Received: from ks01.state.ks.us (ks01.state.ks.us [198.182.140.3]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.6.8/940311.01ccg) with SMTP id LAA01841 for <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 11:42:10 -0500 Received: from smtpgw.ksbe.state.ks.us by ks01.state.ks.us (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00448; Mon, 6 Nov 95 10:47:02 CST Message-Id: <n1396467663.43583@smtpgw.ksbe.state.ks.us> Date: 6 Nov 1995 10:41:52 U From: "Janet Stotts" <jstotts@smtpgw.ksbe.state.ks.us> Subject: Re: fate of ESL? To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2 Status: RO X-Status: Fran, As the only state director of adult education with an extensive ESL background (except perhaps for California which I am not sure about, I have given this a lot of thought, particularly since ESL in not specifically referenced in Kassebaum's Workforce Development Bill. Her idea is that the need is "understood" and included under general literacy. While most of the ESL students are working, most are working at low-level, entry level positions. They need to be enabled to upgrade their skills like all other workers. Our emphasis on survival skills has not given most of them that ability (see the article in the current NCAL Connections). I believe that they fit very well into workforce development funding and also into family literacy funding. The movement that I am keeping a close eye on is the "English only" stampede. I think it needs to be attacked from the standpoint that it is an "unfunded mandate". If they want everybody to learn English, they had better be prepared to pay for it, which of course they are not. However, the words, unfunded mandate, are enough to sink some legislation single handedly. Just a few thoughts on ESL. Jan Stotts jstotts@smtpgw.ksbe.state.ks.us ---------------------------- Date: 10-31-95 10:39 AM To: Stotts, Janet From: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Something to consider: In a recent national study of adult education programs, (the NEAEP), the following statistics about adult ESL students were given: 45% were employed; 36% were not in the workforce; 18% were unemployed. (**Only a small percentage of ESL students count among the unemployed.**) 89% had not received public assistance in the past year. (**ESL students are generally not "on welfare."**) How will funding for ESL services fare once states (probably governors) receive block grants for welfare (with a mandate to get people working) and block grants for workforce development-- the push of the Workforce Development Act (S. 143) and the CAREERS Bill (H.R. 1617) that by year's end are expected to be signed into law by the President? Are ESL services being championed at the state level? Are they doomed unless tied to workforce development? Does anyone have any strategies for navigating the upcoming changes? Fran Keenan NCLE fran@cal.org ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by smtpgw.ksbe.state.ks.us with SMTP;31 Oct 1995 10:33:51 U Received: from (localhost.nifl.gov [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.6.8/940311.01ccg) with SMTP id LAA24025; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:15:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:15:48 -0500 Message-Id: <s0960587.001@cal.org> Errors-To: lmann@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Fran Keenan <fran@cal.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: fate of ESL? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 13:21:42 EST