government, States, and localities to
provide, on a voluntary basis, adult education and literacy services, in order to—
(1) assist adults to become literate and obtain the knowledge and skills
necessary for employment and self-sufficiency;
(2) assist adults who are parents to obtain the educational skills necessary
to become full partners in the educational development of their children;
and
(3) assist adults in the completion of a secondary school education.
(United States Employment and Training Administration, p. ??)
11
With the primary emphasis on literacy for employment, the AEFLA mandated
new performance measures for all federally funded adult education programs and
services. Another significant provision of the Act provided for the creation of the
National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) whose mission is to provide national leadership for
coordinating literacy services and policy and to serve as a national resource for adult
education and literacy programs by disseminating information on literacy to the field
(Tracy-Mumford, 2000).
States are also now required to develop five year plans for improving literacy and
to develop systems of assessment and evaluation to determine progress toward goals. In
particular, new performance measures focus on job readiness and placement as opposed
to other program or individual goals—such as personal development. Other provisions of
the AEFLA specify eligibility for participation in programs, qualified providers of
programs, how educational agencies should develop strategic plans, and how state
agencies should monitor local programs in order to assure quality improvement and
accountability (Sticht 2002).
The AEFLA provides states with a base allotment of $250,000. Additional funds
are distributed on the basis of each state’s relative proportion of adults between the ages
of 16 and 60 and who lack a high school diploma or equivalent, who are not also enrolled
in secondary school, and who are beyond the age of compulsory school attendance. State
plans must address how they intend to reach hard to serve populations such as low-
income persons, individuals with disabilities, single parents, displaced homemakers, and
individuals with multiple barriers to educational enhancement such as limited English
12
proficiency. State plans must also provide for coordination of services with other
appropriate agencies.
3.1 The Policy Shift towards Workforce Development: The Political Context for the
Passage of the AEFLA
Inasmuch as the AEFLA represented a major turn in federal literacy policy, it will
be useful to situate its adoption into a broader federal policy context. In the years
immediately prior to the passage of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Congress
passed major reform of the nation’s public welfare system. The Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and the 1997
Welfare–to–Work Program established new requirements for welfare recipients and
limited their eligibility to receive welfare. This legislation reformed federal welfare law
and instituted the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (Hayes,
1999). In order for states to continue to receive full welfare funding a certain percentage
of welfare recipients must be placed into jobs or engaged in an allowable work activity
for a prescribed number of hours per week. PRWORA also specified eligible education or
training activities that count towards work participation. These activities include areas
such as job skills training, education leading to employment, and adult secondary
education for those who lack a high school diploma. While the primary goal of welfare
reform was to move families off welfare, adult literacy education was identified as an
important bridge to employment. With welfare reform in place by 1996, the link between
adult literacy education and workforce development became the central focus of adult
literacy policy.
13
A second development was the emergence of legislative efforts to define
acceptable research models for supporting federally funded reading programs for
elementary and secondary schools (Eisenhart and Towne, 2003). The Reading Excellence
Act of 1999 defined acceptable research as:
A. the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain
valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and
reading difficulties; and
B. shall include research that —
i. employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or
experiment
ii. involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated
hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;
iii. relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid
data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements
and observations; and has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or
approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably
rigorous, objective, and scientific review. (Title VIII, Section 2252,
Reading Research Act cited in Kruidenier, 2002, p. 129)
The purpose of this language was “to ensure that federal funds used for reading education
be used in ways that reflected the best available scientific evidence” (Eisenhart and
Towne, p. 31). While there has been significant debate over the definition and value of
scientifically based research, the direction of federal legislation and policy seems to
14
provide for a narrower (rather than broader) view of acceptable research, and to give
priority (if not exclusivity) to experimental, quantitative research designs.
The underlying concern in all this would appear to be that federal funds for
education are expended for educational programs that meet quantifiable, workforce-
related objectives. While some would argue that these developments represent a positive
step in federal policy (e.g., Slavin, 2002), others have worried that such developments too
narrowly focus federal adult education policy.
In an insightful analysis of the ideological influences that have supported the
development of education policy in North America, Quigley (2000) described three basic
approaches to formulating social policy: the market model, the liberal-welfare state
model and the social redistribution model. The market model sees educational issues at
the macro-level and as related to economic impacts and outcomes. Education is seen as
producing individuals with the requisite skills, values, and attitudes to assume roles in the
workforce. The liberal-welfare state model views society’s institutions as playing an
important role in increasing access and expanding opportunity, particularly for the least
educated and most economically dependent sectors of the society. The focus of policy is
to identify barriers to access that prevent individuals from fully participating in the
resources provided by society. The social redistribution model understands policy as
resulting from the standpoint of conflict of interest among various sectors of society.
Social redistribution is informed by a more progressive/radical perspective on societal
change where social and economic inequality is seen as a byproduct of capitalist
development. Given current directions of federal education policy, generally, and adult
literacy policy in particular, the market model is clearly in the ascendancy.
15
Nevertheless, in a passionate appeal to adult literacy educators, Quigley (2000)
questioned adult education’s ability to “mould a world”, that is to play a role in shaping
the quality and responsiveness of adult education programs and services to improve the
lives of adult learners. Adult educators’ role in shaping adult literacy policy is
increasingly questioned, especially in light of clearly pressing social and economic
issues. The sharp decline in jobs in the nation’s major urban centers coupled with the
poor schools and low educational levels of African-Americans and Hispanics who most
often reside in these areas gives rise to difficult to solve urban poverty and its attendant
ills of crime, drug use, and homelessness. While studies have shown the level of literacy
and degree of success in the labor market are closely linked (Barton & Jenkins, 1995), for
the poor who live in rural areas and the central cities the emergence of the market model
of adult literacy education ignores the realities faced by these communities (Demetrion,
2005).
In short, while literacy research and theory has evolved from understanding
literacy as moving from primarily school-based definitions of literacy to functionalist to
socio cultural / ideological definitions (Askov, 2000; Merrifield, 1998), current federal
policy is based on a more restrictive view consistent with the school-based conception of
literacy supported by educational research that is clearly informed by scientific based
research models. Nevertheless, it is important not to oversimplify the policy picture. It
can be argued that within the arenas of literacy policy and practice, all three conceptions
of literacy are extant and that, to some degree, the theoretical and ideological frameworks
within which each definitions exists continue to be in conflict. It is worth bearing in mind
16
that literacy policy formation is fundamentally a political—and therefore ever-changing
process.
