Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f1FMS1926811; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:28:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:28:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20010215.172513.6382.0.GDEMETRION@juno.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "GEORGE E. DEMETRION" <gdemetrion@juno.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:409] GDEMETRION: "GEORGE E. DEMETRION" <gdemetrion@juno.com>: Re: X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 Status: O Content-Length: 18156 Lines: 433 (I sent this message this morning and it did not appear. At the risk of it ultimately appearing twice, let me try this again) Hi Lisa: Following up on Steve's message, the different agencies contacted us, primarily at the program rather than executive or board level, which may be part of our dilemma, though the sign off letters that we ask for, are at executive and/or supra agency levels when a particular agency is part of a broader agency complex. This does not, however, necessarily equate to psychological internalization, which remain one of the key issues we strugggle with. That is, for the project to work well based on the premises of the model, part of the answer is tapping in at a higher level up, which we have begun to do in certain cases, though it's still difficult as the entry point has been at the program level where folks from various agencies have contacted us. They, too, conceptually get the model we are proposing and the importance of institutional buy in, but the latter seems more pro forma than substantial at this stage. So there's some work to do on a higher institutional level, though how to get there in a viable and timely way is another matter--perhaps a matter for discussion here. To follow through on some of the dilemmas we're facing, adult literacy/ESOL has much rhetorical value (particularly in a high poverty-rate city like Hartford) among many agencies that understand conceptually that education for and with adults has a lot of potential benefits both to individuals and communities--though, I think there is more than a little of what Harvey Graff refers to as "the literacy myth" operative here. That is, literacy/ESOL may be viewed as a panacea or the royal road to substantial resolution of life problems faced both by individuals and communities, where in reality it is one of the variables which can interact with other variables resulting in a certain degree of life improvement, but clearly not resulting in anything like significantly ameliorating the enduring impact of urban poverty. Though in a small way it may play a highly partial role. Stating this, the impact of such education is indeterminate in terms of individual lives as well as on a collective nature in terms of what a well developed program *can* accomplish in a particular community, both in its own right and in galvanizing other forces of community or neighborhood renewal, though the specter of the "literacy myth" in promising much more than it can possibly deliver, is an enduring presence. I think this ambivalence is perceived by many who then get caught between the hope and the reality--a phenomenon that many of our students experience. Yet, one of the critical reasons for the model is to help establish environments where the partner agency brings additional resources to the table to better assist students to link up education with critical life issues. In this respect, the model (first year into the project) is working to some degree and can work more effectively should the agencies be able to more fully integrate the program into their institutional life. How to get there, that's the challenge. And then conception is one thing. Allocating scarce human (and sometimes financial) resources is another thing in the midst of competing needs and the various workings of organizational culture and inevitable layers of bureaucracy. That's where the rubber really hits the road. One of the most scarce commodities is that of instructional staff, whether paid teachers or volunteer tutors or some combination, thereof. That has proven more than problematic for the project. Part of the problem may be that of tradition. In the traditional LVA model the literacy agency provides the tutors primarily from the suburbs. We still, in part, work out of this model, but seek to move more toward the teaching pool coming entirely from the community/neighborhood/agency that houses the programs and where students come from. At this stage, we're asking the agencies to take the primary responsibility in identifying these folks as well as to sustain and support them, though obviously with assistance from us. Though volunteer tutors in urban communities are hard to come by, many agencies do have the community resources to draw on volunteers for a variety of activities and/or perhaps money for part-time paid teachers or paid staff who can take on some of the teaching. (This is happening to some degree). We have been working on that premise, but now at least are struggling with the possibility that such a recruiting function should be the primary responsibility of the literacy agency, which, in turn, requires additional resources for our agency to take on an additional staff function. This is a delicate and important matter and speaks fundamentally to the issue of autonomy and local control as well as the efficacy of an asset based model of community development, though such a shift in the project's focus may represent an essential scaffolding to move the work forward. That is, it could either cut against the dynamics of what is involved in establishing an autonomous model or provide the means of gradually moving toward it. We have made no decisions on this matter at this time, but believe it's one of the defining issues of the project. As you say, for this model to truly work, the participating agencies need to see adult lit/ESOL programming as integral to their own human resource objective in a vital enough way to provide sufficient resources to sustain the formidable effort of establishing an autonomous program, though with