Thanks, George for your extensive comments.  I guess I have to go with 
my original conclusion, in the face of no more information, that EFF is 
a policy initiative with some use of qualitative methodology.

Andrea

On Apr 5, 2006, at 4:35 PM, George demetrion wrote:


> 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

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------

> 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

>