3.2 Impact on States and Local Programs
The organization and delivery of adult literacy services is complex and
multifaceted owing to multiple funding sources, level of funding, institutional delivery,
target populations, and goals of local educational and civic leaders. It will be helpful to
review a few of the variations and complexities of adult literacy services at the state and
local levels. In so doing, it is important to clarify that the states—not the federal
government—have primary responsibility for education funding and policy. In fact, state
and local governments provide the lion’s share of funding and regulation of public
education. I called a source at the Literacy Office in Georgia and learned that the Georgia
legislature provides $11 million for adult literacy programming; neighboring Alabama
provides just over $6 million, and Florida provides more than $300 million—a very large
sum indeed, approaching the federal allocation for all of the United States. State
allocations for adult literacy can vary widely. Belzer, Drennon and Smith (1999) present
data from five states showing funding for adult basic education and enrollments.
Although dated, these data are presented to provide the reader a perspective on the
variation among states with respect to funding and enrollments in adult literacy.
Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive state-by-state analysis of adult literacy
education.
State and local jurisdictions, such as counties or municipalities, provide for local
governing bodies that establish policies and procedures for schooling. But these state and
local educational agencies must respond to federal mandates that are the condition for
17
18
receipt of federal funding. In the state of Georgia, for example, the 32 technical colleges
have primary responsibility to provide adult literacy services. They are the designated
19
Table 1 A Comparison Funding and Enrollment of Five States, FY 1998
State 1998 Federal and State Allocation Total Enrolled
Idaho Federal: 1,334,468State: 496,400 Total: 1,830,868
10,472
Massachusetts Federal: 6,758,226 State: 19,545,465 Total: 26,303,691
13,295
Ohio Federal: 14,103,969 State: 9,151,480 Total: 23,255,449
107,701
Pennsylvania Federal: 15,898,856 State: 12,059,000 Total: 27,957,856
51,938
Virginia Federal: 8,255,055 State: 3,500,000 Total: 11,755,055
25,410
Source: Adapted from Belzer, Drennon & Smith, 1999, p. 158.
local educational agency (LEA) to receive state and federal adult education funds. Local
adult education administrators may also seek supplementary grants from foundations, the
business community, or other source to support targeted adult education services such as
family literacy or welfare to work training. At the LEA level, then, adult literacy services
may involve a range of funding sources and services depending on local needs and the
enterprise of adult education staff.
Local public school districts may also provide adult literacy services. Often these
services to adults support the primary mission of schools to teach children. Family
literacy or life skills programs that serve adults with the idea of supporting youth
education are the primary aims of such programs. The organization and structure of these
services can dramatically vary from school to school or from community to community.
With the increase in federal regulations and requirements, states increasingly are
under pressure to perform in order to continue receiving federal funding support for adult
literacy. As a consequence of the WIA’s emphasis on linking adult literacy education and
labor force development, the Department of Education established the National Reporting
System Implementation Guidelines (U.S. Department of Education, 2001) in order to
provide accountability for federal programs.
The National Reporting System (NRS) provides for measuring primary core
indicators of program effectiveness: a) helping adults acquire basic literacy skills, b)
helping adults obtain the knowledge and skills necessary for employment and self
sufficiency, c) complete high school diploma or equivalent or entry into postsecondary
education (Hayes, 1999). Among the challenges faced by state programs is the ability to
document student outcomes that address the requirements of the AEFLA. Jobs are an
20
indicator. Documenting learner achievements—particularly b) and c)—can be difficult.
Knowing whether students obtain a job or not after leaving an adult education program
requires staff to conduct follow up surveys. Because the adult education student
population has historically been mobile, it can be difficult to locate students once they
leave a program.
A long standing issue for many programs, now exacerbated by the new reporting
requirements, concerns documenting that students enrolled complete the high school
credential or its equivalent, the GED. GED testing center data bases and adult education
program student information systems are not linked with the consequence that adult
education administrators have difficulty confirming when students pass the GED test,
unless students bring in their scores to adult education program officials. Furthermore,
many programs no longer use federally issued social security numbers to identify
students which can present difficulties in tracking students through and across programs.
Inadequate student follow up is widely acknowledged as a significant barrier to obtaining
information addressing program reporting requirements (Merrifield, 1998).
Smaller programs, in particular, are at risk of being identified as failing since
resources required to implement the data management systems necessary to document
success are scarce. Demetrion (2005) has argued that the reductive cost – benefit analysis
system of program assessment often hurts small, community based programs precisely
because their effectiveness is the ability to respond rapidly to individual learner needs
rather than developing the bureaucratic systems necessary to meet state or federal
reporting requirements. In any case, supplementary federal funding to support the
21
development of state data management systems has been lacking and a number of states
are struggling to meet the new reporting requirements.
Despite these difficulties, in a 2003 report to Congress, the U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education reported that most states had
achieved learner goals as outlined in their state plans. In fact, in program year 2001-2002,
46 of the 50 states met their learner goals. It was reported that 37% of learners enrolled
in adult literacy progressed by at least one educational level2 (U.S. Department of
Education, 2003). In other words, just over a third of participants in ABE/ASE programs
advanced by an educational level during that program year. For participants enrolled in
English language acquisition skills programs (typically ESL), the report said that 34%
had advanced by at least one educational level. Of those participants who had a goal of
completing the GED, 42% actually passed the GED in 2001-2002; this represented a 27%
increase over the previous year. So, given this data reported to Congress, it would appear
that significant progress is being made in documenting learner gains. Nevertheless, while
states are moving towards better reporting systems to monitor program and learner
progress, it remains to be seen that programs can effectively move students across
multiple educational levels to achieve a high school equivalent credential or
postsecondary education.
Another issue concerns how to manage enrollment. Many programs employ an
open entry- open exit model of enrollment. Given the need to document individual
learning gains, some programs are beginning to consider managed enrollment. Under this
model, students would be required to enroll at predetermined times, and attend scheduled
2 Educational level is defined at the state and local level but typically refers to grade level as measured on a qualified test instrument such as the Test of Adult Basic Education.
22
classes rather than at times that are convenient to their schedules. Given the likelihood of
sharp budget cuts in FY 2006, programs may be forced to “cream”, i.e., select students
who are most likely to achieve the goal of getting a job or continuing with postsecondary
schooling. Suggested evidence of this would be appear to be in the reported enrollment
data that shows a decline between 1998 and 2003. However, further analysis is required
to determine if programs are in fact “creaming”.
A final issue concerns how best to serve the burgeoning limited English
proficiency population in adult literacy programs. Many participants pursue ESL to
acquire language proficiency sufficient enough to get or perform on the job. In addition,
in some areas this population can be highly mobile. However, when programs cannot
document student progress, or when students are excessively absent, they can be dropped.
3.3 Research on the Social Impact of Adult Literacy Education
In this climate of increasing accountability and policy that focuses on work
related literacy education outcomes, program directors as well as researchers have taken
interest in documenting the qualitative as well as quantitative impacts of adult literacy
education. A primary motivation for these studies has been to document outcomes in
response to criticisms of lack of results. Researchers have looked broadly at outcomes.
