To David Rosen and others: 

Thank you for the discussion and the invitation to contribute.

As an adult educator, I do not live in the realm of blame assessment,
but every now and then I feel compelled to visit there while living and
professionally practicing in the realm of educational and employability
reality. During my present visit, I am attending a national forum where
issues of great concern regarding the educational and economic
well-being of age-independent, diploma-challenged underachievers
(drop-outs) are being addressed. During something far less than a
network-covered ceremonial fete, the agenda includes three
randomly-selected 'fickle finger of fate' awards to those being
designated as apparent perpetrators of adult education inadequacy and
short-comings. The awardees are as follows:
1.	The GED Test - based on the substantive misnomer that it is. It
is neither a 'general educational development' indicator nor a facsimile
of a four-year high school participation-achievement equivalency. It is
basically a standardized measure of proficiency in five academic subject
areas, requiring a threshold ninth-grade level of response-ability;
there is no demonstration of general development or performance other
than the written essay on a 'one-size fits all' topic.
2.	'The Government' Founders, Formers and Funders of Adult
Education - based on inadequate attention, importance, programming,
application and enforcement of sound 'educational development'
standards, and funding. Far too many adults are left behind,
educationally and economically.
3.	The Adult Education Community - based on the faint, almost
absent, collective professional voice of active advocacy for the
under-educated and under-provided adults, as well as for the legitimacy
and integrity of the professional community. Additionally, this
community continues to promote and provide inappropriate and inadequate
educational options as alternatives to a standardized high school
diploma; this can be considered as being professionally unethical, as
well as socially and culturally immoral, practice.

A prefacing condition for further commentary is my considered preference
for and use of the term 'educator' rather than 'instructor,' even though
both have their places of acceptability and integrity. I believe that
the word origins and derived meanings obviate my preference. Further,
'educator' inherently presents or connotes a more holistic,
learner-oriented, educational philosophy and practice. Some assessments,
professional perspectives, suggestions and recommendations based on my
eight years of adult education experience as an educator and transition
program coordinator/educator are as follows:
1.	Nothing short of a holistic, comprehensive, learner-appropriate,
community-based educational program, including essential elements of
transition, can work well to meet the educational and economic needs of
both individual 'adult' learners and society or have sufficient
self-sustaining value. It does take a dedicated 'village,' a community
corpus with core educational values, mission, common denominator
protocols, and integrated programs provision committed to make the
necessary differences in educational and economic development.
2.	Continued efforts to make the diverse learners fit archaic molds
based on typological labeling, inappropriate and inadequate assessment
of who they really are, their real skills levels, and their actualized
point of readiness, and inadequate, artificial canned, short-shelf life
opportunities and attempts at short-gap fixes will continue to
under-serve these citizens and minimize the likelihood for success.
Adult learner appropriate approaches and programs and learner-friendly
strategies and practices must be universally applied.
3.	The oppressive practices of discriminating, enabling,
circumventing developmental correction, neglecting or abandoning worthy
adult learners, and withholding supportive transition programs or
program inclusions must be overcome. Every adult learner is entitled to
equitable, if not equal, opportunity to life sustaining educational and
economic development. 
4.	The authenticity of the adult learner must be accepted,
understood and honored. Fuller, more realistic assessment of who they
really are as individuals and learners, allowance and facilitation of
asking essential ('right') questions based on what they individually
need to know, and community-wide application of the "Framework for
Understanding Poverty" wisdom are urgently imperative. Learners cannot
be expected to 'buy in' (if, of course, there is something and an
opportunity to 'buy into'), if 'we' (the GED, government, adult
educators . and society) do not 'buy in' to them as individuals. 
5.	Adult learner-appropriate alterations, adjustments,
reconstruction, and/or creative responses and provisions do not require
'genius' for remedy. What is needed are broad-spectrum acknowledgement
and acceptance, commitment, dedication, collaboration ... and funding. A
fearless, united, active voice and effort, from base to apex of the
adult education and social pyramids will turn things around (or upside
down).


Respectfully,

Jan Martin Bopp
Adult Education and Literacy
The Tutorial Center
208 Pleasant Street
Bennington, VT 05201

janb at tutorialcenter.org

-----Original Message-----
From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of David J. Rosen
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:59 AM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: [SpecialTopics 465] What should GED programs do?

GED Discussion Colleagues,

If you have been following along last week and this, you know that  
the news about earnings gains for GED students is not encouraging,  
that unless GED graduates go on to post-secondary education and  
complete a post-secondary certificate or a degree, that their GED  
attainment may not lift them out of poverty.  Of course, the good  
news is if they complete a four-year undergraduate degree their  
earnings gains, as a group, do not differ from 4-year degree holders  
who have high school diplomas.

At this point in our discussion, with three days left, I hope some of  
you who have been thinking about this problem might offer solutions.   
Should every GED program provide students with this information (for  
example through the Beyond the GED lessons developed by Fass, Garner  
and Barry?) Should GED programs change their curriculum to include  
college preparation? Should they offer separate college preparation/ 
transition programs for GED graduates who want to go on for post- 
secondary education? Is there something else that they should do, or  
is it okay to continue with the status quo?

This is a chance for everyone to chime in.  What do you think GED  
programs should do? What should policy makers do? What should GED  
students do?

Send your thoughts to specialtopics at nifl.gov

If you have just joined the discussion, you can catch up by looking  
at the archives,

http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/specialtopics/2007/date.html

beginning with posting 447.

David J. Rosen
Special Topics Discussion Moderator
djrosen at comcast.net





-------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Special Topics mailing list
SpecialTopics at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics
Email delivered to janb at tutorialcenter.org