Reply to:   RE: Practitioner involvement in policy formation
I've been thinking about the questions Alisa posed in her June 4th posting to the list and, wearing my local program director hat, I'd like to share some of my own thinking on this issue and hope that this will inspire some of you to join the discussion. This is, indeed, one of the most difficult topics we have tackled. As a program director, I constantly struggle with policy to practice issues, and I would be grateful for any insights list participants may want to share. 
Alisa asked,
In what ways do you feel the current policy climate is in line with or in contradiction to your core values as a practitioner?  What impact does this have on your practice?

One of the difficulties in answering this question is dealing with the "policy journey" Alisa describes. It isn't easy to tease apart legislation, regulation,  what I need to do to as a program leader to ensure that we continue to get funds to provide adult literacy instruction locally, and what I choose to do as a private citizen to participate fully in our democratic form of government. 
Quite honestly, I struggle with how my core values as a practitioner fit into the larger picture of shaping state and federal policy.  As a past president of PAACE (PA Association for Adult Continuing Education), I did what I could to strengthen the advocacy arm of our professional organization. I believe all adult educators have an obligation to participate in shaping policy through participation in  organizations such as PAACE or COABE. I pay for my professional memberships from my own pocket and I participate in professional organizations on my own time. As a private citizen, I communicate with my legislators on issues I believe are important. Right or wrong, I try to keep that aspect of my work separate from my role as an adult education program director. It isn't always easy to do, but I work at it because one of my core beliefs about public service is that our laws are determined by our elected officials and I have no right, as a public employee, to put my own agenda ahead of the legislative process that is at the heart of our democracy. That, in no way, limits my perspectives or activities as a private citizen. It does, however, mean that when I advocate for legislative changes, I do it as Sandy Strunk, or a member of PAACE, or a member of another professional organization. I bring my knowledge of our field to those advocacy efforts, but I don't bring my title as a public employee.

When it comes to regulation, on the other hand, I do believe I have a role as a public employee in offering input into how state and federal legislation is operationalized. I routinely communicate with my state education agency (more so than they like, I'd venture to guess :-) on policies and procedures they have put in place to shape local practice. Sometimes my input changes things; other times it has no impact. I'm grateful that my state office continues to listen to what I have to say regardless of whether it results in the changes I suggest. I have a strong vision of what I want practice to look like locally, and I believe that vision is consistent with state and federal legislation. However,  I do recognize that my funders have the ability to control the dollars available locally for literacy. I try very hard to remember that, even when I feel strongly about a particular issue (most of the time), it makes no sense to win a battle and lose the war. If I am to protect local literacy dollars, I not only need to share my opinions, but also build relationships with and support the efforts of my state education agency. I see this as an aspect of instructional leadership.

Finally, by far, the most difficult policy discussions I participate in are local discussions with the private sector and my WIA partners. As a member of our local Workforce Investment Board, I routinely struggle to find ways to help the private sector and our public partners understand the role of adult basic and family literacy education in the larger goals of WIA. Private employers have a difficult time understanding the complexities of public funding. For example, what many consider "healthy competition" in the private sector, we call "duplication of services" in the public sector. It's also difficult for our private sector partners to understand that supply and demand economics don't translate well to adult basic and family literacy education funding. When economic times are good, we tend to have more money and fewer clients. When economic times are bad, we tend to have more clients and fewer dollars. Recently, I met with my WIB Executive Committee to get their input into local programming for next year. For the second year in a row, our funding has been significantly decreased due to a census adjustment federally and level funding at the state level. Needless to say, our classrooms are overflowing. I brought my spreadsheets, enrollment data and performance figures to the WIB and asked for  input into which components of our program I should eliminate. One individual said, "Are you telling me your enrollment is up, you have won statewide performance awards, and you need to close down classes at our One Stop?" The meeting ended with WIB members agreeing they need to do more to help our legislators understand the importance of adult basic and family literacy education within the larger context of achieving the goals of WIA. I'm still trying to figure out which classes to close.

How we, as practitioners, participate in shaping state and federal policy seems to me to be a critical question in program leadership and program improvement. I'm very interested in how other adult education leaders think about these issues.