Quigley (1997) identified four purposes for literacy education: to combat poverty, to
acculturate immigrants, to promote morality, to reduce crime and to promote economic
growth. Bingman, Ebert, and Bell (2000) observed that while these outcomes of literacy
education were important, they were not used to evaluate programs. In an effort to inform
policy makers about the multiplicity of purposes for literacy education, researchers began
to study the various outcomes of literacy education.
23
In a major study, commissioned by the National Center for the Study of Adult
Learning and Literacy (NCSALL), Beder (1999) reviewed 23 studies deemed rigorous3
enough upon which to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the outcomes and impacts
of adult literacy programs in the United States. Eleven conclusions were drawn based on
a review of these 23 studies.
1. In general, it is likely that participants in adult literacy receive gains in
employment.
2. In general, participants in adult literacy education believe their jobs improve over
time. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that participation in
adult literacy education causes job improvement.
3. In general, it is likely that participation in adult literacy education results in
earnings gains.
4. In general, adult literacy education has a positive influence on participants
continued education.
5. Although the evidence suggests that participants in welfare sponsored (JOBS
Program) adult literacy education do experience a reduction in welfare
dependence, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether adult literacy education in
general reduces welfare dependence for participants.
3 Beder reviewed 68 outcomes studies of adult literacy education and identified 23 that were deemed most credible using the following criteria: study included an outcome/impact component; research design was adequately described; sample included an adequate number of cases; sampling plan was adequate; data collection procedures were adequate objectives measures were used to measure outcomes; measures were valid and reliable; research design included a control group; and inferences were sound.
24
6. Learners perceive that participation in adult literacy education improves their
skills in reading, writing, and mathematics.
7. As measured by tests, the evidence is insufficient to determine whether or not
participants in adult literacy education gain in basic skills.
8. In general, adult literacy education provides gains in GED acquisition for
participants entering oat the adult secondary education (ASE) level.
9. Participation in adult literacy education has a positive impact on learners self
image.
10. According to learners self reports, participation in adult literacy education has a
positive impact on parents’ involvement in their children’s education.
11. Learners perceive that their personal goals are achieved through participation in
adult literacy education.
Bingman, Ebert and Bell (2000) report on two Tennessee studies that identified a
variety of learner outcomes. The Tennessee Longitudinal Study, conducted between 1992
and 1995, focused on four areas: socio economic well being; social well being; personal
well being; and physical well being. In another study, Bingman and Ebert (2000)
examined how ten adult literacy students in Tennessee defined the meaning and outcomes
of their participation in adult education programs. Nine participants reported acquiring
new literacy skills; new skills in reading, writing, and computation led to changes in the
ways they used literacy in their lives. Changes were in a practical everyday activities;
increased access to an understanding of expository text; and more extensive reading.
25
Participants described positive changes in their sense of self, a strong sense of
accomplishment, and a new and stronger voice or new opportunities to express
themselves.
An important part of their theoretical discussion had to do with learners’ self-
esteem. While prior research had shown that self-esteem was often found as an outcome
of adult basic education, Bingman and Ebert (2000) observed that even while an adult
might have a positive overall self concept, he or she might still feel low self-esteem with
regard to schooling or literacy proficiency. Though not generalizable, the findings
suggest that participation in adult literacy education may have as much to do with
psychological development as with more "tangible" outcomes as employment. Their
findings are consistent with other studies of literacy outcomes (Fingeret and Drennon,
1997; Foster, 1989; Beder 1999).
In a study of ABE students in a number of geographically dispersed sites across
several states, Purcell- Gates, Degener, Jacobson, and Soler (2000) conceptualized
literacy as a set of social practices. The findings from this mixed-methods study of
literacy outcomes found that adult literacy students report change in frequency and/or
type of out school literacy practices if materials used in instruction were drawn from their
real life contexts as opposed to school-based texts. In summary, these and similar studies
provide documentation of meaningful learning outcomes that are not limited to
employment or the pursuit of postsecondary education.
4.0 Providers
In this section, I present a brief description of the agencies that provide adult
literacy education services through the federal funded system. Over 4000 agencies
26
receive federal funds to support programs in adult literacy. Almost sixty percent were
public school districts, 15 percent were two-year institutions such as community colleges
or technical institutes, 14 percent were community based agencies, four percent were
correctional institutions with the remaining seven percent a variety of other types of
agencies (Sticht 2002). The particular configuration of providers—public LEAs, public
agencies, and private non-profits—will vary widely from state to state. Public LEAs
typically include public schools, two year technical or community colleges; public
agencies may include public libraries and correctional institutions; and private not for
profits include a range of community-based organizations, churches, synagogues or
temples, or national organizations that sponsor literacy. The types of institutions can be
roughly grouped into two categories: public, formal institutions of education, and private
non-profits. Federal funds flow to the states and are administered through a designated
state office of education. In turn, the states allocate funds to local educational agencies
(LEAs) located in the various counties and municipalities.
4.1 Public Agencies and Institutions
Although the range of services across these institutions and agencies varies
widely, some common patterns exist. Many programs, particular those housed in LEAs
employ a traditional classroom format while others may use individualized instruction
such as tutoring or computer-based instruction (Comings, Reder, and Sum, 2001). Many
programs offer combinations of instructional formats to accommodate adults varying
needs. Classes may be offered throughout the day as well as in the evenings and on
weekends. Variations in scheduling and curricula relate to funding levels and
accessibility to target populations.
27
A major issue facing formal education institutions is scheduling classes and
services to suit adult lifestyles. Working adults typically find it difficult to attend classes
during the day. Given sufficient resources, many programs provide for open enrollment
to permit adults to enter instruction when they are ready rather than having to wait for a
new class to be scheduled. Women, especially unwed mothers, find it difficult to attend
without child care services. Regular attendance can be problematic if classes are not
accessible by public transportation.
4.2 Non-profit Literacy Providers
Not for profit organizations such as Laubach Literacy and Literacy Volunteers of
America play an important role in the provision of literacy services throughout America
(Sticht, 2004). Despite their history of working in the area of adult literacy, not-for-profit
community organizations were originally ineligible to receive federal dollars. Non-profits
were required to partner with LEAs that had the option of providing funds to not for
profits. Community-based organizations often serve the least educated and hardest to
reach adults. The coming together of community organizations was the result of a
multiyear effort that had its roots in Chicago, Illinois in the early 1980s. In 1984, a
national coalition of community organizations emerged in support of the National
Literacy Act. The Act provided for increased access of community based organizations to
literacy funds.
A major development in the non-profit sector was the merger in 2001 of two of
the largest literacy volunteer organizations in the United States—Laubach Literacy
International and Literacy Volunteers of America. They joined to form a new
organization named ProLiteracy Worldwide. The new organization provides services for
28
almost 250,000 adult learners through a national network of more than 150,000
volunteers and almost 1500 local, state, and regional literacy providers (Sticht, 2004).
