Hi Andrea,

To equivocate, I think one could reasonably say both.

Certainly not "validation" according to the precepts of positivist research, 
based upon a randomized model.  However,in terms of qualitative 
methodologies the case can be better made that the categories are inclusive 
of what adults seek to learn in adult literacy programs.  Much of the 
ethnographic literature would confirm the legitimacy of these categories, 
though wouldn't necessarily privilege these three, nor would necessarily 
privilege the complex structure laid out in EFF.

I believe this is acknowledged by the EFF pioneers.  From their perspective, 
the EFF framework is based on a combination of research and pragmatic policy 
orientation.  It was based on the assumption that the issue of standards was 
an inescapable one for a field that sought policy legitimacy in the 90s.  

>From the inception there was a strong praxeological orientation in EFF to 

integrate student centered orientations with those that could become, at 
least plausibly, policy legitimized.  Consequently, the focus, as 
acknoweledged, was on content areas that had a distinctive public focus.

At the time,the workforce impetus, linking literacy to the global economy 
was the foremost policy consideration.  In my view, it was Sondra Stein's 
genius to place the stated focus on citizenship with equal billing as that 
of workforce development.  In that she sought a radical reform within the 
prevailing ideology that, ideally, could be ushered in within the context of 
a modetsly progressive federal government. In tyhat respect, Bill Clinton 
failed us greatly, particularly in his second administration.  With 
Clinton's conservative turn and Newt Gingrish's 104th Congress setting a 
very conservative policy, the more progressive aspects of EFF became 
severely marginalized.

In any event, these three areas, work, family and citizenship, with the 
underlying content standards based on life long learning held the prospect 
for a potential reformist revitzalization that was both functionally focused 
and linkes to many aspects of learning that adults have sought.

EFF did become a bit top heavy with structure, and its own internal logic, 
which butted up both against the increasingly conservative political culture 
and a participatory student-centered focus, which in its purity could 
tolerate no philosophical inconsistency.  Consequently, and especially after 
election 2000, as a national movement, the gap between the apiration of the 
pioneers and the abutment of reality became only too palpable.

After the fact this is more than evident and there's much to learn from 
EFF's creative "failure." This is a far thing from saying, then, that EFF 
was a fiasco, and I remnain convinced that any effective national reform 
vision will have to revisit much of the EFF project, vcearly in some 
different (and less literal) ways, and that there's much to learn even in 
the failure.

As you know, I dealt very substantially with EFF in Conflicting Paradigms.  
I encourage you to re-read chapters 7 & 8 in light of your interest in EFF 
and in light of the current discussion.

George Demetrion


From: Andrea Wilder <andreawilder at comcast.net>
Reply-To: The Adult Education Content Standards Discussion 
List<contentstandards at nifl.gov>
To: The Adult Education Content Standards Discussion 
List<contentstandards at nifl.gov>
Subject: [ContentStandards 106] Re: Whose content? EFF Roles
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 15:29:03 -0400


George,

It was I who asked the question.  The problem is the validity of the
categories:  is this what learners want to learn?  Or  do the
categories represent a top down  policy directive--which is true for
goal #6.  Tom is taking up the reliability issue on aaace-nla as we
speak.

Thanks.

Andrea


On Apr 5, 2006, at 3:02 PM, George demetrion wrote:

 > Someone had asked about the selection process of the EFF role maps
 >
 > Woker
 > Citizenship/Community Member
 > Parent/Family Member
 >
 > I'm doing this from memory, so there may be need for correction.
 >
 > The first two role maps came out of National Educational Goal #6 in
 > preparing adults for the global economy and citizenship.  With Barbara
 > Bush
 > in particiular, family literacy was in the air as an obvious focal
 > point.
 > When the 1500 or so students were surveyed by NIFL and the National
 > Education Goals Panel, I think, the students identified family themes
 > as a
 > major area of interest.  These two factors, I believe, led to family
 > education as the third role map--an obvious choice, in any event.
 >
 > George Demetrion
 >
 >
 > ----------------------------------------------------
 > National Institute for Literacy
 > Adult Education Content Standards mailing list
 > ContentStandards at nifl.gov
 > To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
 > http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/contentstandards
 >

----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Adult Education Content Standards mailing list
ContentStandards at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/contentstandards