Sandy Strunk
Lancaster Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13
Adult Basic and Family Literacy Education
1110 Enterprise Road
East Petersburg, PA 17520
(717) 519-1006

Sandy Strunk wrote:

>The following posting is from Alisa Belzer, Assistant Professor of Adult >Literacy Education at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Prior to her appointment >there in 1999, Alisa directed the Pennsylvania Adult Literacy Practitioner Inquiry >Network (PALPIN), a statewide professional development initiative. She began >working in the field in 1987 at the Center for Literacy in Philadelphia and has been >a program coordinator, tutor trainer, classroom teacher and tutor. Her current >research interests are in professional development, learner beliefs, tutor-based >instruction, and adult reading development. I have had the pleasure of working with >Alisa in her former role of directing PALPIN in Pennsylvania, and I think her >posting (below) is an excellent follow-up to the discussion we have been having >about using National Reporting System data to inform program improvement. At the end >of her posting, Alisa poses several provocative questions that I think could >help us explore a new face!

>t of program leadership and improvement. I hope you will take the >initiative to join this important discussion.

>

>Sandy Strunk, List Moderator

>

>********************************************************

>

>In a report that I recently authored for the National Center for the Study >of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL) entitled “Living with it:  Federal policy >implementation in adult basic education”  (available at >http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall/research/report24.pdf), I suggest that >policies are always in a state of revision and adaptation as they travel down the >road from an abstract statute to classroom practice.  In adult basic education >this involves stops along the way at the Office of Vocational and Adult Education in >the US Department of Education, at the state education agency, possibly at a >professional development entity, and finally at the local program.  At each stop >along the way, key players shape what the abstraction will actually look like by the >time it reaches individual classrooms. This could, ultimately, help or hinder >the quality of instruction at the local level. Much depends on the policy and the >shaping that occurs along the way. What's important is!

> that practitioners not allow the “policy journey” to be one way down this >road. Practitioners not only have the power to change policies by the way they >act on them in their own particular contexts, but they can also take an important >shaping step by sending policy feedback back up the road in an effort to actively >inform future efforts at reform.

>

>We are in the middle of a policy shift in adult basic education (literacy, >pre-GED, GED, adult secondary education, family and workplace literacy, ESL) that >has had enormous implications for all of us. With the passage of the Workforce >Investment Act in 1998, we entered an era of significantly increased >accountability. This has meant dramatic changes in assessment and documentation of learner >outcomes. Meanwhile, a concerted effort has been made by the US Department >of Education to encourage best practice based on scientific research. This has >given warrant to research syntheses such as John Kruidenier’s “Research-based >principles for adult basic education reading instruction” and instructional tool kits >such as the forthcoming Student Achievement in Reading (STAR) Project. These >changes have occurred against the backdrop of welfare reform, a changing economy in >which high wage/low skill jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate, >ever-increasing globalization accompanied by !

>a more and more diverse population of learners, and violence at home and abroad.

>

>While one can analyze the pros and cons of these changes at length, the >reality is that for now they are here to stay. As the ground beneath us shifts, it >becomes increasingly important to focus our mission as adult educators and how to >maintain our core values and beliefs about teaching, learning, and literacy. >Additionally, we need to take a hard look at how our own advocacy efforts can be >deployed to move the field in the direction that we feel is most responsive to >learners’ goals and needs. Practitioners are positioned to know a lot about the >spectrum of teaching, learning and literacy whereas many policy makers have only viewed >our field though the lens of NRS data. If policy is to be responsive to learners' >goals and needs, it is incumbent upon practitioners to step into the policy arena. >I suggest that practitioners should get involved in policy formation in >several meaningful ways.  Rather than feeling passively relegated to implementing >government policies, it is important to take every opportunity to participate in >shaping and reforming policies in ways that are most constructive for learners. The >first step is to take an active stance by being well informed about the policies >and by getting involved in the political process by working to educate lawmakers >and an expanded network of potential advocates about the realities of the field. >To participate actively in policy conversations about what works and why, >practitioners should themselves be building new knowledge about teaching and learning by >participating in action research and practitioner inquiry projects. Through >systematic investigations of problems in practice, these efforts can provide >practitioners with data that can contribute to policymakers’ understanding of >problems faced by the field, as w!