A comprehensive study of not-for-profit organizations that provide adult literacy
services is yet to be conducted, a few examples will give the reader a general sense of the
work they do. In New York City, the El Barrio Popular education program serves
women primarily from the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. Most participants are
mothers receiving welfare and many are displaced workers from the garment industry.
The program employs both Spanish-language and English as a Second Language teachers
who are bilingual. The curriculum is bilingual and bi-literate incorporating dialogue,
reading and writing in both English and Spanish (D’Amico, 2004). In a similar vein,
Universidad Popular provides literacy and English-language instruction to Spanish-
speaking adults (Jeria, 1999). In North Carolina, Literacy South is a nonprofit
organization that provides referral and clearinghouse services for adults seeking literacy
education programs. Literacy South also works with nonprofits in coordinating services
and in providing information to improve the quality of service (D’Amico, 2004).
Lockard (1999) describes an adult literacy education program for Navajo Indians
in Arizona and Colorado. While the focus of this program is the preservation of Navajo
language and culture, English language literacy is taught in conjunction with Navajo
literacy. The curriculum is designed to help Navajo adults and adolescents reclaim their
cultural identity and to develop a sharp awareness of the relationship between their
experiences as Native Americans on a reservation and the educational and economic
policies of the Bureau of Indian Affairs that sets policy for education and other services
they receive.
29
Sheared (1994, 1999) discusses a culturally relevant approach to literacy in an
adult basic education class in San Francisco, California. The program serves primarily
African American participants and is designed to help them acquire literacy skills by
using culturally appropriate communication. She identifies how African American
learners often prefer to communicate in a collective, participatory voice instead of sitting
in a traditional classroom where students must wait their turn to be called upon.
Finally, religious organizations such as churches, synagogues, and mosques may
also provide literacy services although many do not qualify for and are not interested in
receiving state funding for the programs they administer. Under the Bush
administration’s faith-based initiative4, such programs may, in the future, qualify for
funding and become subject to government oversight. These examples illustrate the
some of the ways in which community based and non profit agencies provide literacy
services by assisting adults to “read the word and the world” and using literacy to
respond to issues they face in the context of the communities in which they live.
4 The phrase "faith-based programs" refers to the policy initiative by the Bush administration to
make federal funding available to religious organizations. The policy implication of the principle of the
separation of church and state has historically restricted the eligibility of faith-based organizations such as
churches, mosques, and synagogues to receive federal government grants. The Bush administration has
argued that religious organizations are often more effective than government funded social service agencies
because they integrate spirituality and religious faith with the provision of social services. This policy is
very controversial because of the way that the separation of church and state has been interpreted by the
federal courts. (See Kathryn Tenpas, Can an office change a country? The White House office on faith-
based and community initiatives, a year of review, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Washington,
DC: Pew Research Center, 2002, http://pewforum.org/events/022002/tenpas.pdf).
30
5.0 Federal Funding
A number of researchers have concluded that adult literacy programs historically
have been under funded and understaffed (Sheared 1994; Amstutz, 2001; Sparks &
Peterson, 2000). Despite growing enrollments in adult literacy since 1966, growth in
funding has been intermittent. For example, in the mid 1980s, during the Reagan
administration, federal funding for adult literacy actually declined and then remained
level while enrollments were growing at a dramatic rate primarily due to the increase in
English as a Second Language instruction. In the early 1990s, First Lady Barbara Bush,
an avid supporter of adult literacy education, promoted literacy education and funding
grew at a dramatic rate. During the first Clinton administration, funding again leveled off
and actually declined before jumping sharply in 1996 and 1997.
From 2001 to 2005 federal funding was fairly level—right at 500 million dollars.
At the time of this writing, the Bush administration has proposed deep cuts of nearly 75
% in federal funding support for adult literacy education. It is noteworthy that that
proposed budget for FY 2006 will be approximately the level that was allocated twenty
years ago (FY 1986 and 1987). While major policy initiatives such as the Iraq war effort
and the growing concern over homeland security have caused a shift in priorities away
from domestic to international policy, adult education—along with other domestic social
programs—risks sharp cutbacks that will severely affect not only the level but also the
scope of service.
Figure 1 Annual AEFLA Funding, 1985 to 20065
5 Figures for 2005 are estimates based on projected expenditures; figures for 2006 are projections
based on President’s Bush’s budget which has not yet attained congressional approval.
31
Federal Funding for Adult Education 1985 to 2006
050
100150200250300350400450500550
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Year
Amou
nt ($
) Mill
ions
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal year 1985 – 2006 State Tables for the U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved online: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html
If the proposed cutbacks in funding are signed into law, states will face difficult
choices regarding the organization and delivery of adult literacy services. States can
choose to replace lost federal dollars with state tax dollars thereby increasing pressure on
already stretched state budgets; or they can scale back services in terms of numbers or
types of students served. One possible consequence of the latter choice would be to limit
service to those students likely to transition into employment or postsecondary education
within a short period of time. The effect of this would be to reduce or eliminate services
to those adults who are most in need such as the poor, under educated, disabled, or
unskilled.
32
33
6.0 Participation in Adult Literacy Programs
The U.S. Department of Education periodically determines the target population
for adult literacy and basic education services. This determination is made by counting
the number of persons, age 16 and older, not having a high school diploma or its
equivalent. Based on the 2000 census, it was estimated that more than 51 million adults,
or approximately 23 percent of the adult population, possess limited literacy skills. The
number is almost evenly divided between males and females. Table 2 breaks this number
down by gender by level of schooling completed. The majority of adults who lack a high
school diploma have between nine and twelve years of schooling. However, a large
number—more than 15 million adults—have eight or fewer years of schooling.
Table 3 presents the percentage of the number of adults without a high school
diploma by race/ethnicity. Whites comprise the majority of the target population (66
percent) while 15 percent are African American, three percent Asian, and three percent
are members of two or more major race groups, one percent are American Indian and
Table 2
Adult Education Target Population by Number of Years of Schooling and Gender
Level of Educational Attainment Number in Target Population
Male
Female
Total 51,360,337 25,811,060 25,549,277
0 to 4 Years of Schooling 4,618,949 2,295,193 2,323,756
5 to 8 years of schooling 11,325,982 5,635,805 5,690,177
9 to 12 years of schooling 35,415,406 17,880,062 17,535,344
Source: Lasater and Elliott, 2004.
34
35
Table 3
Adult Education Target Population by Race/Ethnicity6
Race/ethnicity Percent
White 65.9
African American 15.4
Asian American 3
Native American 3
Bi racial and other groups 14
Hispanic 26
Source: Lasater and Eliott, 2004.
6 Figures do not add to 100% because Hispanics can be of any racial category.
Alaska Native (Lasater and Elliott, 2004). Twenty six percent of the target population is
of Hispanic descent. Of the 51+ million adults with less than twelve years of schooling,
nearly a third, more than 16 million persons, speaks a first language other than English.
