Hi Kearney and everyone,

Kearney, you said:  "I might share your discomfort if I perceived this
particular anecdotal learning event as a pursuit of an ultimate, dead-end
learning goal for someone.  But it is not " – how do you know that it is
not?  The majority of people in low-end jobs stay there as far as I can tell
from research and reports by the media.  And from anecdotal evidence from
adult students and programs.

I agree with what you say:  that the types of learning presented here are
valuable.  However, the picture you paint (for me anyway) leads me to
understand that this is as far as you believe adult learners can and perhaps
should go.  I have not read you write anything that lets me believe that you
actually do help people flourish to their full potentials.  I have only
understood your message to be one that is limited in scope and depth.

But perhaps I'm missing something so correct me if I'm wrong.

Marie Cora
Boston, MA





Andres,

It seems you have come up against a straw man.
You are against public learning programs that teach people to "operate
equipment of one given manufacturer that pays minimum wage w/o benefits."
Which public learning programs currently do that?


Re: your opposition to teaching people to say, "can I do your room this
morning?"

I might share your discomfort if I perceived this particular anecdotal
learning event as a pursuit of an ultimate, dead-end learning goal for
someone.  But it is not.  Clearly if a student does not have the skill to
ask simple questions in the L2, then obtaining that skill is a worthy
endeavor.  But you paint a picture of artificial, finite choices when you
suggest that such education is preparing "people only to work in low wage
employment."  In these people's current situation their actual option is
choosing between low wage employment and *no *employment. Which would you
prefer they have, and which are you prepared to support?

/ Kearney


----- Original Message ----
From: "Muro, Andres" <amuro5 at epcc.edu>
To: "The Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy Discussion List" <
povertyracewomen at nifl.gov>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:55:48 AM
Subject: [PovertyRaceWomen 1066] Re: Follow up - pilot project

I have no problem with programs teaching people to communicate properly.
What I have problems is with public funding for programs that prepare
people to function only in one narrow context and need of a narrow
interest of the private sector. Teaching people to operate equipment of
one given manufacturer that pays minimum wage w/o benefits is a
disservice to the learner and a service to a private corporation. Many
manufacturing jobs disappear within a few years and the unemployed
individual is left with non-renewable dead end skills.

The idea of public education is to offer knowledge and skills to fully
participate in family, vocation, education and community. It is not to
prepare people to make a wire harness for Ford motor company or to say
"may I do your room this morning". Unless, of course, we expect these
people only to work in low wage employment.

Now, if a corporation wants to train people to acquire these skills on
their own $$$$. Then, by all means, they should do that.

Andres
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/povertyracewomen/attachments/20070828/27e7ecb0/attachment.html