Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Toolsfor a Lifetime

July 1993

OTA-SET-550NTIS order #PB93-218881

GPO stock #052-003-01330-4

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Adult Literacy and NewTechnologies: Tools for a Lifetime, OTA-SET-550 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993).

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing OfficeSuperintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington. DC 2040? -9328

ISBN 0-16 -041858-5

Foreword

A merica’s commitment to the importance of the individual has translatedinto a belief that education is essential for realizing the American dream.Historically, this Nation has moved to increase educational opportunity,because education was considered crucial to personal growth and

achievement and because educated individuals were considered essential for aneffective democracy.

Adult education needs are difficult to define and difficult to meet; whatconstitutes adequate literacy changes continually as the demands facing individ-uals grow more complex. Rapidly changing demographic patterns and rapidlychanging technology mean that the United States today faces a massive problemin equipping citizens with the skills needed to participate fully in the workplaceand to contribute as members of family and community. (OTA’s examination ofthis problem, initiated at the request of the House Committee on Education andLabor and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, suggests thattechnology offers particular capabilities for dealing with this issue. This reportis an attempt to identify those capabilities, along with limitations, and outlinehow new information technologies can be marshaled to meet the goal of a fullyliterate citizenry.

Throughout this study, the Advisory Panel, workshop participants, andmany others played key roles in defining major issues, providing information,and championing a broad range of perspectives. OTA thanks them for their sub-stantial commitment of time and energy. Their participation does not necessarilyrepresent an endorsement of the contents of the report, for which OTA bearssole responsibility.

Roger C. Herdman, Director

Advisory Panel

Richard Venezky, ChairpersonUnidel Professor of Educational

Studies andProfessor of Computer and

Information SciencesUniversity of Delaware

Christine CopePresidentSouth Dakota Literacy CouncilYankton, SD

Sharon DarlingPresidentNational Center for Family

LiteracyLouisville, KY

Allen De BevoisePresidentAND Communications, Inc.Los Angeles, CA

Ronald GillumDirector, Adult Extended

Learning ServicesMichigan Department of EducationLansing, MI

Shirley Brice HeathDepartment of EnglishStanford University

Jim KadamusAssistant Commsi sionerHigher and Continuing EducationNew York State Department

of EducationAlbany, NY

Irwin KirschDirector, Division of Cognitive and

Assessment ResearchEducational Testing ServicePrinceton, NJ

William KolbergPresident and CEONational Alliance of BusinessWashington, DC

Ray MarshallProfessor of Economics

and Public AffairsUniversity of Texas at AustinAustin, TX

Earline McNaryJamaica Plain, MA

Job MoraidoLaw Offices of Public DefenderChild Advocacy DivisionSan Diego, CA

Richard MumaneProfessor of EconomicsHarvard Graduate School

of Education

Reg Murphyl

Executive Vice PresidentNational Geographic SocietyWashington, DC

Dale RezabekGAIN CoordinatorCalifornia Community CollegesSacramento, CA

Antonia StoneExecutive DirectorPlaying to winNew York, NY

Richard VarnSenatorIowa State LegislatureDes Moines, IA

George WalkerPresidentDelta Wire Co.Clarksdale, MS

NOTE: (ITA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panelmembers. The psnel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes fidl responsi-bility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv

John AndelinAssistant DirectorScience, Information, and Natural

Resources Division

Nancy CarsonProgram ManagerScience, Education, and

Transportation

Nancy KoberCharlottesville, VA

SL ProductionsNew York, NY

Center for Literacy StudiesThe University of Tennessee,

KnoxvilleJuliet Merrifield, principal investigator

. — —— . ——

LINDA ROBERTSProject Director

Kathleen FultonSenior Analyst

Patricia MorisonAnalyst

Carol EdwardsCongressional Fellow

Chris SpeliusResearch Analyst

Hunter HeyckResearch Assistant

Kristan MayerResearch Assistant

CONTRACTORS

Preject Staff

OTHER CONTRIBUTING STAFF

Timothy RogersIntern

Lynellen LongIn-House Contractor

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Marsha FennTechnical Editor

Gay JacksonPC Specialist

Tamara C. WandAdministrative Secretary

Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. Joyce Hakanssonand Berkeley Learning Technologies

Wujcik and AssociatesFalls Church, VA Stephen Reder

Northwest Regional EducationalInteractive Educational Systems Laboratory -

Design, Inc.New York, NY Saul Rockman

San Francisco, CAClaremont Graduate SchoolClaremont, CAJ.D. Eveland, principal investigator

v

contents

1 Summary and Policy Options, 1What Is This Study About? 3What Is “Literacy’ 3Who Are the Learners and What Do They Need? 5What Problems Do Literacy Programs and Providers

Face? 9What Is the Impact of Federal Efforts? 11How Could Technology Make a Difference? 14Policy Issues and Options, 16

Building a Base of Technology for Literacy, 17■ Improving the System, 21 Experimenting With New Alternatives, 25 Rethink the Federal Role, 26

2 The Changing Character of Literacy, 29Findings, 30What Is Literacy? 30

■ Defining Basic Skills, 32■ Beyond the Basics: Changing Views of Essential

skills, 33■ So What Skills Do People Need? 39

Demographics of Adult Literacy, 41■ School Completion Rates, 41■ Tests of Literacy Skills, 45■ Literacy Target Groups, 47■ seeking Better Information, 56

Literacy Needs: Growing or Shrinking? 56

3 Adults as Learners, 61Findings, 61Literacy in Everyday Life: Adults With Low Literacy

Skills, 62 Profiles of Diversity, 63■ Competence and Strength, 65■ Strategies for Literacy, 69

Learning in Adulthood 69Adults Seeking Learning Opportunities, 76

,. .

vii

■ The Decision to Participate in Adult LiteracyEducation, 78

❑ The Importance of Motivation, 81■ Why People Do Not Participate, 82

Meeting Adult Learner Needs: The Role ofTechnology, 8 4■ Reaching Learners Outside of Classrooms, 85■ Using Learning Time Efficiently, 85■ Sustaining Motivation, 86■ Individualizing Instruction, 88■ Providing Access to Information Tools, 89

Conclusions, 89

4 The Literacy System: A Patchwork ofPrograms and Resources, 93Findings, 93The Delivery System, 94

■ Who Provides the Funds? 94■ Who Administers Programs and

Provides the Services? 99■ Who Is Being Served? 107■ What Kinds of Instruction Do

They Receive? 109■ Who Are the Teachers? 115

New Emphases in Literacy Programs, 115■ Workplace Literacy, 115■ Family Literacy, 119■ Programs for Incarcerated Adults, 121

Policy Implications, 126

5 The Federal Role in Adult LiteracyEducation, 127Findings, 127Growth of the Federal Role in Adult Literacy, 129

■ Historical Perspective, 129■ The Modem Federal Role Takes Shape, 129■ Public Awareness, “Bully Pulpit,” and

National Leadership, 131■ Congress “Discovers” Adult Literacy:

1986 to the Present, 132Current Federal Role, 133

■ The Number of Federal Literacy Programs, 135■ Agency Roles, 136■ Federal Dollars, 137■ New Emphases, 142

,..Vlll

■ Definitions of Services, 144■ Target Populations, 144■ Administrative Entities and Service Providers,

146■ Services and Activities, 147 Accountability Requirements, 148■ Evaluation Requirements, 149

Encouraging Technology Use, 150■ Federal Provisions for Technology, 150■ State and Local Reaction to Federal Technology

Policy, 153Coordination Among Adult Literacy Programs, 154

Federal Requirements, 154■ State and Local Impact, 155

Federal Policy Issues, 157■ Programs and Dollars, 157■ Services, Quality, and Capacity Building, 157■ Target Groups, 158■ Technology, 158■ Coordination, 158

Conclusion, 159

6 Improving the System: Promising Roles forTechnology, 161Findings, 161Recruiting, Retaining, and Serving Learners, 162

■ Recruitment Issues and Strategies, 162■ Retaining Learners Long Enough to Meet Goals:

The Problem of Attrition, 164 Serving Learners: Balancing Supply and

Demand, 168Instructional Issues, 169

■ Curriculum: What Works? 169■ Helping Teachers, Administrators, and

Volunteers Do Their Jobs, 170 Evaluation and Assessment, 177

Administrative Issues, 179 Funding, 179 Mandated Programs, 180■ Lack of Central Focus and Problems of

Coordination, 181A Final Note, 188

7 Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise, 189Findings, 190

#

ix

Access to Technologies for Literacy, 190Access to Computer Hardware, 190Access to Other Hardware, 192Availability of Computer Courseware, 194Availability of Other Courseware andProgramming, 196An Untapped Base of Technology, 196of Technology, 200General Findings About Technology Use, 200Benefits and Limitations of Technologies forLiteracy, 204The Promise Unfulfilled, 205

Barriers to Use of Technology, 213■ Funding Barriers, 213 Market Barriers, 216■ Information Barriers, 219■ Institutional Barriers, 219

Conclusions, 221

8 Looking Ahead to a FutureWith Technology, 223A Look Into the Future: Three Scenarios, 224

■ Carla King: Moving Ahead With a ChangingIndustry, 224

■ Dave Decker: Changing a Life, Startinga Future, 226

■ Tina Lopez: Family Support Through aMultipurpose Literacy Center, 228

Questions Raised by the Scenarios: How to Create aFuture for Literacy, 231 Hardware Advances, 231■ Networking Advances, 236 Software Advances, 237■ Issues of Access and Equity, 239

Conclusions, 242

APPENDIXES

A List of Boxes, Figures, and Tables, 243

B Major Federal Adult Literacy and Basic SkillsPrograms, 246

C Key Coordination Provisions in Literacy Laws andRegulations, 249

D Glossary, 252

E List of Acronyms, 256

F Workshop Participants, and Reviewers andContributors, 258

G Contributing Sites, 265

H Contractor Reports Prepared forThis Assessment, 268

INDEX, 269

Summaryand

PolicyOptions 1

A fter working all day in a chicken processing plant andcleaning offices until 10:30 pm, Eraclia Benitez has littletime to help her children with their homework. Even inthose few hours on weekends, when she’s finished the

cooking, cleaning, and shopping, and has gone to the laundromat,Eraclia cannot read to them or answer their questions about schoolwork. She’s caught in a double bind-she is unable to read or writein either Spanish or English.1

When the steel mill closed, 48-year-old Howard LeHuquet waslaid off after 18 years as a blast furnace worker. He decided to trainfor anew career in computer repair or air conditioning and heating.When he took the entrance test (almost 30 years after finishinghigh school), he failed on the math and was told to try somethingelse. “Now why do you need so much math . . . to fix an airconditioner or a refrigerator? I was working all these years, payingthe bills, paying off this house, making car payments. You don’trealize time goes by and then, bang. It’s gone. Everything ismath, ’ laments LeHuquet. Now he hits the job market every week,looking for any kind of full-time job with health insurance;currently he is working as a security guard 2 nights a week.2

Siman Skinner is an independent contractor who tried numerousmethods of learning to read before coming to the Columbus,

1! k“4---,

.“~ 4

i’Mississippi, Learning Center. “When I come in here, I couldn’t & L !read a lick. I couldn't. ” As he talks about why he quit school, 1.,Siman relates: “I had a lot of problems with my eyes. Plus I was { ,4 .

