Posted on behalf of Tom Sticht.

**************************

August 31, 2003

National Institute for Literacy Webcast Casts Web of Doubt About
Commitment to Adult Literacy Education

Tom Sticht
International Consultant in Adult Education

On 15 August 2006 the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) presented a
webcast about the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) of 2003.
Entitled "Adults with Basic and Below Basic Literacy Levels:  Findings
from NAAL and Implications for Practice" the webcast focussed on the
adults who scored at the lowest two levels of the NAAL, those in the
Basic and Below Basic levels, and implications for reading instruction
and workforce development. Unfortunately, as far as I can discern, the
webcast presented nothing of any substance for policy or practice for
adult literacy/numeracy education nor for workforce development. In
fact, it presented a number of statements about education, literacy, and
workforce development of dubious validity. Here are some of these
statements.

1. Sheida White from the National Center for Education Statistics, which
sponsored the NAAL, made the statement that "Nearly two-thirds, which is
actually 67% of all the jobs created over the next decade, will require
a college degree."  But in the Statistics and Facts section of the NIFL
web site it is claimed that 69.8% percent of job openings from 2000
through 2010 will NOT require college but only some sort of work-related
training, 57% of which will be short or moderate term training. Other
data from the Department of Labor indicates that in 1998 78% of jobs
required non-college levels of education while in 2008 76% will be
non-college jobs. A 2006 report from the Educational Testing Service
(ETS) by Paul Barton also raises questions about the education levels
required by jobs. He presents data showing that the 44 occupations that
account for half of the 26 million average annual job openings  during
2001-2012 require only short-term education or on-the-job training, not
post-secondary education, and 25 of the 44 occupations have workforces
with 50 percent or more having high school or less education. Clearly,
there is reason to question the claim that two-thirds of all jobs
created over the next decade will require a college degree.

2. John Strucker called attention to the well known gaps in performance
on the tests among whites, blacks, and Hispanics, but he had nothing to
say about what to do about the situation other than we need to do
something. He talked about age and literacy and focussed on the problems
of younger adults, but he did not comment on the fact that the NAAL may
not be valid across the lifespan, especially for older adults, as other
research has suggested. He also commented on the fact that quantitative
literacy
(numeracy) had larger percentages of adults in the lower two levels than
on the prose or document literacy scales. He also mentioned that there
could be real problems with decoding, vocabulary, and  fluency for
adults in the Below Basic and Basic levels, and there could be large
numbers of learning disabilities in these groups. But there was really
nothing that I read that lead to insights regarding how teachers or
programs should go about changing their adult reading, numeracy, or
English language instruction.

3. Brian Bosworth simply repeated the oft stated notions that low
literacy can consign workers to low paying jobs and reduce America's
global competitiveness. He made a plea for a demand side approach to
skills development that seemed very much like a call for a return to
workplace literacy programs in which employers and employees determine
their skills needs and work together to design and deliver instruction.
Again, however, there was nothing that I read that produced solid
evidence of how workers with low skills actually perform important job
tasks in specific jobs or what returns to investment in workforce
education business, workers, or the rest of the nation might experience
if investments in worker literacy or
numeracy education were increased.   It would be useful if the NIFL or
some
other government agency  would support this type of research.

Noticeably missing from the presentation was a discussion of just how
arbitrary the whole enterprise of literacy assessment in the NAAL was,
including the naming of levels as Below Basic or Basic (instead of Below
Average and Average for instance). There was also no discussion of how
Prose, Document, and Quantitative literacy might "add up" across the
three scales to form a person's total literacy ability.

Nor was there any discussion of the very large differences between what
the test developers said about adults' reading and math skills based on
the standardized tests and what adults have said about their own skills
as they perceive their adequacy to be for work and daily life. Some 95
percent of adults in the NALS thought their skills met their needs and
the recent international Adult Literacy and Life Skills (ALL) report
developed a methodology for examining the mismatch between workers
skills and their job demands for these skills. The report said that 80
percent of adults had literacy and numeracy skills that matched or
exceeded their job demands, while 20 percent were working in jobs with
demands that exceed their skills in these areas.

These huge differences between tested and self-perceived skills should
receive considerable study because it is adults' self-perceptions of
their skill needs that will eventually move them to seek help in
upgrading their skills. Perhaps a future webcast can address some of
these serious issues in determining the scale of need for and the desire
for adult literacy education.

Brian Bosworth said "I think that it's unlikely that we are going to see
a significant change and reform from the federal level to deal with most
of these workplace literacy issues." I think this was probably the most
significant policy- and practice-related statement in the entire
webcast.
It has been clear since the NALS of 1993 in which 90 million (47%) of
adults were said to lack the skills needed to cope with contemporary
society, including the world of work, that the federal government that
produced this result did not actually believe it. For three years after
that report the federal budget for the Adult Education and Literacy
System went down. After that it rose for a while, but stayed at a
pitiful level in which per adult enrollee funds equaled about $200.
After the 2003 NAAL which indicated that over 93 million adults
possessed only Basic or Below Basic prose literacy, the present
administration (1) asked for a cut in funding for adult literacy
education from around $575 million to $200 million and a complete drop
of funds for the Even Start family literacy program; (2) formed an
interagency committee to coordinate their work; and (3) the committee
met in early 2006 and it was reported that the meeting went well and it
would meet again later on. At no time in the Bush administration has it
called for more funding for the Adult Education and Literacy System,
even while repeatedly making dire warnings of impending disasters in
global competition and the American economy due to the poor literacy
skills of the workforce.

Perhaps the webcast about the NAAL, reading instruction, and the
workforce will have some positive effects on some aspect of adult
literacy education.
Clearinghouses, committees, meetings, and web discussions may possibly
be useful in meeting the need for adult literacy education in the
Nation. But there is nothing like a large infusion of money into an
obscenely under-funded education system to move the Nation forward.

So far, for me, the NIFL NAAL webcast has reinforced a web of doubt
about the federal government's sincerity and commitment to providing the
funds needed to move the Adult Education and Literacy System from the
margins to the mainstream of education in the United States.

Thomas G. Sticht
International Consultant in Adult Education
2062 Valley View Blvd.
El Cajon, CA 92019
Tel/fax: (619) 444-9133
Email: tsticht at aznet.net


********************************************


Aaron Kohring
Coordinator, LINCS Literacy & Learning Disabilities Special Collection
(http://ldlink.coe.utk.edu/)
Moderator, National Institute for Literacy's Content Standards
Discussion List (http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/Contentstandards)
Coordinator, Equipped for the Future Websites (http://eff.cls.utk.edu/)

Center for Literacy Studies, University of Tennessee
EFF Center for Training and Technical Assistance
Phone:(865) 974-4109 main
      (865) 974-4258 direct
Fax:  (865) 974-3857
e-mail: akohring at utk.edu