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 OAA12009; Thu, 11 May 2000 14:02:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:02:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <391AF2CB.3392C581@nr.infi.net>
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: "amy r. trawick" <atrawick@nr.infi.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1010] Re: Summit Feedback Process: The Goal
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
Status: O
Content-Length: 6132
Lines: 130
"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."
I agree that this would be a poor goal for the reasons stated by Tina and Chris.
I think one of the goals in the next 10 years should be to create a literacy
system which serves the needs of society as a whole and those of the individuals
within that society. The goal stated here is a little "top" heavy for my
tastes--where are the learners' purposes? I also fear that basing achievement of
a goal on one narrow assessment tool is poor practice. I have no objection that
I can think of right now for the NALS being used as ONE measurement of whether or
not we achieve our national literacy goals, but I think multiple measures would
give more appropriate, meaningful, and accurate insight into the state of
literacy in this nation.
"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."
I think this goal statement is on the right track, but as Jane said, it is much
too vague. I
DO think, however, that creating a *system* of high quality literacy services is
*definitely* something we as a field want to do in the next 10 years. Our work
with EFF points to this again and again--so much of what doesn't work in adult
ed. is due to the lack of a coherent idea of what we do, the money to do it, and
the trained staff and resources to do it well. The phrase "high quality literacy
services" puts the emphasis on quality and literacy, the latter distinguishing us
from continuing education, which I feel is important. What exactly "high quality
literacy services" are would be something EFF could contribute to. "Full
potential", I agree, is troublesome and beyond the scope of what we can be
responsible for or measure.
I would be hesitant to put EFF explicity into the goal statement. I still see
EFF as a tool we use to accomplish our program/state missions. I do not think it
should be an end in itself. If the "70% at Level 3 on NALS" sounds too much like
an assessment plan, including EFF in the goal statement sounds too much like part
of the action plan.
Alternatives:
This is the hard part. Maybe something like:
"Adults in every community *will have access* to a system of high quality
literacy services which help them *reach their goals* as workers, family members,
citizens, and lifelong learners."
The access part ties into the need for technology/distance learning options as
well as addresses transportation/childcare concerns; the goals part focuses on
why learners come to literacy programs (though I'd really like to see someone
propose a goal statement around the 4 Purposes to see what happens). What may be
missing is the link to the larger community's need for literacy--what the
taxpayer gets out of my being literate.
It seems to me that what is being attempted is not the creation of a vision or
goal statement, but one of mission. It would make sense for us as a field to
first agree on our mission /purpose and then to create and address more than one
goal (to be measurable) to achieve that mission. Isn't this really long-term
strategic planning, after all?
Enjoying the discussion. What are others' thoughts?
Amy Trawick
High Point, NC
atrawick@nr.infi.net
Rgspacone@aol.com wrote:
> NIFL4EFF Colleagues,
>
> On Monday, I proposed we use this list to discuss the draft Action Agenda,
> created at the first National Literacy Summit in Washington D.C., Feb 14-15,
> 2000. The Agenda summarizes the action proposed in that meeting in the form
> of eight priority areas and related action steps. This Agenda will guide the
> field over the next ten years and is the core of current and future Summit
> activities. It is being refined through a consensus buiding process and will
> be modified in response to feedback solicited from other interested
> stakeholders across the nation. I have initiated this discussion assuming we
> have an interest in EFF and that we believe EFF is vital to the current and
> future development of our field. I also assume we think it's important to
> express our informed opinions and actively particpate in the formal consensus
> building process. This discussion forum is a place where we can begin that
> process, and evaluate the draft document to craft constructive feedback to
> submit to the Summit steering committee.
>
> 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."
>
> Choosing one of these two goals, or crafting an entirely new one, will be a
> valuable contribution to the development of this action agenda. Here's the
> question:
>
> Do you agree with the goal as originally presented or the alternative
> goal? If you would like either goal to be changed in anyway, please
> pinpoint what needs to be modified.
>
> NIFL-4EFF Colleagues, what do you think about this?
>
> Thanks,
> Ronna
>
> P.S. The concerns that led to drafting of an alternative goal and a summary
> of the goal discussion is located at the National Literacy Summit web site:
> <http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/summit/agenda.html>
>
> Ronna Spacone
> NIFL-4EFF List Facilitator
> Rgspacone@aol.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:11 EST