.— . . .— —-A ——. .J -- - —-- --

a slow learner, too. And after a while they just move you on up and- -- -- - --- “- -- - - + - T

I got disgusted with it. ” He’s always worked. “I’d run crews for

1 David Fntzse, “De Nada a Literacy-In One Generation, ” Listening to Mothers’Voices: A Reporter’s Guide to Family Literacy, Education Writers Association (cd.)(wil.ShiUgtO@ DC: 1992), pp. 25-29.

z Dale Russakoff, “Lives Once Solid as Steel Shatter in Changed World, ” TheWashington Post, Apr. 13, 1992, p. A14.

1

2 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

For Sonya Davis (left), receiving her GED has openedthe door to college, while for Janet Espinal (right),learning how to read has led to a job as a secretary,

companies, and they never knew I couldn’t read.There’s always somethin’ you can do to get by.Loopholes and the like. But it’s pretty hard. ” Hemotions toward the computer as he recalls pastefforts: “I tried teaching myself, ordering tapesand such from the TV and all, and that’s helpedsome but not like this. ” When he came to theLearning Center, they put him on the computers.‘‘Yeah, I got a lot of 100s. I’m going pretty fast.But I’ve skipped some stuff. Sometimes it’s hardto see the pictures, it not completely clear on thescreen. ” This time he’s determined to make itthrough, changing jobs so he won’t be on the roadall the time and can stick with the classes. “Ittakes time, sure. Just a little stump in the road,that’s all. ”3

People who seek literacy services come frommany different backgrounds and have manydifferent motives for wanting to learn. “Thetarget population [for literacy services] encom-passes Americans who are employed, underem-ployed, and unemployed. ’ They can include:

women who need to reenter the workforce aftera divorce;teenage mothers who dropped out of schoolwhen they became pregnant;immigrants with master’s degrees who speakno English;children of Hispanic migrant workers whoseitinerant way of life limits their time in school;recent high school graduates who are havingtrouble finding a job;middle-aged auto workers whose plants re-cently closed;full-time homemakers who want to help theirchildren with their homework;people who need to improve their mathematicsskills to be promoted at work;truck drivers who need to pass a federallymandated written test to keep their jobs; orprison inmates who want to be employablewhen released,

An array of public, community-based, andprivate adult literacy programs exist to helppeople like Eraclia, Howard, and Siman. Yet thenational approach to adult literacy education fallsshort in several critical respects. The vast major-ity of adults with low literacy skills-perhaps 90percent--do not receive any literacy services. Ahigh proportion of those who do enroll in literacyprograms do not stay long. Most of the instructionis provided by part-time teachers and volunteers,and the agencies and organizations that provideliteracy services must deal with a host of persis-tent challenges, including insufficient and unsta-ble funding, complex administrative require-ments, multiple funding sources, and inadequatemechanisms for identifying and sharing effectivepractices.

What can be done to improve this situation?One answer lies in technology. Computer-basedinstruction, for example, can draw people like

J SL Productions, video interview at the Columbus Learning“ Center, Cohunbua, ~, NOV. 11, 1991.4 ~ -W., “s~ond ~ce Basic Skills JMucatioq” investing in People, k%oud Papers, VO1. 1, CO remission on Workfome

Quality and Labor Market Eftlciency (cd.) (Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor, September 1989), p. 218.

Chapter 1-Summary and Policy Options | 3

Siman into programs and keep them engaged.Interactive video can bring education into thehome for busy mothers like Eraclia and link themwith other learners with similar concerns. Multi-media technology can provide a rich palette ofresources for people like Howard. Sound, intrigu-ing graphics, and live action video can bring newcolor to the black and white print-based world oflearning. But creative uses of technology are theexception rather than the rule in most adultliteracy programs today, the dream rather than thereality.

This study, requested by the House Committeeon Education and Labor and the Senate Com-mittee on Labor and Human Resources, seeks toanswer this and other questions. In this report, theOffice of Technology Assessment (OTA) consid-ers why technology could make a difference inadult literacy, how it is used now, and whatshould be done to seize its potential for the future.

WHAT IS THIS STUDY ABOUT?To assess the current and potential impact of

technologies for literacy, it is necessary to under-stand the broader issues affecting adult literacyeducation in the United States. Therefore, thisstudy begins by examining America’s “literacyproblem,’ shows how standards and require-ments for literacy have increased over time, anddocuments the large number of Americans inneed (chapter 2). Next, we show that adultlearners have unique instructional needs (chapter3) that are only partly being met by the patchworkof programs that provide adult literacy education(chapter 4). The study then analyzes how Federalpolicies have expanded adult literacy programs,but created a more fragmented system (chapter 5).The diverse web of adult literacy programs,however, faces common problems and needs thattechnology could help overcome (chapter 6).Nevertheless, the study shows that the potential oftechnology for both learners and programs is notbeing exploited, and significant barriers inhibit

wider or more sophisticated uses of technology(chapter 7). Finally, the study sketches a futurevision in which better applications of technologymake it possible to serve more adults and enablethem to learn anyplace, anytime (chapter 8).

WHAT IS “LITERACY”?Literacy is not a static concept. Almost 100

years ago, the proxy for literacy in the UnitedStates was being able to write one’s name.Throughout this century literacy demands havebecome more complex and the standard for whatconstitutes literacy has risen (see figure l-l).Despite considerable progress in raising theaverage level of educational attainment (todaymore than three-quarters of the adult populationhave completed high school), many believe thatthese gains have failed to meet the demands of atechnological and global society. Scholars, edu-cators, and policymakers are all struggling withhow to redefine literacy to reflect changes insociety, a global economy, higher educationalstandards for all students, and advances in tech-nology. Technology, in all its forms, is having aprofound effect on the ways people communicatewith one another, shop, interact with socialinstitutions, get information, and do their jobs.The current but evolving definition of what itmeans to be literate goes beyond the basic skillsof reading, writing, and arithmetic. Other impor-tant skills being considered are higher orderthinking and problem-solving skills, computerand other technology-related skills, literacy skillsin the context of the workplace, and literacy skillsas they relate to parenting and family life.

New Federal definitions of literacy incorporatesome of these concepts: The 1991 National AdultLiteracy Act defines literacy as: “. . . an individ-ual’s ability to read, write, and speak in English,and compute and solve problems at levels ofproficiency necessary to function on the job andin society, to achieve one’s goals, and develop

4 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Figure l-l—A Literacy Time Line: Rising Societal Standards for “Functional Literacy”

1930CivilianConservationCorps definesfunctionalliteracy as 3or moreyears ofschooling.

1947 1952 1980 1970Census Census U.S. Office Many authoritiesBureau Bureau of Education indicate that highdefines raises level adopted 8th school completionfunctional to 6 or more grade as the is necessary forliteracy as years of standard. functional literacy.5 or more schooling.years ofschooling.

NOTE: This shows “literacy” in terms of years of schooling. OTA does not have data that allow comparison of average skill levels versus amountof schooling over this time period. The National Adult Uteraq Survey (NALS) Is expected to provkfe the first nationally representative data on theliteracy sHIIs of the Nation’s adults (ages 16 and alder). Data will include types of literacy skills, levels, and how these skills are distributed acmesthe population. The first NALS report wit! be released September 1993.

SOURCE: Lawrence C. Stedman and Cari F. Kaestle, ‘Iiteracyand Reading Performance in the United States From 1880 to the Present,” l-iteraqin the United Sfates, Carl F. Kaestle et al. (ads.) (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991), p. 77.

one’s knowledge and potential. ”5 The NationalAdult Literacy Survey, conducted by the Educa-tional Testing Service for the National Center forEducation Statistics, has adopted the followingdefinition of literacy: “. . . using printed andwritten information to function in society, toachieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowl-edge and potential. Clearly, then, being literatemeans more than just being able to read.

The way in which literacy is defined affects anyestimates of the Nation’s literacy problem-howmany people lack adequate literacy skills-whichin turn affects how the Nation perceives itsliteracy problem. Depending on which definition

is chosen and which measurement method isemployed, the problem can appear bigger orsmaller. Those who want a quick estimate orsimple yardstick are frustrated-literacy is notsomething that people either do or do not have,rather it is a continuum of skills that peoplepossess in varying amounts. No single test orindicator can adequately discriminate betweenthe literate and the nonliterate.

Nevertheless, whether the yardstick includesthe performance of various literacy-relatedtasks, self-reported literacy problems, or edu-cational attainment, the data suggest that avery large portion of the U.S. population is in

5 Public Law 102-73, Sec. 3, National Literacy Act of 1991.

s Anne Campbell et al., Educational ‘lksting Service, Assessing Literacy: The Frameworkf’r the NutionuZAdult Literacy Survey, preparedfor the U.S. Department of Education (Washington, DC: U.S. Governrnent Printing Offke, October 1992), p. 9.


