[NIFL-POVRACELIT:1124] Seeking resources to Reconstruct a Network

sophocles5@juno.com

Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 16:23:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030514.161746.6398.0.sophocles5@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" <sophocles5@juno.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1124] Seeking resources to Reconstruct a Network
Status: RO
Content-Length: 7383
Lines: 143

In light of the recent discussion between Peg Oliver and Gail Spangenberg
on prospects for leadership in the field of adult literacy, I offer the
following reflection for your consideration and deliberation.  My
apologies for those who receive this as a cross psoting.

George Demetrion
Sophocles5@juno.com
____________________________________________________________

On Sat, 10 May 2003 14:57:45 -0700 "French, Allan" <afrench@sccd.ctc.edu>
writes:

Now, in practical terms, what can be done since few institutions can 
even consider doing without their federal dollars that they have been
dependent on for so many years?

Allan and others:

No doubt there are serious questions and no easy answers, but, building
on what Eileen said, there are ways of thinking out of the box and moving
forward.

First, let's acknowledge that there is no singular center providing
leadership for the beleaguered field of adult literacy education.  NIFL
may have played that role in the early and mid-90s in mediating space
between DC policy orientations and the field, but it is not operative
now.  Moreover, the imminent reconstruction of NIFL bodes ill for adult
literacy education as we have known it and also for the federal
government in any capacity (i.e., OVAE) to provide that leadership. 
While they might be able to provide a type of leadership for a very
conservative agenda, the field would be jeopardizing its integrity and
soul if it sought connection with the government, either through NIFL or
OVAE as its central organizing framework.

Does that mean out-and-out opposition?  Not necessarily, though for some
of us that may be a very viable tack.  What it may mean for the major
institutions which give shape to the field such as ProLiteracy, NCAL,
NCSALL, Center for Literacy Studies, National Coalition for Literacy,
VALUE, National Urban Literacy Coalition, Literacy Assistance Center,
California Literacy Library System, CAAL, etc., is serious bi-lingualism,
wherein the field, particularly in its collective institutional capacity,
looks to the federal government as one of the spokes rather than the as
hub for a  vision that needs substantial reconstruction at this time.  

Turning the National Literacy Summit of 2000 on its head, what I am
suggesting, is the beginning of a formation of a deliberate and
intentional >national< vision.  In this scenario,  business and
government would play a part (not necessarily the largest at all), while
the field leadership ( including, but moving outside the traditional
categories of its composition) carve out its direction in these very
difficult times, in a substantially different political atmosphere than
that which gave shape to the Literacy Summit of 3 years ago..  Specifics
would have to be worked out, but the operative modality would need to be
based on the premise of supporting >adult< literacy, including support
for the best practices and both practitioner and scholarly research which
has informed the field for well over a decade, as well as openness to new
insight and information.

Would that mean a rejection of the federal government's emphasis on
scientific-based educational research?  Clearly not.  Neither would it
mean an uncritical embrace as the only logical path the field could
pursue politically.  Within this fabricated scenario, some agencys or
programs would have a closer tie to the federal government than others,
but even those that have a close tie would remain profoundly bi-lingual. 

Thus, because of a granting stipulation, a program or agency might need
to incorporate some aspect of scientific-based educational research or a
structured phonics program, but that would not necessarily color
everything or even the most important things they do.  For other agencies
or institutions not the direct beneficiaries of federal funding, they
would even have more freedom to strike out an alternative direction. 
This would enable them to build from the substantial premises and program
foci that has governed the field extanding as far back as Paulo Freire's
and Tom Sticht's important work of the 1970s and which includes  much
else which has been developed between then and now.  The field has a
substantial legacy upon which to build and it will not do for the field
to surrender its own record and its own integrity in order to be policy
relevant in 2003.

Make no mistake, at least in my view, this would require some significant
level of grassroots mobilization, a force which has given the political,
educational, and religious its policy clout that it exerts today.  Grass
roots, but not merely bottom-up, and that's an important distinction. 
The center of gravity would shift somewhat from a DC vision, which
dominated the adult literacy policy leadership during the 90s to a
modestly progressive to mainstream national vision that would draw on the
collective knowledge, power, and passion of the field  This leadership
team would/could even include legislative supporters, but their
participation would be premised on their capacity to work with the field
leadership on the premises set out by the field.  Thus, there is a role
for DC and state politicians, but not necessarily a central role, though
any long range mobilziation would ultimately depend, in part on the
capacity to change the political climate.  But that's long range.

  In this scenario, the effort would have to become both sharply focused
and sustained, with the leadership coming from various key sectors of the
field, along with substantial grass roots participation in a
movement-wide effort. Support would be drawn upon from all those who seek
to maintain and strengthen adult literacy education as a distinctive
field based on its own internal  integrity.

No doubt, something along the lines of what I'm suggesting is a tall
order.  Which people and institutions would be willing to step up to the
plate and at what cost, particularly when there are no guarantees of
success?  Still, a few things to consider:

a)  Something along the lines that I suggest, though difficult, is far
from impossible.

b)  One of the upsides is that such action would represent a powerful
step in the field coming into its own.

c)  Given the current climate of Washington D.C., in terms of an emphasis
on early elementary reading and a very narrow interpretation of the
meaning and purpose of literacy, something along these lines may be the
only way possible of maintaining the viability of the field.  In essence,
the failure to heed some such direction would be a defacto form of
internal suicide.

d)  In striking out in this way a lot of great stuff could emerge, but it
would require a sustained attitude of independence and collaboration for
the long haul.

Based on Eileen's notion of "discovery learning" is there something here
to further explore?

George Demetrion
sophocles5@juno.com

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
_______________________________________________
AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA@lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org

--------- End forwarded message ----------