Return-Path: <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9GL88922303; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <39EB6C33.330F5467@earthlink.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Alec Levenson <aleclevenson@earthlink.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WORKPLACE:3816] Re: Controversial Article X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U) Status: O Content-Length: 4450 Lines: 102 Heidi, Thank you for pointing out this article. My comments: 1. The author clearly does not believe that government either can or should do anything to help improve the skills of the less-skilled among us. This despite the fact that he may support public education at the K-12 level (though he may not). His criticism of the literacy "problem" should be viewed in light of this, so that we (on this list) don't start a very long debate about his politics v. the legitimate criticisms that he raises. While we all appreciate the opportunity to vent our frustrations at those who would remove any and all public funding for literacy-related efforts, it would be preaching to the choir for all (or many) of us to chime in with why we disagree with his politics. In short, I propose that we recognize that (a) if you're subscribed to this list, then (b) you probably agree that something can be done to address literacy deficit issues, thus (c) we do not need to explain to each other why we disagree with the author on this point. 2. The author correctly points out that "literacy" is a less-than-ideal appellation to apply to the diverse skills classified by the NALS. I agree with him wholeheartedly on this point. Whenever I am speaking to anyone outside of the adult education field, I have to use other terms such as basic skills, etc. (This of course is a topic that long-time subscribers to this list will note has been discussed numerous times.) My personal perspective is that professionals in this field (as well as NIFL) run the risk of marginalizing themselves by constantly referring to "literacy problems" as opposed to some other name. The key, of course, is coming up with an alternative that is better than "literacy". I personally prefer "basic skills." 3. The issue of how much government can do to help those with low literacy/basic skills is an open one. While there are many anecdotal success stories from the adult education field, the lack of systematic evidence provides a daunting challenge to those in the adult education field who would like to argue for more (or even sustained) resources. I have seen enough anecdotal and/or incomplete evidence to believe that interventions can and do work. But until there is more systematic scientific evidence available, adult education professionals will have a difficult time defending themselves against attacks such as this author's. (For a review of the research, I encourage everyone to take a look at Hal Beder's report for NCSALL: "The Outcomes and Impacts of Adult Literacy Education in the United States" NCSALL report #6, Jan 1999. This is available for downloading at: http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall/research/reports.htm Alec Levenson -- Research Scientist Center for Effective Organizations Marshall School of Business University of Southern California 213/821-1095 alec.levenson@marshall.usc.edu and Acting Director of Labor Market and Human Capital Studies Milken Institute 310/998-2646 alevenson@milkeninstitute.org or aleclevenson@earthlink.net -- "Heidi A.C. Watson" wrote: > In the October issue of Forbes Forbes Magazine an article was > published called "The Crisis That Isn't." This article claims that > the rates of functional literacy are untrue. Here is the link to the > article on line http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/1002/6609086a.html. > I encourage everyone to read it - it certainly is damning of > information many of us hold dear. > > In my opinion the outlook of the author seems to me to belong to the > last century and significantly represents those (especially in the > corporate world) who for a long time during seventies and eighties > were denying the existence of the literacy issue in the US. I would > encourage you to respond to this on the discussion list and feel free > to pass this on to learners. Their response could be very effective > in challenging his main points. If you feel it something you would > like to do there is an email address and "send comment" feature at > the bottom of the article online to which you could respond directly > to the author. > -- > Heidi Watson > NIFL-WORKPLACE List Co-Moderator > > Sr. Research Technologist > Institute for the Study of Adult Literacy > College of Education > The Pennsylvania State University > 102 Rackley Building > University Park, PA 16802-3202 > Phone: 814-863-3777 or 865-6472 direct > Fax: 814-863-6108 > E-mail: haw6@psu.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:42:45 EST