As this public service message suggests, literacy teal.zy goes beyond the basic skills of reading, writing, andarithmetic to include problem-solving and other technology-related skills.

need of improving their literacy skills. OTAfinds that at least 35 million adults have difficul-ties with common literacy tasks (see box l-A).Although many of these adults can read atrudimentary levels, many need higher levels ofliteracy in order to function effectively in society,to find employment, or to be retrained for newjobs.

From all indications, only a small proportion ofthose in need of literacy education are receivingit. Government-sponsored literacy programs—the largest sector of literacy providers---currentlyserve about 4 million people.

OTA finds that the problem of inadequateliteracy skills among adults is likely to grow overthe next several decades. High rates of immigra-tion and rising rates of poverty indicate that thenumber of children and families who are educa-tionally at risk will continue to rise. These andother indicators suggest that literacy can be mosteffectively addressed through a “life-span’ per-spective that embraces both remediation andprevention. Literacy levels cannot be raised forthe long term solely by remediation. Educationalefforts aimed at adults with low literacy skillstoday, however, can have important intergen-erational effects; in addition to improving the

life chances of the adult, they can increase thelikelihood of positive educational outcomes forthat adult’s children.

WHO ARE THE LEARNERS ANDWHAT DO THEY NEED?

Adults do not stop learning when they end theirformal schooling. Whether they finish highschool or college, or drop out somewhere alongthe way, adults face changing roles and lifechoices, and as a result, continue to acquire newskills and knowledge throughout their lives. Moreand more adults are choosing or being required toreturn to formal education-to relearn skills theyhave lost, to acquire skills they never obtained, orto learn new skills that were not taught when theyattended school.

Learning and going to school have most oftenbeen associated with childhood and youth; mostcurrent ideas about learning and teaching arebased on educating children. Educating adults isvery different from educating children, however.Adults bring a wealth of knowledge and experi-ence that can serve as a foundation for newlearning. At the same time, adults have manycompeting demands in their lives that reduce thetime available for education. And while most


adults participate in literacy programs voluntar- bring, what skills they may need or want, howily, their motives for learning vary widely. they use literacy in their lives, how they learn,Getting abetter job is only one goal; others might and what motivates them to want to learninclude becoming more independent or being able more.to help one’s children. Addressing the literacy Adults with low literacy skills form a veryneeds of the Nation must begin, therefore, with diverse group; few fit common stereotypes. Forthe adults themselves-what resources they example, many adults with low literacy skills are

Chapter l-Summary and Policy Options | 7

successful in the workplace, and have foundalternative strategies for learning and surviving ina print-based culture. Often their lack of literacyskills is masked by other competencies, so thatcolleagues and peers remain unaware of theirhidden problem. For others, low literacy skills gohand in hand with poverty, unemployment, poorhealth, and educational failure, creating road-blocks to productive, satisfying lives. People likeEraclia spend much of their lives getting by. Butthey are survivors, self-reliant and determined tobe independent. While society may label them‘‘ illiterate, each has developed sophisticatedcoping skills. They are also motivated by a desireto learn and the hope that becoming literate willhelp them guide their children toward a richer lifethan they have known.

People use literacy in their lives for manydifferent reasons. Moreover, a person’s literacyskills may vary depending on the context. For.example, a carpenter might be able to read andcomprehend much more difficult material in ajob-related manual than on a reading test. OTAfinds that no one set of skills can be used to‘‘certify ‘‘ a person as literate, and no ‘ bneces-sary ” amounts can be established. Needs varyand change according to the circumstances peopleface. These characteristics of adult learners sug-gest that the Nation needs a system of adulteducation that provides all adults with opportuni-ties for lifelong learning as the world and theirpersonal circumstances change, and that particu-larly encourages those whose limited literacyskills pose the greatest challenge.

Literacy programs should also recognize thatpeople learn best when they are active partici-pants in the learnin g process, when they aremotivated by their own goals and interests, andwhen knowledge is presented in a context that ismeaningful to them. To a large extent the present“system’ of programs and services is designed

In this Los Angeles County jails educational program,inmates work on real literacy tasks designed toincrease their chances of success following release.

for voluntary learners who come for assistancewhen they are ready. However, this segment ofthe population represents a very small proportionof those who could benefit from improved levelsof literacy. The growing number of workplaceand family literacy programs may be a way tobring more adults into literacy programs, bylinking instruction and skills to immediate con-cerns and real life contexts.

There is a trend toward mandating participationof certain populations in literacy services (e.g.,programs targeted at mothers on welfare andthose in prison). This fundamental change maycall for new instructional paradigms, but there isnot enough data yet to know how these popula-tions challenge traditional approaches to learningand measures of success. With an even morediverse learner population, research must focuson the learning strategies of adults, motivationand incentives, and development of approaches,learning materials, and technology tools.7

Adult learners also face special external andinternal obstacles. Competing roles and responsi-bilities, situational barriers such as childcare ortransportation, prior negative educational experi-

T The newly created National Institute for Literacy is expected to play a major role in research. By taw, the Institute is charged with providinga 66

. . . focal point for rescarchj technical assistance and research disserninatio% poticy anatysis and program evacuation in the area ofliteracy. . . .“ Public Law 102-73, Title I, Sec. 102, National Institute for Literacy.


Box I-B-Advantages of Technology for Adult Learners

Reaching Learners Outside of Classrooms● With portable technology, adults can learn almost anywhere, any time, and can use Small parcels of time more

.efficiency

● Technology can carry instruction to nonschool settings-workplaces, homes, prisons, or the ~ @ *● Adults can be served who would otherwise be left out because of barriers such as inconvenient class.scheduling or lack of childcare or transportation● . Learning at home convenient and private for those who would feel stigmatizeda a t t e n d i n g a

P m -Using Learning Time Efficiently

. Learners can move at their own pace, have greater control over their own learning, and make better use oftheir learning time.

● Leaners can handle some routine tasks more quickly through such processes as computer spell checking.● Many lcamers advance more quickly with computers or Interactive videodiscs than with conventional

teaching methods. Sustaining Motivation

● Novelty factor cam be a drawing card."● Technology can be more engaging,can add interest to - - -● Importance of computers in society can enhance the status of literacy instruction.● Privacy and confidentiality are added to the learning environment reducing embarrassment adults often

experience.● Technology-based learning “~ do not resemble those of past school failures.● Intense,non judgmental drill-and-practice is available for those who need it.✩ ■ ✩ ■ assessmetnropmvidcd

lndividualizing Instruction● Computers can serve as "personal tutors’’-instruction and scheduling can be individualized with without

Ore-on-one staffing; Suitable for open-entry, open-exit programs.● M a t e r i a l s presentation formats can be customized to suit ●diferrrentleamingstyles, interests ,or workplace

needs.● Images and sound can help some adults learn better, especially those who cannot lead text well.● Computers with digitized and synthesized speech can help with pronunciation and vocabulary.● Adults with learning disabilities and certain● physical disabilities Can be accommodate

Providing Access to Information Tools. Adults need to learn to use today’s electronic tools for accessing “information.● Adults believe familiarity with computers will make them mole employable.

SOURCE: office ofmchdOgy ASScSq 1993.

ences, and learning disabilities can easily deter all deliver services and support learning are allbut the most motivated learners. harriers may necessary if we are to improve the system.need social and emotional support as well as Technology has the potential to eliminate someflexible systems that match their schedules, pace, barriers to participation and address some of theand learning style. Finding better ways to match unique needs of adult learners (see box l-B), butadult learners to services, removing barriers to the current uses of technology in adult literacyparticipation, creating incentives for attending programs have barely scratched the surface.programs, and designing new strategies to


Figure 1-2—Adult Literacy Programs,I

What Programs Are Offered?

●

●

●

■

●

●

m

9

Adult basic educationAdult secondary educationGED preparationEnglish as a second languageWorkplace literacy and skillsComputer skillsFamily literacyCombinations of the above

What Are the Funding Sources?

Federal Government_ State governments■ Local governments● Foundations● Business and industry● Unions● Professional organizations■ Participants

Who Is Being Served?

● High school dropouts● Immigrants and refugees. Job training clients● Families● Welfare clients= Adults in the workplace~ Displaced workers■ Displaced homemakers

Providers, and People

● Incarcerated teens and adults● Retirees

Who Are the Providers?

● Local school districts● Community colleges● Community-based organizations● Libraries~ Literacy volunteer organizations● PrisonsD Labor unions■ Business/industry● Preschool and Head Start programs= Coalitions of the above

I

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

WHAT PROBLEMS DO LITERACYPROGRAMS AND PROVIDERS FACE?

The numbers of adult literacy programs andproviders are growing, prompted by increasedFederal, State, community, and philanthropicawareness of literacy as an economic and socialissue. Public programs are the largest sector,serving an estimated 80 to 90 percent of thosewho sign up for adult literacy instruction. Al-though data on total funding for literacy are notavailable, statistics from the U.S. Department ofEducation indicate that State and local support foradult literacy has grown more than eightfold since1980, and Federal funding has doubled.8 These

What Technologies Are Used?

Stand-alone and networked computersIntegrated learning systemsMultimedia systemsVideotape, videodiscHand-held and portable devicesConsumer electronicsBroadcast and cable televisionClosed captioningDistance learning networks

increases have spurred the expansion of programsand services. But despite this growth, adultliteracy education operates at the margin.Unlike elementary and secondary education, witha clearly defined and long-established tradition ofcontrol by State departments of education andlocal school districts, adult education has no‘‘system. ” A patchwork of adult literacy servicesis provided in schools, community colleges,libraries, community centers, churches, housingprojects, workplaces, and prisons (see figure 1-2).Although local school districts continue to beprimary providers of adult literacy education,programs operated by community-based organi-

8 See chs. 4 and 5 for further &tails.


zations have expanded and there has been a slightshift away from school-based programs. Even so,much of the content is remarkably similar acrossthe variety of sponsors. Adult basic education,general equivalency diploma (GED) preparation,and English as a second language (ESL) areamong the most popular offerings, but interest isgrowing in family and workplace literacy. Theavailability of services to learners is not uniform,however; it is a function of where the learner livesand works, more than of what his or her needs are.