the ongoing consultative support of our agency. That's a high standard and the means of getting there (if feasible) with any agency, often a several stage (and several year?) process, with perhaps the likelihood of various hybrid programs where autonomy and responsibility for program development and maintenance are shared? I'm not sure about this. In any event, I believe that to fully realize the model would require the agencies to work through the literacy myth (obviously with our help) to an understanding of what adult lit/ESOL accomplishes and doesn't accomplish both for individuals and for agencies and communities and then to undergo an assessment of this in juxtaposition to other competing needs and interests in an environment of relatively scarce resources. In fact our agency has just received a grant from the local United Way to link assessment to the various publics that comprise our constituency, so this should help to some extent for the longer haul in helping to identify and articulate the value of adult literacy education to the various relevant communities with whom we need to speak. Perhaps also some discussion on this list about what are the "true" benefits of adult literacy/ESOL as opposed to the myths and ways of articulating this to the various publics (internal and external) that we encounter, may be a useful exercise for many of us. I believe that we also need to wrestle with the significance of such benefits, as defined by the various constituents, and then to think through their implications for long term program development particularly in urban contexts. What additional conclusions and courses of action may such reflection imply for policy and advocacy (defined bradly), program development, curriculum/instruction, etc? A worthy discussion for this list. Finally, our program may be better off working with just a few agencies like libraries or family resource centers (which we are to some extent) or other agencies where education from the get go is perceived as an important value, which would make the "customer-based selling" a lot easier--a more targeted effort with entities that have a strong educational mission, though such a stratgey is more of a an interesting hypothesis than a course of action at this stage. Let me stop here. What do others think and how can we keep this dialogue going on the nature of community-based programming? George Demetrion Manager of Community-Based Programming Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford 30 Arbor St. Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 233-3853 GDemetrion@msn.com Gdemetrion@juno.com Gdemetrion@lvgh.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "GEORGE E. DEMETRION" <gdemetrion@juno.com> To: <gdemetrion@lvgh.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 10:26 AM Subject: lgale@edc.org: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:395] Re: Re Searching for UNational (Urban) Models > --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- > From: lgale@edc.org > To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> > Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:395] Re: Re Searching for UNational (Urban) > Models > Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:56:46 -0500 (EST) > Message-ID: <OFCB272D62.16DC4CDC-ON852569ED.0053AF7D@edc.org> > > > Hello George: > > Your program sounds intriguing. > > Would you share a little about how you recruit agencies -- did they > approach you or vise-versa? Who at the community sites "approved" the > sites' participation in the project? And, perhaps my most important > question -- why did the sites sign on with this project? > > We've found through our experience that well intentioned people with good > ideas are often well received, if the circumstances are right. However, > the challenge is to find a way to get the sites to own of this program, > and > therefore do all the stuff that literacy programs need to do to exist > (i.e., respond to reporting requirements). We've had no problem > suggesting > to various agencies that they consider providing literacy support to > clients and employees, and many have and continue to provide limited > support to literacy learners, but for the agencies to truly own it, they > need to see that it helps them solve an internal agency dilemma in > addition > to the community need. For example, an agency might be concerned about > its > ability to recruit and retain folks in programs -- literacy becomes, yes, > another program, but one that draws people to the agency a little more > readily than other programs. > > Also, staff turnover is a big issue. Imagine a year from now, when key > people that you have been working with who understand what and how the > project work decide to move on. Please think about ways to continually > keep the wider agency involved, so you don't find yourself struggling to > identify the next group of people to be your partners within the agency. > Share your reports with your sites, its ED, program heads, etc. > > > Lisa Gale Van Brackle > Director, Program Development > Adult Literacy Media Alliance > lgale@edc.org > lvgale@aol.com > > > > > > "GEORGE E. > > DEMETRION" To: Multiple recipients of > list > <gdemetrion@ju > <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> > no.com> cc: > > Sent by: Subject: > [NIFL-POVRACELIT:393] Re Searching for > nifl-povraceli UNational (Urban) Models > > t@nifl.gov > > > > > > 02/07/01 06:00 > > PM > > Please respond > > to > > nifl-povraceli > > t > > > > > > > > > (My comments in response to Debbie D'Amico's recent message on national > literacy models) > > Debbie: > > Thanks so much for your comments. Here's a belated response on my part. > I'm on too many lists and have too much else going on! > > Our community in Hartford is a bit smaller than that described in The > Adult Literacy Media Alliance and we're talking about a specific program > focus (the Community Literacy Initiative) within a single agency Literacy > Volunteers of Greater Hartford). LVGH has been involved in small group > community-based tutoring since the early 1990s, largely thanks to my > predecessor, Steve