The largest language sub group is comprised of those persons whose first language is
Spanish. This has been the fastest growing sub group with adult literacy over the past 20
years.
Although census reports of adults with less than a high school credential identify
the number who are eligible for adult literacy programs, this measure does not provide an
indication of literacy proficiency. The National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), first
conducted in 1992, employed a broad definition literacy proficiency which was defined
as “using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals,
and to develop one’s knowledge and potential” (National Center for Education Statistics,
Defining and Measuring Literacy, available online:
http://nces.ed.gov/naal/defining/defining.asp). The de facto norm for literacy proficiency
is competence in the English language. The NALS provides one of the most detailed
estimates of English literacy currently in use. Literacy skills are documented along three
dimensions: document, prose, and quantitative literacy. Five literacy proficiency levels
are indicated based on scores that range from 225 and below (the lowest level) to 375 and
higher (the highest level).
For the 1992 NALS, more than 13,000 adults across the country were
interviewed. Participants were randomly selected to represent the adult population of the
country as a whole. Another 1,000 adults were interviewed in each of 11 states that
chose to participate in a concurrent survey designed to provide results that are
36
comparable to the national data. Based upon a random selection of prison locations 1100
inmates in 80 federal and state prisons were also surveyed. Altogether a total of 26,000
adults participated in the survey (Kaestle, Campbell, Finn, Johnson, Mikulecky, 2001).
An analysis of the 1992 NALS data revealed that literacy proficiency was most
strongly related to level of formal schooling. High school graduates had an average score
of 270 compared with 231 for non high school completers on the prose literacy scale. An
analysis of literacy proficiency in terms of race/ethnicity found that Hispanic adults
averaged 216 compared to 237 for African American and 287 for Whites. The authors
reasoned that the correlation between racial/ethnic groups and literacy proficiency is
partly explained by the differing levels of education attainment, parental education,
income or other variables that differ by race (Kaestle et al., 2001).
A third finding from this study revealed that average literacy proficiency rises in
relationship to cohort age up to the cohort in their forties. Scores tend to decline for
cohorts in their fifties and beyond. What this means, according to the report, is that
literacy is most strongly associated with years of formal schooling. Age cohorts from the
20 to the 40s tend to continue to pursue formal education. Age cohorts in their 50s and
older have not pursued formal education to the same extent. The conclusion is therefore
drawn that literacy proficiency levels increase as level of formal schooling increases.
Nevertheless, it is important to understand that literacy is very complex and no simple
relationship drawn between two variables can account for the variation in literacy levels
across socioeconomic, racial, and gender lines because not all groups benefit equally
from formal education. Not only is there a relationship between formal education and
37
38
literacy proficiency, but also between race and ethnicity, educational attainment, race and
ethnicity and literacy proficiency.
6.1 Participation in Adult Literacy and the Unequal Distribution of Literacy Proficiency
Participation in adult literacy education programs funded by the federal
government show that Hispanics and African Americans together account for more than
one half of all learners served. Compared to the population as a whole, Whites make up
75% of the population, Hispanics make up 12.5%, and African Americans are 12.3% of
the population. And Asians, Native Americans or Alaska natives, and native Hawaiians
and Pacific Islanders account for another 4.5%. In comparing the participation rates in
adult literacy with the population as a whole, it can be seen that people of color are
disproportionately represented (D’Amico, 2004).
Table 4 shows that, over the six year period from 1998 to 2003, Blacks and
Hispanics accounted for more than half of enrollments in adult literacy. However, over
the six year period, overall enrollments declined despite increases in federal funding.
Traditionally, adult literacy programs have served the economically marginalized.
Persons who were severely economically disadvantaged by virtue of income,
employment, welfare, or homeless status accounted for a third of adult literacy
enrollments during the 1995 to 1998 period (Table 5). Sticht (2002) noted that from 1992
to 1999 federal ABE program served nearly 8 million working poor, 3.3 million welfare
recipients, and more than nine million who were unemployed.
39
Table 4
Enrollment in ABE by Race/Ethnicity, 1998 to 20037
Year AmericanIndian/ Alaskan Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black, not of Hispanic
origin
Hispanic White, notof Hispanic
origin
Total
1998 42,333 481,037 662,109 1,663,984 1,171,090 4,020,553
1999
51,466 384,975 621,914 1,469,218 1,078,817 3,606,390
2000 48,532 214,698 614,475 1,029,608 984,594 2,891,907
2001 43,680 211,736 548,562 1,033,442 835,431 2,928,815
2002 41,210 243,874 559,247 1,112,803 830,282 2,887,416
2003 35,996 227,193 540,200 1,143,000 787,797 2,734,186
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy, adapted from D’Amico, 2004, p. 22. Available online: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/aefacts.html
7 2003 was the last year that enrollment data were available as of this writing.
Table 5
Number of adults in economically disadvantaged categories served by ABE
Year Working poor
Unemployed Welfare recipients
Homeless Yearly total served
1995-96 1,017,268 1,196,866 436,212 38,113 4,042,172
1996-97 1,026,395 1,103,475 383,116 30,326 4,017,272
1997-98 957,490 934,559 362,349 20,534 4,020,500
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy. Cited in D’Amico, 2004, p. 20. In addition to the link between economic status and literacy, there exists a strong
relationship between race/ethnicity and literacy proficiency. An even more telling finding
can be discerned by analyzing the data from the NALS household survey that reported
the mean proficiency scores of adults by race/ethnicity and proficiency level. The
distribution of literacy proficiency among adults in the American population clearly
reflects the structure of economic, political, and social inequality in American society. As
noted by Sum, Kirsch, and Taggart (2002):
The continued high levels of inequality in literacy, math, and science knowledge
among elementary and secondary students, young adults, and the entire adult
population of the U.S. do not bode well for the future outlook on inequality in the
schools, the economy, the labor markets, and our social and civic life. If we fail to
reduce the degree of inequality in literacy skills over the coming decade, then the
cognitive demands for access to most high-skilled, high-wage jobs in U.S. labor
markets and for active participation in civic and political life will create a
bifurcated distribution of economic and political rewards in the future. These data
40
41
should serve as a call to action by all who care about achieving a more egalitarian
set of economic, political, and social outcomes for the nation in the first decade of
the 21st century. (p. 30)
As D’Amico (2004) reports people of color—Hispanics and African Americans—
are over-represented at the lowest literacy proficiency levels (Tables 6 and 7). This
condition is unlikely to change unless fundamental change in policy towards adult
literacy education is achieved to expand opportunities for low literate adult to acquire the
skills and social capital necessary to participate in the economic, civic, and political life
of the nation.