Just as the definition of adult literacy iscomplicated by the multiple needs of learners atvarious points in their lives, so too is the web ofservices complicated by multiple funding sources,administering agencies, and service providers.While this diversity may have advantages, itmakes it difficult to address critical but commonissues that plague many programs. The lack ofcoherent referral among programs, problems withrecruitment and retention, a high dependence on

volunteers and part-time teachers (and conse-quently high turnover of staff), and a lack ofadequate tools to measure program effectivenesscut across all programs and providers.

OTA finds that funding is a constant concernthat affects all of the above. Many programs havewaiting lists, especially for such popular servicesas ESL. For most programs, unstable and short-term funding patterns make it difficult to plan,purchase necessary materials or equipment, ordevelop professional staffing ladders.

Fragmentation of effort is another ongoingproblem. At least seven Federal agencies, andoften many more State offices, admin“ ister adultliteracy programs; each has its own rules, report-ing requirements, and funding channels. SomeStates and localities have sought to overcomefragmentation and make the most of limitedresources by improving coordination among edu-cation, training, and social and employmentservices and eliminating duplication of effort.

Adult literacy services have changed dramaticallysince the Federal Government’s 1930s efforts tosupply books to Work Progress Administrationemployees. Today, government is entering into jointventures with private industry to provide computer-based literacy programs to employees at work, likethis one at General Electric’s Aircraft EngineFactory (right).


Some have also encouraged partnerships acrosslocal communities that link schools, businesses,churches, libraries, or other institutions to in-crease the level of support and marshal everyavailable resource.9 Such efforts are not easilyaccomplished, however-programs need infor-mation on what is available in their communitiesso they can fill in gaps; they need help withadministration and accounting; and they needlong-term funding to overcome the high turnoverof staff and learners.

Key and critical resources in every program arethe people who work with learners and manageprograms. The dedication and involvement ofstaff-whether paid or volunteer, full or parttime-are extraordinary in most cases. But thedemands placed on staff are also extremely high,and turnover is persistent. Most programs rely onvolunteers to carry a heavy burden of instruction—one-on-one tutoring is the most common instruc-tional format-and the majority of paid teachersare part time. Specific training in teaching literacyfor adults is limited. Volunteers, while dedicated,may not have the grounding necessary for effec-tive teaching, diagnosing learning disabilities,and helping learners find critical auxiliary serv-ices. Even licensed teachers need more trainingsince few are specialists in adult literacy. Further-more, teachers, administrators, and volunteerswould gain from professional standards, graduate-level programs, certification guidelines, and ca-reer ladders similar to those found in othereducational environments.

Technology could help alleviate some of theproblems of administration, fragmented servicedelivery, recruitment and retention of clients, and

high turnover of staff and volunteers (see boxl-C). Electronic databases could help maintaininformation, track funds, and match learners tosupport services. Programs could use telecommu-nications technology to train volunteers and staffand connect them with one another to shareinformation and reduce isolation. And technologycould help programs move their resources beyondtheir physical location to reach learners whereverthey are.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OFFEDERAL EFFORTS?

Since the founding of the Republic, the literacyof adult Americans has been an abiding Federalconcern. Up until the mid- 1960s the Federalresponse was very limited. The passage of theAdult Education Act in 1%6 changed the Federalrole, creating a categorical grant program foradult literacy and basic skills education. This actand subsequent legislative initiatives have helpedbuild and define key features of the deliverysystem today.

Legislation enacted since 1986 has expandedand transformed the Federal role in adult literacy,increasing appropriations, creating new programs,attempting to build capacity and coordinationamong existing programs, and assigning newliteracy-related missions to programs with broadergoals, such as welfare reform, immigration re-form, and job training. The Federal Govern-ment currently spends at least $362 million foradult literacy and basic skills education, morethan double the amount of 5 years ago.10

Federal dollars have an important leveragingeffect and are critical sources of sustenance for

g The New York City Literacy Assistance Center and Baltimore Reads are two examples of how communities can pull together, build onexisting educational capacity, involve businesses, bring in volunteers, and create entities that sustain these efforts by providing leadership,technkxd WiStiUIC$, and f~id support.

10 ~ ~=mative es- is fw ~m a ~qle~ ~o~ting of_ ~- on ~tit Ii-y and basic skills. Some impo-t

programs--i.nchldixlg the Job Training Partnership Act Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training, State Legalimtion Impact AssistanceGrants, Refugee Resettlement and Even Start-have been omitted because the data needed to make a reasonable estimate of expenditures onadult basic skills is not available. The $362 million was calcula~ by totaling appropriations for programs with identifiable adult educationand litemcy obligations in 19 of the 29 “core” programs on which OZ4 focused. Almost 90 percent of this total comes from Department ofEducation programs. For more detail see ch 5 and app. B.


many State and local efforts. Still the Federal large-scale, coordinated Federal offensive thatliteracy expenditure is small in comparison withoverall State expenditures for literacy and forother major Federal education programs (seefigure 1-3), meager in terms of the total popula-tion in need, and low as a national priority (seefigure 1-4). There has been a proliferation ofcategorical grant programs with literacy-relatedmissions. All this is at odds with the sort of

some feel is necessary to address the literacychallenge.

Among the new Federal emphases since 1991is a focus on workplace literacy programs foremployed adults. These programs are intended tomeet the literacy demands of the job market andcreate new workplace/education partnerships thatstimulate private sector literacy efforts. While


many leaders in business, labor, and local andState government support this direction for liter-acy, current efforts (both public and private) reacha very small number of workers. Thus far, Federaldollars have supported demonstration projectsand limited ‘‘seed’ development. Further expan-sion of the system of education and training hasbeen proposed; how to accomplish the expansionis controversial,ll

Another important emphasis has been on creat-ing intergenerational family literacy programs.With their focus on prevention and remediation,they represent a small but significant shift in theFederal approach to the problem of literacy.Congress has begun to link family literacyinitiatives with Federal Head Start and Even Startprograms, as well as Chapter I. Effective parent-ing strategies that foster young children’s lan-guage development and school readiness arecommon concerns of all these programs. Simi-larly, expertise in adult learning is something that

Figure 1-3-Funding for Adult EducationCompared With Other Federal Education

Initiatives, Fiscal Year 1992

$ billions8 7 — —

,--7 6.9

6

4

2

0.27o--z/’/zA

u./

1.2

m

2.9

Adult Vocational Special Chapter 1 StudentEducation education education ~

Act


Figure 1-4-Funding for Select Federal DomesticPriorities, Fiscal Year 1992

$ bllions

2’~ 22

Adult Substance Highway Foodliteracy abuse aid stamps


teachers need whether they are in Head Start oradult education programs.

Targeted Federal programs have encouragedStates and local providers to reach out to groupsof adults, such as the homeless and welfaremothers, whose access to basic education hasbeen limited. By channeling more fundingthrough programs with restricted eligibility, how-ever, the Federal Government may be limitingopportunities for the millions of adult learners,including many limited English proficient adultswho do not meet special criteria but have thepotential to quickly become functionally literate,self-supporting citizens.

New Federal requirements and policies areshaping State and local responses. For examplemandatory participation and minimum hours ofinstruction in the Job Opportunities and BasicSkills (JOBS) training program and the literacyprogram for Federal prisoners represent a markedshift away from the traditional model of volun-tary, open-entry, open-exit programs. Other pol-

1 I F~eral and State tax incentives to business, a national levy for education and trtig, md otiti mec~ could be utilized. See U.S.Congress, Office of Technology Assessmen4 Worker Training: Competing in the New International Economy, OTA-1TE457 (WaSbingtOILDC: U.S. Government Printing Offke, September 1990).


In North Carolina at the Carver Family LiteracyProgram, an intergenerational approach to literacyseeks to provide the parent with literacy and parentingskills, and enhance the child’s learning opportunities.

icy directives include efforts to improve thequality of services for learners through bettercoordination across programs, requirements fortraining and professional development of educa-tional staff and volunteers, and moving towardlearning assessments that are outcome-based. It istoo soon to know how these “new requirements’for literacy programs will affect what is offeredand who participates, but these are areas that

should be followed closely.The limited but promising use of technology is

not surprising given the fact that the majorFederal adult literacy laws12 contain no provi-sions explicitly authorizing the use of technology;the exception is the Job Training Partnership Act(JTPA) and its authorization of the use of‘ ‘advanced learning technologies.” However, noprograms contain capital budgets for equipmentpurchase or explicit funding for teacher trainingin technology. Most statutory and regulatoryprovisions regarding use of technology are op-

tions, not mandates.13 The Department of Labor,the Department of Education, and the SmallBusiness Innovation Research program have sup-ported a handful of literacy-related technologydemonstrations with discretionary money. Thenewly created National Institute for Literacyfunded only three technology projects in its firstround of awards. Taken together, the messageabout use of technology in adult literacy and basicskills programs from the Federal establishment,with the exception of the Department of Defense,has been “go slowly, if at all.”

HOW COULD TECHNOLOGYMAKE A DIFFERENCE?

Today’s technology offers enormous poten-tial for substantially changing the field of adultliteracy. It could provide an alternative to thelabor-intensive, tutorial-based teaching that makesup the bulk of today’s literacy training. Forinstance, multimedia technologies with speech,video, and graphics could offer a new hope forthose who have experienced repeated failures inpaper-and-pencil-based educational activities.Computer-assisted instruction could enable learn-ers to proceed at their own sped with materialsrelevant to their lives, tailored to their personalinterests, and compatible with their individual1earning styles. Hand-held electronics, such aspocket language translators, could allow adults tolearn on the bus or during coffee breaks-whenever they are able to study. Electronicnetworks could remove the isolation and stigmaof low literacy by enabling adults to shareexperiences in small group discussions. Withclosed captioning as a standard feature, learnerswill be able to see and hear the words on broadcastor cable television to reinforce language and

12 For example, the Adult Education Act basic grant prograq Even St@ State Legalization rm~ Ask- -, ~~Rescttlcmcng ad Adult Education for the Homeless.