Bender, an incredibly gifted community activist. > During that time I was also at LVGH, operating the agency's centralized > site, then referred to as the Bob Steele Reading Center. Various of my > publications refer to this work. > > After a four-year hiatus from LVGH I came back, taking over Steve's > position, with the work defined now through the Community Literacy > Initiative. > > To briefly recap, the objective of the project is to identify agencies > that seek to develop adult literacy and/or ESOL programs. The agencies > would recruit students, volunteer tutors, or in some cases, hire > teachers. They would also provide a liaison to oversee recordkeeping on > site, including transmitting appropriate data to our office, and to > provide on-going support to the instructors in coordination with our > staff. LVGH would provide tutor training, guidance on instruction and > curriculum development in response to the desires of the students as well > as in relationship to the focus of the agency. LVGH would also provide > on-going tutor support and visit sites at least on an every other weekly > basis (often a lot more). > > It's important to keep in mind, also, that this is the first year of the > CLI, so it would be premature to make definitive statements of its > relative success. The project calls for 10 sites to be up and running > within the three-year period of the project, which includes the four > sites that had been in place at the beginning of the project, but which > were not based on the specifications of the new model. There's a certain > grandfathering of some of the sites, which we are okay with. though we > desire to move toward the new model in all of our sites to the extent to > which that is feasible. > > At this time we have programming in 6 sites with another site ready to > start very soon. > > In addition we also have substantial discussions going on with a couple > of additional sites, so in terms of meeting the numbers of sites the > project calls for, that should come to fruition. I would say four are > running close to what the model calls for with varying degrees of > internalizing the model of full autonomy for which the model calls. > > Although a substantial grandfathered program exists at one of the other > sites, most of the students and tutors were recruited by our agency, > though we are beginning to work more dynamically with agency staff with > the hope and expectation that they will be able to recruit their own > students as well as volunteer tutors (or perhaps hire paid tutors) over > time. Moreover, the sites with which we are currently having discussions > also have a good grasp of the nature of the kind of programming we seek > to develop within the city. > > So the more I write this, the better I'm feeling, though I think the > broad issue remains the degree of internalization the programs can both > develop and sustain with the support of our ongoing training and > consultation. That's one issue we're wrestling with--whether this model > works or whether more of the work should come from the literacy agency > that then would require additional resources to support the effort. > > Another issue is the extent to which community based programs are able > and want to take on the reporting requirements that our agency as a whole > needs to do, both in terms of qualitative and quantitative information. > With the tightening pressures of accountability and the increasingly > narrow interpretation of what this requires, that could be a sticking > point in community-based programs, which work from the premises of their > own logic and cultures. On the other side, the work required to maintain > a well-developed qualitative assessment design might also prove > inhibitive. Yet without such work, the very fine instruction, to say > nothing of the more intangible realms of support students draw from each > other as well as from the agencies where the tutoring takes place, would > go unnoticed and thence, reinforce the marginality that is > all-too-pervasive for the field. Currently, as a near term strategy, our > program does at least some of the testing and all of the coordination of > qualitative assessment. My current strategy to obtain qualitative > information about the program consists of > > * Selective transcript interviews of students and tutors > > * The development of a project-wide portfolio with varying degrees of > contribution from each of the sites > > * The development, probably, of a project-wide collection of student > narratives > > * Informal participant-observer observations of class sites > > Information from all of these sources, in addition to statistical data on > numbers of students, hours of instruction, and test scores go into > various reports to the funders of the project. This will also include an > annual review of the project. We also use these materials to provide > feedback and support to students and tutors largely through instructional > materials, tutor training, in-house publications, and > on-going verbal communication. > > The short of it is, however autonomous the programs become, it seems that > where I sit now, the brunt for much of the assessment will remain ours, > and if so, that will call for certain readjustments of how we go about > our work and the resources needed to do it effectively for the important > task of developing community-based literacy in Hartford. > > What do others think? What may be some other models for developing > community-based literacy and ESOL programming in urban contexts? > > Regards, > > George Demetrion > > Manager of Community-Based programming > > Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford > > (860) 233-3853 > > Gdemetrion@lvgh.org > > Gdemetrion@msn.org > > > > > > > --------- End forwarded message ---------- > > ________________________________________________________________ > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. > --------- End forwarded message ---------- --------- End forwarded message ---------- --------- End forwarded message ----------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:33:03 EST