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 NAA04727; Mon, 15 May 2000 13:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 13:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <dd.459715d.2651850f@aol.com> 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: Rgspacone@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1022] Summit's Alternative Goal, revised X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 101 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: O Content-Length: 5159 Lines: 95 Hello Everyone, In this message, I've tried to recap our discussion of the National Literacy Summit-related Goal and Vision. It's rather lengthy and might be easier to understand if you print it out first. I've included our reasons for wanting to scrap the original Goal statement; our recommendations for adopting the alternative Goal and revising it; and some thoughts about needing a goal and a vision, and maybe a mission statement. So far, we've agreed the original Goal should be scrapped, that is: "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." Our reasons include: NALS has little meaning to adult learners and to our programs; the national goal should not be phrased in terms of one measurement; comparing literacy in the U.S. to other nations is irrelevant; the target date seems meaningless; and this Goal excludes any mention of the purposes for the learning, the people and the services involved. We prefer -- and want to revise -- the 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." As it is, this goal is too vague and we had trouble with the pharses, "will benefit from" and "full potential." The first because it sounds judgemental, and the second because it's beyond the scope of our responsibilities. Amy suggested: "Adults in every community in the U.S. 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." This followed Tina's suggestion that EFF be explicit to the Goal, putting forth: "Adults in every community in the U.S. will benefit from a system of high quality literacy services that is based on the EFF content framework" on the basis that EFF includes the critical adult roles and responsibilties and the appropriate guidelines for developing literacy services (i.e., the standards and the assessment framework that's being developed). Although there seems to be consensus that we'd like to propose a goal statement around the four purposes for learning and the roles, more than one of us thinks explicit mention of EFF belongs in the strategies and action plan, and the development of the system -- not in the Goal itself. Sondra shared how the state of Washington framed the vision for their state plan: "All adults will have access to adult and family literacy services that assist them gaining the skills required to: access needed information, take independent action, express their ideas and opinions, keep up with a changing world, and exercise their rights and responsibilities as family members, workers, and citizens." This is similar to the initial EFF reversion of Goal 6 proposed in the book, Customer-Driven Vision: "By the year 2000, every adult will be literate and will possess the knowlege and skills necessary to orient themselves in a rapidly changing world, to voice their ideas and be heard, and to act independently as parents, citizens and workers, for the good of family, community and nation." Finally, Jane suggested a restatement of the alternative Goal that combines Washington and EFF's: "Every adult will possess the knowledge and skills required to access needed information, take independent action, express their own ideas and opinions, keep up with a changing world, and exercise their rights and responsibilities as family members, workers, and community members." Through our discussion, we've acknowledged it's important to be clear among ourselves about what the terms, vision and goal and mission mean. Chris shared his definitions: "The Vision is about our community or society and what we want it to be. The Mission is a statement about the organization's role in accoplishing the Vision. Goals are broader statements, with objectives defining the specifics of that goal. Objectives are monitored, while attainment of goals are evaluated." It's been suggested we need a mission statement, but Chris has pointed out that any discussion in terms of a mission should occur at the organizational or regional levels. And then where does a discussion of the objectives belong? Do we think a separate vision and goal are necessary to guide our field through the next 10 years? What we have been discussing is more a Vision than a Goal, although perhaps the EFF standards do provide a way to propose measures for it. Knowing this, are we then satisfied to have Vision and Goal rolled into one? In your opinions, does the alternative Goal need any further modifications? Are there any other thoughts or ideas about this, before we turn our attention to the eight Priority Strategies and Action Steps? Thanks! Ronna Ronna Spacone NIFL-4EFF List Facilitator Rgspacone@aol.com P.S. The National Literacy Summit Draft Action Agenda is located at: <http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/summit/agenda.html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:11 EST