13 m *- that do cxisq relating to the National Institute for Literacy ~ b ~~ t of Labor National Workforcc LiteracyCollaborative, gcmmlly affect decisions at the Federal level, not programs in the field

Chapter l-Summary and Policy Options I 15

reading development. 14 Interactive telecommuni-

cations networks could bring the best teachersfrom around the country to the most remotelearners (see box l-D). All this is possible intechnologies available today; much more will bepossible in the next decade.

Yet the full range of capabilities has hardlybeen touched, OTA finds that technology is nota central consideration for most 1iteracy pro-grams. By the same token, adult literacyapplications are not high priorities for mostvendors and developers in the technologyindustry.

Computers are the most prevalent technologyfor literacy, but no more than 15 percent of1iteracy providers use them regularly for instruc-tion, and many do not use them at all. Much of theav a il able software provides drill and practice, notproblem solving: many choices are geared forchildren. not adults. Advanced capabilities, suchas speech recognition, speech generation, orinteractive multimedia, are only beginning to betested. Few literacy providers have sufficienttechnology for broad usage, or awareness ofavailable software. More serious is the limitedknowledge and training among staff and volun-teers in the use of technology as a teaching tool.

Despite an explosion in cable, public, andcommercial television channels and widespreadownership of television sets, there are only ahandful of instructional television programs tar-geted to adult literacy that harness the power ofthe media. In fact, video technologies are surpris-ingly underused given their familiarity and avail-ability.

A significant amount of hardware and softwarein businesses, homes, schools, and colleges isunderutilized for literacy education. For example,common electronic devices, such as home videogame machines, are largely ignored as technolo-gies for literacy.

B o x l - D - D i s t a n c e L e a r n i n gin Vermont

In Vermont, where icy roads can cancel classes andlong distances can keep others away, learners fromacross the State have been working toward theirgeneral equivalency diploma (GED) through a seriesof courses held over Vermont Interactive Television(VIT). The Lou & Dave Show, a 10-week GEDmathematics course, enrolled 30 learners gathered atlocal sites throughout the State. They had a great timelearning mathematics, thanks to a blend of showbusiness and team teaching from two of the best adulteducation instructors in the State, Lou Dorwaldt at onesite and Dave Shapiro at another. They use video andon-the-air high jinks to bring mathematics to life,using real-life Vermont situations and people thestudents know as subjects for mathematics problems,playing custom-made videos that present problem-solving activities in entertainingg ways, and evenhaving ‘‘the spirit of Pythagoras’ make an appearanceto talk about his renowned mathematical theories.Learners in remote locations who feel isolated by theirlow literacy skills found interacting with other adultlearners across the State an important psychologicalboost. The program coordinator suggests some of theother benefits of doing courses over VIT: “It cutsdown on the tutors’ regular work time and also freesup more money, not only from the tutors’ workloadbut by creating our own texts. Students found them-selves working in large groups, becoming moreself-reliant, while learning how to work and help eachother. These are important skills for all adults hopingto function in today’s world. ”l

1 ~ c~~t Basic MuCation: fiPilXld@ Ho~ons ‘“a

w“ OnZine, The Newsletter of Vermont Interactive‘Iklevisio% vol. 2, No. 1, August 1991.

Why is there such a wide gap between practiceand promise? While the barriers to more effectiveuse of technology are similar to those faced inother arenas (most specifically elementary andsecondary education), they are more severe inadult literacy programs. These barriers includeneeds for an expanded technology base, appropri-

14 me Television Dmoder Circuitry Act of 1990 re@res that all television sets with screen sizes 13 inches or larger, whether manufacturedor imported for use in the United States after June 30, 1993, will have captioning capability built directly into the television receiver.


In this Vanderbilt University multimedia project, researchers are exploring how video, graphics, audio, and textcan support the acquisition of reading skills.

ate software, staff training, and stable funding andcontinuing support. In addition, the literacymarket is fragmented and underdeveloped; notparticularly attractive to vendors and softwaredevelopers. Even so, there are encouraging signson the horizon as the technology infrastructureexpands, investment in literacy education in-creases, and recognition of the importance oflifelong learning grows.

POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONSThe Federal Government has attempted to

attack the large, multifaceted problem of lowadult literacy skills in a piecemeal fashion. Thecurrent array of modest to small programs pro-vides something for almost every type of literacyneed but not very much for any, with inefficien-cies for all.

Although existing literacy programs havehelped millions of adults lead richer lives, there

are many steps that would expand and improveservices for adults with limited literacy skills andlead toward an integrated national strategy foradult literacy. These steps include both majorinitiatives and smaller, short-term strategies.

The first approach is a dramatic refashioning ofthe Federal role into a new scale of effort withgreatly increased funding and higher visibility.The new program would expand, subsume, orreplace existing piecemeal efforts. If Congresswants to bring adult literacy up to the level ofother Federal programs that offer equal educa-tional opportunities for those most in need (e.g.,Chapter 1 and special education at the K-12 level,and Pen grants for higher education), a morecomprehensive service delivery system will benecessary. This option is discussed at the conclu-sion of this section.

A more immediate strategy focuses on optionsfor working within the existing system, whilegiving special attention to technology as a lever


for change and as a resource to benefit learnersand programs. OTA has identified three majorareas in which congressional action would makea

■

■

■

real difference:

building the base of technology (hardware andsoftware) for literacy,improving the system of literacy programs andservices, andexperimenting with new alternatives, both withinand outside of the current system to reach morelearners.

Building a Base of Technology for LiteracyTo accomplish this goal, two broad strategies

are considered: increasing access to technologiesand stimulating development of literacy softwareand programming.

Increase Access to TechnologlesHaving access to hardware is the first, most

obvious gateway to using technology. If there isto be more technology use in adult literacyprograms, the Federal Government must takelegislative and regulatory steps that will stimulateand legitimize the use of technology in adultliteracy programs and eliminate provisions thatinhibit it. This can be done deliberately as Federalprogram reauthorizations come up, by takingspecial care to eliminate impediments to use oftechnology in existing laws and regulations,adding new provisions explicitly encouragingtechnology, and enacting directives for inter-agency cooperation on technology in literacy-related programs. The sooner this is done, thesooner the benefits will appear.

Remove Legislative and Administratlve Barri-ers. OTA’s analysis suggests that while there arefew if any direct prohibitions against technologyin literacy programs (e.g., legislative languageprohibiting use of funds to acquire technology),there are several “indirect” but real impedi-ments. Among them are antisupplanting andeligibility requirements that restrict the use of

equipment to a single target group, such aslegalized aliens, even though a program might beproviding instruction to a mix of clients includingdisplaced workers, recent immigrants, welfarerecipients, or high school dropouts. In addition,separate funding streams and accountability re-quirements discourage integrated planning, pur-chase, and use of technology. In some cases,technology is underutilized and certain learnersare unable to benefit because courses of instruc-tion or equipment purchases were funded by aprogram that will not or cannot share theseresources with other programs (see box l-E).

Other barriers include evaluation or perform-ance standards that emphasize immediate learn-ing gains or employment outcomes, subtly dis-couraging long-term equipment investments orexperimentation with technology-based instruc-tion. Investment in technology is further inhibitedby the absence of multiyear contracts in someFederal programs, the small size of most Federaldiscretionary grants, and a general suspicionamong Federal policymakers and program ad-ministrators about the use of Federal funds forcapital expenditures.

Although some States and local communitiesare finding ways around the maze of regulations,funding streams, and accountability requirementsof multiple Federal programs, the Adminis t r a t ioncould lower the barriers and make it easier forliteracy programs to acquire the technology theyneed. There are critical administrative actions theFederal Government could initiate now, includ-ing interagency efforts for planning, implementa-tion, and regulatory revisions to allow cost-sharing for technology installation and applica-tions.

In addition, the Federal Government can im-prove interagency coordination and thus increasethe effectiveness of its adult literacy programs bydeveloping a consistent governmentwide policyon technology for adult literacy and by using thetools of technology-such as integrated data-bases or teleconferencing-to promote coordina-


tion and improve program administration amongagencies.

Encourage Technology Use Through New Regu-lations and Authorizing Language. Most Federalliteracy programs lack explicit legislative lan-guage encouraging use of technology. Thoseprovisions that do exist are options, rather thanmandates to use technology or set-asides requir-ing a minimum investment in technology. In fact,the Adult Education Act (AEA) takes the oppositeapproach, capping the amount that may be usedby the State resource centers for hardware andsoftware at 10 percent. Congress could establisha set-aside for technology in the AEA (as italready has for other new initiatives, such asinstitutional corrections programs). Such a provi-sion would likely gain some support among Stateadult education directors, who have recently

recommended that in the next reauthorization66

. . . the AEA should encourage a percentage ofadult education allocation for innovation andtechnology in education.”15 A set-aside wouldgive programs “permission” to fired technologyacquisition; without this explicit policy, manymay not make this investment. The signal tohardware and software developers from such aset-aside and the degree to which it wouldstimulate the market for adult literacy technologydevelopment would depend on its size. (OTAestimates that a 10 percent set-aside would put$25 million into the marketplace.

A fixed percentage of set-aside funds fortechnology acquisition would probably be insuf-ficient for small programs. It is important, there-fore, that Congress take parallel steps to allowFederal funds to be pooled with other fundingsources.

IS U.S. lleptint of Educatiou Diviaion of Adult Education and Literacy and Oflke of Policy ad n-, “SUmXIUUY of state AdultEducation Dkctors FOIUIIL Feb. 18-19, 1993,” unpublished document, p. 12.

Provide Direct Funding for Technology. Congresscould provide capital funds for hardware andsoftware acquisition for adult literacy programsdirectly through new Federal grants to localliteracy programs. The amount of funding couldvary with program size and scope.16 To leveragethe Federal investment, Congress could require amatch with local, State, or private funds. Grantscould require communitywide technology plan-ning and cooperation across Federal programs.For example, if the major Federal programs (AEAJTPA, Head Start, and Chapter 1) were combined,it would have a substantial effect, increasing thepool of dollars available for technology. Technology resources could be located centrally ordispersed. The point is that the involvement of anentire community would aggregate demand anddrive down the costs of hardware and software.