>ell as appropriate solutions.

>

>With this said, I'm interested in your perspectives on the following questions:

>ß In what ways do you feel the current policy climate is in line with or in >contradiction to your core values as a practitioner?  What impact does this have >on your practice?

>ß How do you deal with the contradictions?  ß What are the roles you see >yourself taking in advocating for policies that fit with your mission as an adult >educator, yet are responsive to demands for accountability?  ß How will you >advocate for policy changes in teaching, learning and literacy?

>

>Alisa Belzer

>Assistant Professor of Adult Literacy Education, Rutgers University

>

>_______________________________________________

>NIFL-PLI mailing list

>NIFL-PLI at literacy.nifl.gov

>To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to >http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nifl-pli

>

>RFC822 header

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

>

> Return-Path: <nifl-pli-bounces at literacy.nifl.gov>

> Received: from relay.iu13.org ([unix socket])

> 	by mail.iu13.org (Cyrus v2.1.11-Lancaster-Lebanon-IU13-Mail-Services) >with LMTP; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:33:12 -0400

> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2

> Received: from gabbro.iu13.org (gabbro.iu13.org [172.21.1.73])

> 	by relay.iu13.org (Postfix) with ESMTP

> 	id 424A447007F; Fri,  4 Jun 2004 10:33:12 -0400 (EDT)

> Received: from literacy.nifl.gov (unknown [192.188.111.2])

> 	by gabbro.iu13.org (Postfix) with ESMTP

> 	id 8F0172FE8D; Fri,  4 Jun 2004 10:33:10 -0400 (EDT)

> Received: from literacy.nifl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1])

> 	by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id i54EWQ928194;

> 	Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:32:27 -0400 (EDT)

> Received: from relay.iu13.org (relay.iu13.org [206.82.16.43])

> 	by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id i54EU9928041

> 	for <nifl-pli at literacy.nifl.gov>; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:30:09 -0400 (EDT)

> Received: from 172.19.246.116 (d116-246-19-172-ent.iu13.org [172.19.246.116])

> 	by relay.iu13.org (Postfix) with SMTP

> 	id E2778470130; Fri,  4 Jun 2004 10:30:04 -0400 (EDT)

> Date: 04 Jun 2004 10:33:09 -0700

> From: Sandy Strunk <sandy_strunk at iu13.org>

> To: "NIFL -PLI List" <nifl-pli at literacy.nifl.gov>

> X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 1.5.4r2 (Mac)

> X-Priority: 3

> MIME-Version: 1.0

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> Message-Id: <20040604143004.E2778470130 at relay.iu13.org>

> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by literacy.nifl.gov id

> 	i54EU9928041

> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:32:09 -0400

> Subject: [NIFL-PLI] Practitioner involvement in policy formation

> X-BeenThere: nifl-pli at literacy.nifl.gov

> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4

> Precedence: list

> Reply-To: Sandy Strunk <sandy_strunk at iu13.org>,

> 	Program Leadership and Improvement Discussion List <nifl-pli at nifl.gov>

> List-Id: Program Leadership and Improvement Discussion List

> 	<nifl-pli.literacy.nifl.gov>

> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nifl-pli>,

> 	<mailto:nifl-pli-request at literacy.nifl.gov?subject=unsubscribe>

> List-Archive: <http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/nifl-pli>

> List-Post: <mailto:nifl-pli at literacy.nifl.gov>

> List-Help: <mailto:nifl-pli-request at literacy.nifl.gov?subject=help>

> List-Subscribe: <http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nifl-pli>,

> 	<mailto:nifl-pli-request at literacy.nifl.gov?subject=subscribe>

> Sender: nifl-pli-bounces at nifl.gov

> Errors-To: nifl-pli-bounces at nifl.gov

> X-Content-Scanned: by IU 13 eMail Scanning

>