42
Table 6 Mean Prose, Document and Numeracy Proficiency Scores by Race/Ethnicity
Scale White Black Hispanic
Prose 280 237 208
Document
280 230 213
Quantitative 287 224 212
Source: Sum, Kirsch, and Taggart, 2002, p. 23.
Table 7 Percentage of Adults at Lowest Level of Literacy by Race/Ethnicity, NALS, 1996 Ethnic Group % of All
U.S. Adults % of Adults in Prose Level I
% of Adults in Document
Level I
% of Adults in Quantitative
Level I White 76 51 54 50
Black
11 20 20 23
Hispanic 10 23 21 22
Asian/ Pacific Islander
2 4 3 3
Source: D’Amico, 2004.
6.2 The International Adult Literacy Survey
How does literacy proficiency among U.S. adults compare with that of other
countries? The answer to the question may be found in results of the International Adult
Literacy Survey (IALS). First conducted in the fall of 1994 the IALS surveyed literacy
proficiency in seven countries. A second survey of twenty-two countries was completed
in 1998 with a report published in 2001 entitled, Literacy in the Information Age: Final
Report of the International Adult Literacy Survey published by the Organization of
Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and Statistics Canada (2001). The
goal of these studies was to create comparable literacy profiles across national, linguistic
and cultural boundaries.
On the prose literacy and document literacy scales, the United States ranks ninth
on the prose literacy scale and fourteenth on the document literacy scale. Except for the
bottom five countries (Hungary, Slovenia, Chile, Portugal, and Poland), the United States
has one of the highest proportion of its population at the lowest level of literacy, levels 1
and 2 for both document and prose literacy. In the comparisons of quantitative literacy,
the United States ranks in the lower half of the nations compared. Among the significant
findings of the report is that there is a close association between higher level literacy
skills and participation in the labor force signaling that the United States risks a work
force that is lagging in basic literacy skills.
An even more telling finding is that when nations are compared in terms of adult
who have not completed high school, the scores of American adults are among the lowest
of all countries in the sample ranking ahead of only Slovenia, Chile, and Portugal. This
43
is significant since this population represents the target population of adult literacy and
basic education programs under the auspices of the Adult Education and Family Literacy
Act, Title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. While international comparisons
should be made with caution, the picture emerges that the United States is lagging behind
most nations in the survey in terms of addressing the lack of literacy skills of the most
under educated segments of the population.
7.0 Looking to the Future
A number of challenges as well as opportunities face the adult educators in the
United States. While federal policy changes of the past 10 years have signaled the need
for important shifts in the current system, other more recent developments have changed
the national climate with respect to education’s place among the nation’s priorities.
Chief among these were the events of September 11, 2001 and, in their aftermath, the
nation’s struggle to fight the war on terror. Nevertheless, as literacy advocates have
increasingly made clear, the continued strength of the nation’s economic and political
systems may be at risk if policy makers fail to recognize the importance of high literacy
proficiency across all segments of the population.
7.1 Funding
A number of challenges face the adult literacy education community in the United
States. Most immediate is the draconian budget cut proposed by the Bush administration
and adopted by Congress8 for fiscal year 2006. Many states are unlikely to make up the
difference because of their own budget circumstances. As of this writing, Congress has
8 As of this writing, Congress has adopted a Bush administration budget that retains the budget cuts despite intensive lobbying efforts on the part of the adult education and literacy community. Lobbying efforts continue within the literacy advocacy community.
44
adopted a Bush administration budget that retains the budget cuts despite intensive
lobbying efforts on the part of the adult literacy advocates. If the federal budget
reductions are enacted, adult literacy education will look drastically different over the
next several years as states respond to the severe reductions in budget allocation. Factors
contributing to the challenges faced by states are the pressure on the federal budget to
adequately finance the military effort in Iraq, enhancing homeland security, and
managing the record setting federal budget deficits of the past several years9.
7.2 Literacy Policy Agenda
For years, appeals have been made from various corners for literacy leaders and
practitioners to become proactive in the policy setting process (Quigley, 2000). In
September, 2000 members of the National Coalition for Literacy and representatives of
other groups met in Washington to discuss an agenda for adult literacy. The report From
Margins to the Mainstream: an Action Agenda for Literacy (National Institute for
Literacy, 2001) outlined 76 recommendations aimed at improving adult literacy in
America. A major goal was to achieve a funding level of one billion dollars by 2010
(Sticht, 2004).
7.3 Research Developments in Adult Literacy
As part of its agenda for education reform at the primary and secondary levels, the
Bush administration Department of Education in 2001 announced that policy should be
based on “credible” research. This was as much an ideological and policy shift as it was
a rhetorical. In effect, non-statistical, criterion-based sampling procedures (as opposed to
9 The federal budget deficit has been running in the 200 to 300 million dollar range and is expected to approach 400 million dollars in the current fiscal year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
45
random sampling) research that was not based on positivist principles of knowledge
production would be discounted in any policy discussion. Termed evidence-based
research (Demetrion, 2005), this new approach to research and policy development
signaled that the literacy research community would struggle to find a way to represent
the full range of literacy practice in a fairly narrow range of methods to produce
knowledge. This disjuncture between the range and richness of literacy practice and
learning and federal policy governing acceptable research further served to undermine a
view of literacy not based on universal standards and statistically documentable
outcomes.
This represented a significant challenge to adult literacy since in the years just
prior to 2001, several reports (several are discussed in the Social Impact of Literacy
section of this paper) were developed to show the significance of literacy learning in a
variety of areas of adult life. These studies either incorporated or employed exclusively
qualitative methods (Quigley, 1990; Sheared, 1994; Bingman & Ebert, 2000; Bingman,
Ebert & Bell, 2000; Purcell-Gates, Degener, Jacobson, & Soler, 2000). The implication
is that the findings of such studies would be either disregarded or discounted in informing
policy makers about promising literacy practices.
7.4 Practitioner and Learner Groups
One promising set of developments has been the emergence of national learner
organizations and practitioner summit to address literacy education needs. The Voice for
Adult Literacy United for Education (VALUE) is a national organization of students in
literacy. A national leadership was held in Columbus, Ohio in 2001. The organization
recognizes learners who have taken leadership roles to advocate for adult literacy
46
education. A former student president of the organization said: “As taxpayers and voters,
let’s see that the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States is properly
funded and that it is regarded as an important part of our education system” (cited in
Sticht, 2004, p. 6).
Growing out of the National Literacy Summit, NCSALL developed a facilitator
guide for focus group discussion and planning sessions of adult literacy educators. This
was a significant step toward promoting dialogue among literacy educators who,
typically, work in isolation from each other. The guide is intended to facilitate
conversations among providers and practitioners about moving forward with a broad
national agenda for adult literacy education. The discussions are aimed at bringing
together program staff, Workforce Investment Boards, state-level ABE staff and other
stakeholders in adult literacy education (Nash & Smith, 2000). Furthermore, these efforts
are consistent with research-based recommendations (Quigley, 1997) that propose that
literacy practitioners find ways to dialogue about common problems and to use state level
organizations and institutions to facilitate this. These efforts, tentative as they are, signal
an increasing awareness among learners and practitioners that concerted action is
required in order to improve the status and visibility of adult literacy education. While it
may be too hasty to speak of an adult literacy movement in the United States, the
elements are present for one to develop.