Planning and cooperation on a regional or Statelevel would increase the effectiveness of avail-able funds. Statewide technology initiatives inK-12 education in Florida and Texas, for exam-ple, have made it possible for schools to acquirecomputers, multimedia technology, and telecom-munications capacity at lower cost than if eachschool or district made purchases separately-agood model for adult literacy.

Stimulate Development of Adult Literacy Softwareand Programming

Effective use of technologies requires qualitysoftware and programming tailored to the needsof adult learners. Available computer software isinadequate for the demands of literacy programs,and programming for video and other technolo-gies is even more limited. The Federal Govern-


ment has provided millions of dollars of researchand development (R&D) support to developeducational television programming for the ele-mentary, secondary, and college levels, softwaretools and networking applications for science andmathematics, and distance learning systems forK-12 education. By contrast, the Federal invest-ment in programmingg, software, and networkingapplications for adult literacy has been almostnonexistent, except for the military’s develop-ment of computer-based materials in basic skills.

Create an Adult Literacy Software/ProgrammingInitiative. A targeted initiative is one way to speeddevelopment of a broad base of high-quality andeffective applications of video, computer, andtelecommunications technology for literacy. Con-gress could provide seed funding and encouragepublic/private partnerships among literacy educa-tors, State agencies, software developers, andtelecommunications providers, as it has done forK-12 distance learning through the Star Schoolsprogram. An appropriation of about $20 millionper year for the next 5 years would serve as asignificant stimulant to the field.17

Any such development should include stand-alone video courses and modules, interactivedistance learning programs, and computer soft-ware and multimedia learning materials thataddress high-priority needs, especially :18

■ English as a second language,■ high school completion and GED,■ workplace literacy,■ materials and resources designed for learners

with very low literacy skills (especially those

16 ~ ~lm for M ~w $7 won ci~de St. Paw Minnesota C~ti for Lifelong ~“ ,$500,000 has been budgeted for technology,including hardware, software, and telecommunications networking. ‘Ikrilyn ‘Mner, director, Center for Lifelong Learn@, St. PauL MN,personal communication, Apr. 24, 1993.

17 By way of ~ompfisoq ~ngr~s @@lly authorized tk Star SChook progftlm for 5 y~, **an ov~ _ ‘t ‘f $lW

million. The National Scienee Foundation’s application of advanced technology development is CUlltdy budgeted at appmtitdy $12.5million annually for research and development in mathematics, scieq and technology for all levels of education.

16 ~ titit litq initiative could concaxratedeveloprnent of sofhvare and video PWPmm@? in the areas of highest need. New data fromthe National Adult Literacy Suwey of adults 16 years and older will become available later this year (September 1993). Thia data should helpclari& the instructional needs of adults and which segments of the population are most in need of assistance.


r

!

[

II

.- ..- . —.—-.—.. . -. . /

El Museo Historico

$3:1-J. cc:.? I :?’”’ ‘:.” j 3 j. . ,.ie :~ *,,w~:.l ,3 e:.. x?:’\JI” I 1+Page 1 Body I L c Is ]sBy enabling adult learners to write in Spanish or English, this so&are program helps them learn English as theyimprove writing, thinking, and reasoning skills. -

that make use of advances in digitized speech,graphics, and .animation), andprograms designed to reach both adults andyoung children in family literacy contexts.

Funding development of software and pro-

gramming alone is not enough; the FederalGovernment would have to place equal priorityon achieving broad distribution-making soft-ware and programming available across the rangeof literacy programs and providers, and bringingthese resources to unserved learners in theirhomes and communities. Congress could requirethat rights and marketing strategies promote thewidest possible distribution through cable, broad-

cast television, video rental stores, software andmusic stores, and other less traditional outlets-such as welfare offices, post offices, public healthclinics, libraries, and the workplace.

Fund Software and Programming Through Exist-ing Technology Programs. Another option is touse existing Federal technology program author-ity to fired development of literacy applications,rather than initiate a separate software effort. TheFederal Star Schools program already authorizesinstruction for literacy, as does the Ready toLearn Children’s Television Act. The NationalScience Foundation’s (NSF) educational technol-ogy programs, the National Telecommunications


and Information Administration’s National Infor-mation Infrastructure program, and the technol-ogy programs at the Advanced Research ProjectsAgency (ARPA-Department of Defense) allhave expertise in technology that could be appliedto literacy. Without a specific allocation for adultliteracy or a congressional mandate, however,literacy development will be largely left to chanceand continue to exist at the margin. l9 Thisapproach also makes it difficult to address literacyneeds systematically and avoid duplication ofeffort.

Improving the SystemTwo broad policy strategies are considered for

improving the system of literacy services. Thefirst strategy focuses on helping administrators,teachers, and volunteers become more effective.The second strategy focuses on strengthening theconnections among literacy providers, socialservices, and the private sector.

Expand Training and Professional DevelopmentIt is one of the sad ironies of adult literacy

education that often those with the least profes-sional training are asked to help the learners withthe greatest educational needs. The system isunlikely to get better without strengthening theprofessional status and expertise of those whoteach, administer, and volunteer in literacy pro-grams. Professional development should involveseveral parallel improvements: continuing train-ing for adult literacy educators, curriculum devel-opment and graduate-level programs in adultliteracy instruction, more rigorous standards andcertification requirements, and strategies for re-cruiting highly qualified personnel to teach andadminister adult literacy programs. Technologycan be a resource in all these efforts.

Coordinate and Expand lnservice Training. Teachertraining and professional development efforts arenew objectives of the National Literacy Act of1991. Training is one of the missions of the newlyestablished State resource centers. The act alsoincreases the State set-aside for training andresource development from 10 to 15 percent ofthe AEA State grants under Section 353. Even so,funding from these sources will be insufficient tosupport systematic training activities for manyStates. Section 353 funds amount to no more than$25 million nationwide, and the $5 millionappropriated for State resource centers in fiscalyear 1993 is spread across every State and theoutlying areas.20

One option for making the most of availablefunding is for Congress, through legislation, toallow States to pool Section 353 set-asides, alongwith State resource center grants, to createmultistate or regional teacher training centers.Local adult literacy training funds could also bechanneled into these centers. Similarly, trainingactivities supported by other Federal and Stateprograms involved in literacy training could beaggregated. Regulations should facilitate, notinhibit, training efforts that address commonneeds of adult literacy educators serving clientsfrom JOBS, JTPA, Head Start, Corrections, Drugand Alcohol Rehabilitation, and other programs.

Collaborative training activities could alsoencourage cross fertilization of staff expertise.For example, teachers of young children in familyliteracy programs could study the learning prob-lems of the children’s parents; those who tradi-tionally teach adults could learn about childdevelopment and early childhood education. Theresult would broaden the base of expertise inintergenerational literacy programs. Collaborationsbetween those with training expertise in theworkplace and those skilled in teaching readingand writing could encourage richer, more comprehen-

19‘1’IIUS fm, only NVO of the Star Schools projects have begun to experiment with adult Meraey in a Wkd way.

~ on a forrn~a basis SOIIE States or territories receive as little as $2,500, and over half the States receive leSS * $50,~, which suPPortsseveral other activities beyond teacher haining.

331-048 0 - 93 - 2 QL. 3


Telecommunications technologies can be used toexpand adult literacy services and programs.

sive workplace literacy programs. Social servicescounselors and ESL instructors might also benefitfrom joint training, as they learn more about themultiple needs and concerns of their clients.Collaborative professional development effortscould help to break down walls that exist betweenservice providers funded from different sources,possibly creating a broader base for the profes-sion.

Distance learning technologies could greatlyfacilitate multistate and multiagency trainingefforts by serving teachers and trainers in differ-ent locations and small programs. Federal StarSchools legislation now authorizes adult literacyinstruction, and the telecommunications partner-ships formed to serve adult learners could alsoprovide training to literacy staff and volunteers.The most highly skilled teacher trainers, whetherin community colleges, universities, or workplaceprograms, could train literacy instructors, coun-selors, and volunteers over interactive networks.Materials, strategies, and lesson plans could becreated and shared over computer networks.

Support Adult Literacy Curricula and Graduate-Level Programs. Most adult literacy teachers andstaff have received very limited specialized train-ing in their field, and few universities offeradvanced degree programs in adult literacy edu-

cation. Yet the challenges of adult literacy de-mand expertise in a range of areas: diagnosingand teaching adults with learning disabilities,creating curricula to meet the needs of culturallydiverse populations, applying adult learning the-ory, and using technology-all in addition toacquiring the substantive knowledge to teachreading, writing, mathematics, GED subjects, andso forth.

Developing master’s level programs and cur-ricula is an essential step for producing a cadre ofprofessional staff. Through the National Institutefor Literacy (NIL), the National Center for AdultLiteracy (NCAL), or the State resource centers,the Department of Education could work withuniversities to develop graduate programs. An-other approach is to use distance learning technol-ogies to pull together the resources and expertiseof universities or regional consortia. One interest-ing prototype is the National TechnologicalUniversity-a consortium of engineering col-leges and universities that provides advancedtraining and courses to engineers. This consor-tium was supported by the Department of Com-merce’s Public Telecommunications FacilitiesProgram-a resource that could be tapped by theliteracy community to bring together the neces-sary mix of faculty and programs. AdditionalFederal support can be channeled through theDepartment of Education’s Fund for Improve-ment in Post Secondary Education, NIL grants, ornew specialized grant competitions.

These programs could also target the develop-ment and distribution of innovative educationalmaterials that bring instructional research, strate-gies, and resources to prospective and currentteachers. Materials developed with this supportshould be made available in a range of technolog-ical formats, from tapes that can be taken homefor review to state-of-the-art multimedia materi-als that can be distributed over networks.

Assist States With Their Professional Standardsand Certification Guidelines. Almost one-half ofthe States have no special certification require-


ments for adult literacy teachers, and this hascontributed to the low professional status of adultliteracy education. If program quality is to beimproved, more rigorous standards must be estab-lished for all adult literacy educators.

Certification is traditionally a State responsi-bility, but the Department of Education couldassist by disseminating model standards. Statessuch as New York, Connecticut, California, andMassachusetts are leaders in this area, and theirexperience could guide others. The Federal Gov-ernment might also support efforts to developregional or national teacher certification guide-lines, or ask the National Board for ProfessionalTeaching Standards to include a special assess-ment for adult education instructors.

