Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id IAA28438; Thu, 11 May 2000 08:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 08:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <002601bfbb40$d153e2e0$e23daccf@oemcomputer> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Tina McGlynn" <tttt@erols.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1008] Goals and Vision X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 3087 Lines: 75 I am sending this again in plain text to make it easier to read. Tina > The first question for our consideration focuses on the goal for the action > plan being developed through the Summit process. There are two proposed > goals. The initial goal is from the Foundation Paper, the original draft > paper to detail the challenges facing the field, and to recommend the > priority strategies and action steps to develop a more literate nation: > > "By the year 2010, the United States will be the most literate nation in > the world, with 70 percent of the population achieving literacy at or above > the NALS Level 3." > > Based on their concerns, at least one Summit group drafted an alternative > goal: > > "Adults in every community in the U.S. will benefit from a system of high > quality literacy services that helps them reach their full potential > as workers, family members, citizens and lifelong learners." Reaction to these proposed goals: The reason why I prefer the second goal over the first one is because it places the responsibility for the goal in the hands of the people who are creating it. The first goal assumes that we have some kind of magical powers regarding outcomes that lie in the hands of other people. Realistically, all we can do for adults who are illiterate is to provide the very best learning opportunities for them that we can, observe what the results of our efforts are, and continue adapting and revising them until we find something that does indeed make a difference. EFF is so perfect for this process because from the start it has come forth in a consensual way that not only included the voice of government officials and professional educators in high places BUT ALSO THE VOICES OF THE LEARNERS THEMSELVES. This gives a little more credibility to the probablility that developing programs for learning that are connected to/based on the EFF content framework will have a good chance of succesfully motivating adult learners to participate and to matriculate. In light of this perhaps a valid revision of goal two might be as follows: "Adults in every community in the U.S. will benefit from a system of high quality literacy services that are based on the EFF content framework." (Now that cuts to the chase, yes?). This would encompass not only their ability to reach their full potential as workers, family members, citizens, and lifelong learners, but it would also give the appropriate guidelines (aka standards and assessment framework....to come) for developing these literacy services. The only other issue that I think needs to be addressed is to make sure that high quality literacy services include strong support systems for helping adults who have suffered from lifelong language disorders that have prevented them from developing literacy sooner. This goal needs to clearly define what "high quality literacy services" are! Tina McGlynn, Training Director The READ Center 1605 Monument Avenue Richmond, VA 23220 804/353-1587 tttt@erols.com (Preferred) readcnt@aol.com (not always accessible)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:11 EST