Colleagues: In the field of mental testing their has been a long history of
thinking that tests such as intelligence (IQ), aptitude (Armed Services
Vocational Aptitude Battery; Scholastic Aptitude Test-early name of SAT),
and academic achievement tests (such as reading, spelling, arithmetic,
science, etc.) are tests of cognitive ability.


Early evaluations of the Head Start program (and several other pre-school
programs) were focused on measures of IQ, commonly considered a cognitive
measure. When Heckman studied pre-school programs, which have strong claims
to providing economic benefits that exceed their costs, he found that the
major benefits were not based on intelligence gains nor academic gains.
Instead, the major economic gains were in factors such as higher rates of
high school graduation and greater earnings than those of the control
group. But the largest benefits, economically speaking, came from
cost-avoidances, such as fewer placements in remedial programs, fewer
arrests, less criminal activity, less incarceration, less welfare, etc. He
then referred to the IQ and school achievement test outcomes as “cognitive”
assessments, and then the other outcomes as representing “non-cognitive”
outcomes.


He, and then other economists, turned to evaluating federal programs such as
job training and adult literacy education and found that they did not
generally appear to confer economic benefits that exceeded their costs in
most cases (though the Job Corps appears cost-beneficial). President
Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors knew about the economics studies and
that is why they advocated more emphasis upon “non-cognitive” outcomes in
education, the latter having adding significantly to a person’s economic
status and producing greater tax revenue to the nation. What impact this
will have on education in general and adult education in particular I am
not sure about.


Their have been repeated attempts from various groups to discontinue the
federal adult education and family literacy program because, unlike the
early childhood programs, it is not perceived to be cost-beneficial. But
the program has been rescued up to now, but the cost-beneficial argument
has lead to the addition to the mission of the program to focus more
resources on transition to postsecondary education and/or training. This is
based on economics analyses showing that people with some postsecondary
education earn more (and hence on average pay more taxes) providing greater
returns on investment (ROI) to adult education and family literacy (AEFLA)
programs. While this is likely a worthwhile additional goal for the AEFLA,
some have wondered if this might draw resources from less educated learners
(i.e., "creaming").


I have been seeking evidence that the ROI to adult education and family
literacy are greater than has generally been understood. I believe that
many outcomes that can add to the ROI for AEFLA are within the category
that the economists and others have labeled “non-cognitive.” That is why I
have named my new workshop Adult Literacy: A Focus On Cognitive and
Non-Cognitive Skills With Children’s Picture Books By Leo Lionni. This
workshop discusses the issues about the terms “cognitive” and
“non-cognitive”, and then uses  Leo Lionni’s books which illustrate many of
the factors called “non-cognitive” in a very user-friendly manner. The goal
is to get teachers, parents, other adults, and children to discussing these
“non-cognitive” factors (which Dorothy Rich calls “MegaSkills”). The
potential for assessing some of these factors in some way that could be
quantified in cost-benefit terms to add to the ROI for AEFLA programs is
also a goal for the workshop.


It is my belief that increasing the probability that AEFLA programs will be
continued, and possibly increased in funding, is an outcome that can
benefit millions of  adult learners and the nation as a whole.


Tom Sticht