Similar approaches at the State level could bedeveloped for increasing the professional stand-ards for volunteer tutors. Working from themodels developed for tutor training by LiteracyVolunteers of America or Laubach LiteracyAction, States could develop certificate programsfor volunteer training that would enhance thestatus, confidence, and effectiveness of volun-teers. States could support volunteer agencies intheir efforts to systematize standards for volun-teer recruitment, training, and supervision.

Recruit More Teachers. If adult literacy pro-

grams hope to serve more than 10 percent of thetarget population, they will surely need moreteachers. One potential source of new staff ismilitary trainers being released as bases areclosed and force levels are cut. Trainers frommilitary basic skills education programs alreadyhave expertise in teaching adults, and many haveextensive experience in technology-based in-struction. To the extent that Congress establishesprograms and provides funding to speed theconversion from military to civilian employment,it could capitalize on these trainers’ skills byproviding incentives for work in adult basiceducation, workplace literacy, and family literacyprograms. Increased funding for additional liter-acy teachers could also be provided in other

Federal literacy-related programs such as VISTA(Volunteers in Service to America). If enacted,the new proposal for a Volunteer Service Corpsfor college students could be structured to includetraining of volunteers for adult literacy.

Encourage Coordination, Integrated Services, andPartnerships

Although some argue that the multitude ofservice providers and funding sources offers arich variety of options and approaches, most agreethat this disparate system creates problems forlearners and diminishes program efficiency. Thereis often a mismatch between learner needs andprogram offerings; services are further restrictedby a program’s source of tiding, target popula-tion requirements, location, and other factors.Many small programs are unable to aggregate thekinds of resources needed for planning, staffing,training, technology, and comprehensive serv-ices.

Better coordination would leverage resourcesmore effectively and improve services to clients.Coordination must begin at the Federal level;mandates for State and local coordination areundercut when the Federal house is not in order.

Expand Federal Interagency Coordination. TheNational Literacy Act provisions for interagencycoordination are a starting point for bringingcoherence to the adult literacy field. The actmandates that NIL enlist cooperation among theDepartments of Education, Labor, and Health andHuman Services. If it is to reduce the fragmenta-tion of literacy efforts, this interagency groupshould be expanded to involve the Department ofAgriculture (Food Stamp program), ACTION(VISTA literacy volunteers), the Department ofthe Interior (Indian adult education), the Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Development (pro-grams for public housing residents and thehomeless), the Department of Justice (correc-tional education), the Department of Defense(basic skills training), and NSF (educationaltechnology R&D and teacher training). All have


a stake in adult literacy, and experience andresources to contribute. Given the ease withwhich other such interagency coordinationgroups slip into oblivion, Congress would be welladvised to exercise oversight to ensure that NILis fulfilling its mandate to work with the Federalagencies and serve as a link between the Stateresource centers, local programs, and the privatesector.

An immediate priority for this interagencygroup would be to coordinate definitions, fundingcycles, and accountability, reporting, evaluation,and eligibility requirements. This group couldbegin with a focus on actions that do not requirechanges in legislation, while working to assistCongress in removing legislative impediments tocooperative efforts-particularly those concerningtechnology (see above).

Reward State and Local Coordination. Recentlegislation and executive initiatives all call forcoordination at the State and local level. Congressmay wish to back up these requirements with“glue money”—incentives to help States andlocal providers develop, extend, and improveeffective models of coordination. The approachesrecently taken by California, Oregon, GeorgiaNew York, and Michigan share several importantingredients: formal cooperation among Stateagencies through interagency agreements; central-ization of those elements that can be implementedon a statewide basis, including staff developmentand certification; development of common defini-tions, program standards, and evaluation meas-ures; and systems for collecting common dataelements and sharing information. The impact ofthese efforts will be greatly enhanced if they aredisseminated to other States through informationnetworks created by State resource centers. IfCongress wanted to mandate coordination, itcould require evidence of working partnershipsamong programs as a criteria for funding.

Coordinated efforts do not come about easily.Many programs fear a loss of independence, andturf is jealously guarded. Incentives must be

provided to assuage these fears and rewardparticipation by making it easier, not harder, forprograms to serve their clients. Furthermore,confidentiality is a serious concern when clientdata is coordinated and common records main-tained. Issues regarding confidentiality-accessto data, restrictions on personnel at variousagencies, client oversight of personal records, andlimitations of the use of records-must be ad-dressed in this process.

Model Interagency Partnerships. If coordinatedservice delivery is to become more prevalent, weneed better working models. Demonstrations ofState and local systems of interagency coordi-nated service delivery should be part of federallysupported R&D for adult literacy. These demon-strations should include evaluations of the diffi-culties encountered and analyses of the costs andbenefits of coordinated services. Demonstrationsof coordinated service delivery should integratetechnology including client tracking systemssuch as “smart cards,” databases that updatecourse offerings and space availability, and multi-service information kiosks for public use.

Partnerships between public and private pro-grams should also be encouraged or required inregulations or funding plans. Offering tax creditsto entities that provide space, facilities (e.g., worksite technologies for literacy instruction), curricu-lum development, or teachers’ salaries is one wayto encourage partnerships with private industry.While industries are usually willing to train theirown employees, some incentives may be neededto encourage them to include other learners intheir classes, whether they be “future employ-ees” or members of the community in whichindustries are located.

Encourage Technology-Based Coordination andDissemination. Technology can contribute to pro-gram coordination and effectiveness. Databasesof program funding sources and their require-ments could help programs seeking support frommultiple sources. Technology could also ease


recordkeeping and reportingmultiple funding sources are

requirements wheninvolved.

Technology can help improve program qualityby facilitating evaluation. Computer tools cansimplify data collection, track the progress oflearners, and analyze outcomes.

To effect change the adult literacy communitymust have easy access to information aboutsuccessful programs, new technologies, and effec-tive strategies. Recognizing this need, Congressallocated funding for State resource centers, andcharged NIL with disseminating information onpromising approaches. Both of these entities havemany tasks to perform, however, and are justgetting under way.

The problem is not a lack of good informa-tion, rather the problem is good access toinformation. One of the most pressing needscenters around use of technology: How arecomputers being used? What software applica-tions are effective? How can technology supportthe learning needs of specific groups such as ESLlearners? What are the pitfalls to be avoided? Onemodel might be found in the Outreach andTechnical Assistance Network (OTAN) devel-oped to serve programs in California. OTAN hasa wealth of information on technology that couldbe useful to other States. Similarly, the growingbase of technology information at NCAL isneeded by programs across the country. Theexperience and expertise of the New York Liter-acy Assistance Center and other similar effortscan be tapped. The newsletters and reports of theBusiness Council for Effective Literacy are keyresources for workplace literacy programs. Thus,a key strategy for NIL and the State centers is totap into the resources that are already working andbroaden access to them. Electronic networking,teleconferencing, and information databases areways that technology can facilitate disseminationof information and provide support to people inthe field.

Congress may wish to expand disseminationactivities at the State and regional leveI. It is atthis level that practitioners can play a key role by

helping programs and providers screen and evalu-ate computer software, sharing models of pro-gram coordination, and developing teacher train-ing resources.

Experimenting With New AlternativesIn addition to expanding the base of technology

and improving the system of existing adultliteracy systems, it is time to step outside theconstraints of the current system and ask somefundamental questions about adult literacy policyin the United States. How can the visionaryapplications of technology be made a reality?How can personal access to learning resources beextended to all adults, especially those who arenot being reached by the current system? Howcould the Federal role in adult literacy be shapedinto a coherent national strategy?

Technology has the promise to provide peoplewith personal access to learning resourcesthrough computer tools that are portable and easyto use, video courses and modules, electroniclibraries, and information services. Several ques-tions should be explored to move in this direction:How would adults with low literacy skills usepocket electronic learning devices? How mightthey learn with a mix of courses and moduIes invideo or multimedia formats? How could elec-tronic networks (e-mail, voice mail, two-wayinteractive distance learning systems) be used forlearning? If personal learning tools and telecom-munications networks create new alternatives forlearners, can they also create new alternatives forthe larger system of programs and services?

Make Experimentation With Technology aResearch Priorty

If these alternatives are to be explored, theinstitutions currently charged with literacy R&D(NIL and NCAL) should take the lead, makingexperimentation with personal learning technol-ogy a priority for research. In the case of NIL, thismust become a major commitment, particularlyas funding levels increase. NCAL has already


,-

~..—.——.-....— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .k ‘-

J . ----- J 5,

.).-

k“ bit’ r..Q a.z..l —...--.....—-.—...——

o0

!. ,.

V*WU% .U

●

Will we be able to exploit the versatility of new interactive technologies for learning and literacy?

taken frost steps toward making technology acentral research theme by conducting forums ontechnology and adult literacy. As one of theFederal education research centers, NCAL shouldseek connections with others, particularly theCenter for Technology in Education, to shareknowledge and collaborate on research proposals.

Include Adult Literacy in Advanced Technology/initiatives

As Congress considers initiatives to spur ad-vanced technology development, including ahigh-speed information highway for research andeducation, it can significantly increase the bene-fits by adding R&D focused on adult literacyprograms and adult learners. Congress may alsowish to include funding for partnerships between

software developers, telecommunications provid-ers, hardware companies, and literacy providers;this would bring the right people to the table toreach every part of society.

Rethink the Federal RoleIf Congress wishes to rethink Federal literacy

efforts, particularly to significantly increase fund-ing, raise visibility, and unify piecemeal efforts,it must focus on those with the highest priorityneeds. Current attempts to clarify the changingrequirements for literacy and survey the literacyskills of the adult population are important firststeps. Data from the National Adult LiteracySurvey is expected to provide much more preciseinformation on the level of literacy skills pos-


sessed by various segments of the adult popula-tion and the impact of limited literacy on theiremployment and well-being. The real challengewill be to serve people who can read, but not wellenough to function fully in the workplace and asmembers of society. Reaching this large groupwill require drawing people to education andtraining, and removing the stigma attached toadult schooling. It will also involve creatingopportunities for adults to build learning into theirlives, for employers to build learning into theworkplace, and for other social institutions (e. g.,libraries and medical centers) to build learninginto everyday life.