7.5 Leveling the Playing Field
Despite efforts to organize and create constructive dialogue around policy issues
affecting programs, many adult literacy practitioners often say they feel like the poor
cousin in the field of education. The fact is that in the adult literacy education system,
47
relatively few programs are housed in exclusively adult education agencies whose leaders
fully understand and are committed to adult education and literacy. Comings, Reder, and
Sum (2001) have recommended that “the adult education and literacy system should be
part of a national lifelong learning system (p.23)” to fully address the literacy needs of
learners in work and other areas of adult life. They argue that the system should be
valued for its ability to achieve specific economic benefits and not be “seen as another
social program” (p.23). They ground their analysis in the prediction that unless the
problems of adult under education and illiteracy, especially for those persons at the
lowest level of the NALS scale, are fully addressed, America will develop:
two very different populations: one with an education sufficient to do well in the
new economy, help their children succeed in school, and play a leadership role in
their communities, and the other whose lack of language proficiency, education,
or basic skills leaves them and their families beyond the reach of opportunity and
on the margins of civic and social life. (p. 24)
Even as the authors here frame their argument on terms familiar to policy makers
concerned about America’s economic competitiveness, they are also concerned about the
social impacts of literacy. These comments are brought into even clearer focus by Sum,
Kirsch, and Taggart (2002) who argue that significant improvement in U.S. international
educational standing,
will require substantial improvements in the literacy proficiencies of Blacks,
Hispanics, and the foreign born from all racial/ethnic groups. The applauded
multicultural diversity of the U.S. population needs to be accompanied by much
48
greater multicultural uniformity in literacy proficiencies if the national goals of
racial/ethnic economic and educational equality are to be achieved. (p. 22)
These are important challenges facing literacy educators—indeed all Americans—in the
coming decade. It remains to be seen whether adult literacy educators can, to borrow
Quigley’s phrase, “mould a world.”
49
References
Amstutz, D. (2001). Adult basic education: Equipped for the future or for failure? In P.
A. Sissel (Ed.), Making space: Merging theory and practice in adult education
(pp. 182-194). Westport: Bergin and Garvey Publishers.
Askov, E. N. (2000). Adult Literacy. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of
Adult and Continuing Education (pp. 247-262). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Barton, P. E., & Jenkins, L. (1995). Literacy and dependency: the literacy skills of
welfare recipients in the United States. Princeton, NJ: ETS Policy Information
Center.
Beder, H. (1999). The outcomes and impacts of adult literacy education in the United
States (Vol. 6). Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning
and Literacy.
Belzer, A., Drennon, C., & Smith, C. (1999). Building professional development systems
in adult basic education: lessons from the field. In J. Comings & B. Garner & C.
Smith (Eds.), Annual review of adult learning and literacy (Vol. 2). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Bingman, M. B., & Ebert, O. (2000). "I've come a long way": Learner-identified
outcomes of participation in adult literacy programs. Cambridge, MA.: National
Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy Harvard Graduate School of
Education.
50
Bingman, M. B., Ebert, O., & Bell, B. (2000). Outcomes of participation in adult basic
education the importance of learners' perspectives. Cambridge, MA: National
Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy Harvard Graduate School of
Education.
Comings, J. P., Reder, S. M., & Sum, A. (2001). Building a level playing field the need to
expand and improve the national and state adult education and literacy systems.
Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy,
Harvard Graduate School of Education.
D'Amico, D. (2004). Race, Class, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in Adult Literacy:
Power, Pedagogy, and Programs. In J. P. Comings & B. Garner & C. Smith
(Eds.), Review of Adult Learning and Literacy (Vol. 4, pp. 17-69). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Demetrion, G. (2005). Conflicting Paradigms in Adult Literacy Education: In Quest of a
U. S. Democratic Politics of Literacy. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Eisenhart, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on
"Scientifically Based Research". Educational Researcher, 32(7), 31-38.
Ferdman, B. M. (1990). Literacy and Cultural Identity. Harvard Educational Review,
60(2), 204.
Fingeret, A., & Drennon, C. (1997). Literacy for Life: New Learners, New Practices.
New York: Teachers College Press.
51
Foster, L. (1989). Self-esteem and Mental Imagery in the ABE Classroom: A Holistic
Perspective, Unpublished Master's Qualifying Paper. Raleigh: North Carolina
State University.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Gee, J. P. (1991). Socio-Cultural Approaches to Literacy (Literacies). Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 12, 31-48.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses (2nd ed.).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Gee, J. P. (1999). The New Literacy Studies and the "Social Turn." U.S.; Wisconsin.
Guy, T. C. (1999). Culturally relevant instruction for African American adult literacy
learners. Models for Adult and Lifelong Learning, Volume 2(Pedagogy for Adult
Learners: Methods and Strategies), 117-159.
Hayes, E. (1999). Policy issues that drive the transformation of adult literacy. In L. G.
Martin & J. C. Fisher (Eds.), The Welfare-to-Work Challenge for Adult Literacy
Educators (Vol. 83, pp. 3-14). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Hunter, C. S. J., & Harman, D. (1979). Adult illiteracy in the United States: a report to
the Ford Foundation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jeria, J. (1999). The quest for visibility in adult education: the hispanic experience. In T.
C. Guy (Ed.), Providing Culturally Relevant Adult Education: A Challenge for the
21st Century (Vol. 82, pp. 49-65). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
52
Kaestle, C. F., Campbell, A., Finn, J. D., Johnson, S. T., & Mikulecky, L. (2001). Adult
literacy and education in America. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Kruidenier, J. (2002). Research based principles for adult basic education reading
instruction. Portsmouth, NH.: Partnership for Literacy.
Lasater, B., & Elliott, B. (2004). Profiles of the Adult Education Target Population:
Information from the 2000 Census. Research Park Triangle, NC.: Center for
Research in Education.
Levine, K. (1986). The social context of literacy. London ; Boston: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Lockard, L. (1999). Navajo language and culture in adult education. In T. C. Guy (Ed.),
Culturally relevant adult education: a challenge for the 21st century (Vol. 82, pp.
67-78). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Merrifield, J. (1998). Contested ground: performance accountability in adult basic
education. Cambridge, MA.: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and
Literacy Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Nash, A., & Smith, C. (2000). From the margins to the mainstream: An action agenda
for literacy : guide for a two- or three-hour group discussion and planning
meeting. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education Office of Educational
Research and Improvement Educational Resources Information Center.
53
National Institute for Literacy (2001). A national plan for research and development in
adult education and literacy. Washington, D.C.
OECD & Statistics Canada. (2001). Literacy in the information age: final report of the
international adult literacy survey. Paris: Organization for Economic Co
Operation and Development and the Minister for Statistics, Canada.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London ; New
York: Methuen.
Purcell-Gates, V., Degener, S., Jacobson, E., & Soler, M. (2000). Affecting change in
literacy practices of adult learners impact of two dimensions of instruction.
Cambridge, MA.
Quigley, B. A. (1997). Rethinking literacy education: The critical need for practice-
based change (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Quigley, B. A. (2000). Adult Education and Democracy: Reclaiming our Voice through
Social Policy. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of Adult and
Continuing Education (pp. 208-223). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Senge, P. M. (1994). The Fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a
learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Sheared, V. (1994). Giving voice: An inclusive model of instruction - A womanist
perspective. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 61(Spring), 27-
38.
54
Sheared, V. (1999). Giving Voice: Inclusion of African American Students' Polyrhythmic
Realities in Adult Basic Education. In T. C. Guy (Ed.), Providing Culturally
Relevant Adult Education: A Challenge for the 21st Century (Vol. 82, pp. 33-48).
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Sparks, B., & Peterson, E. A. (2000). Adult Basic Education and the Crisis of
Accountability. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of Adult and
Continuing Education (pp. 263-277). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Slavin, R. (2002). Evidence-based educational policies: transforming educational practice
and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21.
Sticht, T. G. (2002). The Rise of the Adult Education and Literacy System in the United
States: 1600-2000. In J. P. Comings & B. Garner & C. Smith (Eds.), The Annual
Review of Adult Learning and Literacy (Vol. 3, pp. 10-43). San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Sticht, T. G. (2004). The Year 2001 in Review. In J. P. Comings & B. Garner & C. Smith
(Eds.), Review of Adult Learning and Literacy: Connecting Research, Policy and
Practice (Vol. 4, pp. 1-16). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sticht, T. G., & Armstrong, W. (1996). Understanding Adult Literacy: Insights from 75
Years of Quantitative Data. Eljon, CA: Applied Behavioral and Cognitive
Sciences, Inc.
Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
55
Sum, A., Kirsch, I., & Taggart, R. (2002). The twin challenges of mediocrity and
inequality: Literacy in the U.S. from an international perspective. Princeton, N.J.:
Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
Tracy-Mumford, F. (2000). The Year 1998 in Review. In J. P. Comings & B. Garner &
C. Smith (Eds.), The Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy (Vol. 1, pp.
1-24). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
United States. Employment and Training Administration. (1998). Workforce Investment
Act of 1998. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Labor Employment and Training
Administration.
United States. Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
(2001). National reporting system for adult education: implementation guidelines.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult
Education and Literacy.
United States. Department of Education. Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
(2003). Adult education and family literacy act, program year 2001-2002; Report
to Congress on State Performance. Washington, DC:
56
Table 1A Comparison Funding and Enrollment of Five States, FY 1998
State 1998 Federal and State Allocation
Total Enrolled
Idaho Federal: 1 334 468 10 472State: 496 400Total: 1 830 868
Massachusetts Federal: 6 758 226 13 295State: 19 545 465Total: 26 303 691
Ohio Federal: 14 103 969 107 701State: 9 151 480Total: 23 255 449
Pennsylvania Federal: 15 898 856 51 938State: 12 059 000Total: 27 957 856
Virginia Federal: 8 255 055 25 410State: 3 500 000Total: 11 755 055
Source: Adapted from Belzer, Drennon & Smith, 1999, p. 158.
Table 2Adult Education Target Population by Number of Years of Schooling and GenderLevel of Educational Attainment Number in Target
Population Male Female
Total 51 360 337 25 811 060 25 549 277
0 to 4 Years of schooling 4 618 949 2 295 193 2 323 756
5 to 8 years of schooling 11 325 982 5 635 805 5 690 177
9 to 12 years of schooling 35 415 406 17 880 062 17 535 344
Source: Lasater and Elliott, 2004
Table 3Adult Education Target Population by Race/Ethnicity [6]
Race/ethnicity PercentWhite 65,9
African American 15,4
Asian American 3
Native American 3
Bi racial and other groups
14
Hispanic 26
Source: Lasater and Eliott, 2004.
[6] Figures do not add to 100% because Hispanics can be of any racial category.
Table 4Enrollment in ABE by Race/Ethnicity, 1998 to 2003 [7]Year American
Indian/ Alaskan Native
Asian/ Pacific Islander
Black, not of Hispanic
origin
Hispanic White, not of Hispanic
origin
Total
1998 42 333 481 037 662 109 1 663 984 1 171 090 4 020 5531999 51 466 384 975 621 914 1 469 218 1 078 817 3 606 3902000 48 532 214 698 614 475 1 029 608 984 594 2 891 9072001 43 680 211 736 548 562 1 033 442 835 431 2 928 8152002 41 210 243 874 559 247 1 112 803 830 282 2 887 4162003 35 996 227 193 540 200 1 143 000 787 797 2 734 186Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy, adapted from D’Amico, 2004, p. 22.Available online: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/aefacts.html
[7] 2003 was the last year that enrollment data were available as of this writing.
Table 5Number of adults in economically disadvantaged categories served by ABEYear Working
poorUnemployed Welfare
recipientsHomeless Yearly total
served1995-96 1,017,268 1,196,866 436,212 38,113 4,042,1721996-97 1,026,395 1,103,475 383,116 30,326 4,017,2721997-98 957,490 934,559 362,349 20,534 4,020,500Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy. Cited in D’Amico, 2004, p. 20.
Table 6Mean Prose, Document and Numeracy Proficiency Scores by Race/EthnicityScale White Black Hispanic
Prose 280 237 208
Document 280 230 213
Quantitative 287 224 212
Source: Sum, Kirsch, and Taggart, 2002, p. 23.
Table 7Percentage of Adults at Lowest Level of Literacy by Race/Ethnicity, NALS, 1996Ethnic Group % of All U.S.
Adults% of Adults in Prose Level I
% of Adults in Document
Level I
% of Adults in Quantitative
Level I
White 76 51 54 50Black 11 20 20 23Hispanic 10 23 21 22Asian/ Pacific Islander
2 4 3 3
Source: D’Amico, 2004.
Figure 1 Annual AEFLA Funding, 1985 to 2006[5]
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal year 1985 – 2006 State Tables for the U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved online: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html
[5] Figures for 2005 are estimates based on projected expenditures; figures for 2006 are projections based on President’s Bush’s budget which has not yet attained congressional approval.
Federal Funding for Adult Education 1985 to 2006
050
100150200250300350400450500550
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Year
Am
ount
($) M
illio
ns