In the long term, an integrated, nationwidelearning system that reaches learners throughouttheir lifetime needs to be developed as part of theNation’s literacy policy. We are a long way fromcreating an interconnected and integrated systemof K-12 education, adult education, vocationaland technical education, higher education, andtraining, but technology, particularly telecommu-nications, is helping to link institutions andprograms in new and important ways. Congressmay wish to enlist telecommunications, improvedlearning and management tools, and informationsystems to create a comprehensive system foradult literacy.

.

TheChanging

Character ofLiteracy 2

T homas Jefferson believed that education in a republicserved three important functions: ‘‘. . . to prepare somecitizens to be public leaders, to enable all citizens toexercise the common rights of self-government, and to

ready all citizens for the pursuit of happiness in the society’sprivate sphere. The skills required for citizenship and individ-ual development were different in Jefferson’s time than they aretoday or than they will be 10 or 20 years from now. ‘‘The mainliteracy problem, over the long run, has not been that people’sliteracy skills have been slipping, but that literacy demands keeprising. ’ ‘2 Understanding what it means to be literate in Americansociety today is an important part of the overall literacychallenge.

There are many different definitions of literacy, some broadand inclusive, others more narrow. For this report, the Office ofTechnology Assessment (OTA) adopts the definition of literacythat appears in the National Literacy Act of 1991: “. . . anindividual’s ability to read, write, and speak in English, andcompute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary tofunction on the job and in society, to achieve one’s goals, anddevelop one’s knowledge and potential.”3 As this definitionsuggests, being literate today means more than just being able toread. Similarly, this definition suggests that literacy is relativeand will be defined differently for different people; thus, no scoreon a test can adequately describe any individual’s ‘‘level” of

1 Robert D. Heslep, Thomas Jejlerson and Education (New YOIIL NY: md~ HOW.

1%9), p. 88.z WCH L. vm~ et al., The Subtle Danger: Rejleaions on the Literacy Abilities Of

America’s Young Adults (FrincetoIL NJ: Educational ‘IMng Semice, January 1987), p.5.

3 Public Law 1(X?-73, sec. 3, National Literacy Act of 1991.

29


literacy. OTA considers inappropriate those defi-nitions of literacy that specify thresholds abovewhich one is literate. However, tests and otherassessment tools can serve as proxies for estimat-ing literacy in specific areas such as reading,writing, or mathematics when measurement of anindividual’s progress over time or the effective-ness of literacy programs is needed.

FINDINGS■

●

—

Changes occurring in society today are raisingquestions about the skills and knowledge es-sential to the education of all Americans. Alongwith the traditional components of literacy,citizens may need higher order thinking andproblem-solving skills, computer and othertechnology-related skills, literacy skills neces-sary for the workplace, and literacy skillsappropriate for family life.The Nation faces a sizable literacy challenge: avery large portion of the U.S. population is inneed of improving their literacy skills. Whilenumbers are difficult to fix, as many as 20 to 30percent of the adult population (35 to 50 millionpeople) have difficulties with common literacytasks such as following written directions orlocating and using information contained indocuments, maps, and tables. Although manyof these adults can read at rudimentary levels,they need higher levels of reading, writing, andmathematical proficiency to function effec-tively in society.The literacy needs of this large group are verydiverse. Literacy services need to be targeted tomeet specific needs. There are at least threesegments of the adult population whose num-bers are large enough to merit special attentionin policy and educational planning: those wholack high school diplomas, those whose nativelanguage is not English, and those seeking jobsor better employment. Given their large num-bers, these groups may be efficiently served by

new approaches and improved use of technol-ogy.Each year immigrants, high school dropouts,displaced workers, and others swell the alreadylarge numbers of those in the “literacy pool”who need improved skills. OTA estimates thatsomewhere between 1.0 and 2.3 million adultsare currently added to this pool annually.Educational programs serving adults who) areparents are likely to have two important out-comes: improving the skills and the life out-comes for the adult, and increasing the chancesof school success for that adult’s children.Special benefits are, therefore, likely whenparents, especially mothers, are assisted byliteracy programs.Dramatic demographic trends are changing thecomposition of the U.S. population, and thenumbers of adults with literacy needs may groweven larger in the future. A challenge forpolicymakers is to develop long-range plansthat anticipate the literacy needs of tomorrowwhile addressing an already large and difficultproblem today.Just as the definition of literacy has expandedto include both workplace and family contexts,so too must the delivery system move beyonda school-based, institutional model to reachpeople in the workplace and help them learnwhile on the job, and to reach people in theirhomes and help them learn in new ways.

WHAT IS LITERACY?Frequently cited estimates of the population of

“fictionally illiterate” adults in the UnitedStates range anywhere from 1 to 80 million.4

Most of the discrepancies in the estimates can beexplained by examining which definition of‘‘literacy’ is chosen and which measurement toolis used to represent that definition. Depending onthe definition, the problem can appear big orsmall. And even if a seemingly straightforward

4 U.S. Department of Educatiou Adult Leaning and Literacy Clearinghouse, “Adult Illiteracy in the U.S.: A Little or a Lot?” unpublisheddocumen6 n.d.; and Margaret Genovese, ‘‘Ill Feelings About Measuring Illiteracy, “ Presstime, September 1986, pp. 18-19.

Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy | 31

Naturalization class for immigrants in the early 1900s. Throughout this century the skills required to participatefully in society have become more complex. The task of helping new immigrants acquire these skills has alsochanged dramatically.

definition is chosen—for example, ability toread-the estimates of how many people can readwill vary depending on whether the researcherasks people if they can read, asks them how muchschool they have completed, or gives them areading test.

People often think of literacy as a hierarchical,measurable skill, but recent work by linguists andanthropologists suggests otherwise. Literacy iselusive, complex. Its study requires careful defini-tions.s

Public sense of what literacy is has changeddramatically over time. Early in this century theproxy for literacy was the ability to write one’s

name; by this historical indicator, most adultsliving in the United States today would beconsidered literate. Throughout this century theskills required for citizenship and individualdevelopment have become more complex and theexpectations for what constitutes literacy haverisen. On many measures-including years ofschooling or acquisition of basic reading skill—literacy in America has improved. However,despite this improvement, more is needed to meetthe demands of a technological society. Further-more, experts contend that any ‘‘standard’ forliteracy-be it the equivalent of a high schooleducation or a certificate of vocational compe-tence-will need to be continually raised and

5 Lawrence c. Stedman and Carl F. Ki+estle, “Literaey and Reading Performance e in the United States From 1880 to the Present,’ Literacyin the United Stire.r, Cad F. Kaestle et al. (eds.) (New Haven+ C’I’: Yale University Press, 1991), p. 77.


changed as the rate of technologicalcontinues to accelerate.

Defining Basic Skills

innovation

The question of which skills are necessary forliteracy becomes even more complicated if onetries to anticipate what skills might be required in10 or 20 years. For many years, the notion ofliteracy usually meant reading; literacy profi-ciency was determined by a person’s grade-levelreading ability. Over time that notion has ex-panded to include reading, writing, and arithme-tic.

Most models of elementary and secondaryeducation are built on the assumption that these“basic” skills are developed in a sequential,hierarchical manner and can be associated withestablished grade-level equivalents.6 Similarly,most adult literacy programs assume that adulteducation should replicate the school grades andeventually lead to the set of skills expected of ahigh school graduate;7 these skills are understoodto be useful for all adults and in a wide variety ofsettings.

During the 1970s, a number of literacy provid-ers began to expand the notion of literacy toinclude “functional competencies” or “lifeskills” that all adults should have. This approachwas first popularized by the Adult PerformanceLevel Project, which focused on identifying the" . . . competencies which are functional to eco-nomic and educational success in today’s soci-ety. ’ Their model of functional competency

expanded the requisite academic skills to includeproblem solving, speaking, and listening. Inaddition, these investigators conceived of compe-tence partly in terms of knowledge areas (e.g.,consumer economics and occupational knowl-edge) and thus focused on information that adultsneed to know, in addition to skills they need tohave (see box 2-A).9

This competency-oriented approach has contin-ued to gain acceptance. It emphasizes learning as" . . . the ability to perform specific literacy-related tasks in the context of work, family andother ‘real-life’ situations. ”10 Since these tasksare different for every adult, this orientation leadsto a more individualized set of ‘requisite skills.”

Today most literacy programs teach somecombination of academic basics and life skills.The approach chosen reflects a larger set ofbeliefs about the ends that adult literacy educationshould serve. “The goal of academically-orientedprograms is to develop general abilities thatpresumably can be applied across situationsdepending on the goals of the learner. In contrast,competency-oriented instruction is intended tohelp learners handle specific tasks in their imme-diate life situation.”11

One important issue in this debate is that ofgeneralizability-some argue that focusing on aspecific set of skills may not prepare learners tocope with new tasks or changing literacy de-mands. 12 Some educators further argue that liter-acy programs need to provide learners with ageneral set of skills that will allow them to gatherand use information and continue learning through-

C Elizabeth Hayes, University of Wisconsin- WOXL “Beyond Skills Versus Competencies: Issues and Strategies in the Evaluation ofAdult Literacy Instructional Programs,” unpublished ~P~ March 1992.

T Thomas G. Stichg Applied Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Inc., “’Iksting and Assessment in Adult Basic Education and English asa Second Laquage Fro&yams,” unpublished manusmipf Jauuary 1990.

8 NoWe~ N-w ~ u~v~ty of ~ ilt Aust@ ‘‘Adldt -tio~ cqe~q: A ‘~$ “ unpublished llWIUStip~ March

1975, p. 1.

g Stti tmd Kaestle, op. cit., footnote 5.

10 ~y~, op. cit., footnote 6~ P“ 1.

11 Ibid., p. 4.12 ~&


out their lifetimes-to become “competent nov-ices.” For example, in the workplace:

. . . being a competent novice means learning howto manage oneself effectively in a novel situationby noticing procedures and social interactions,copying experts, asking for explanations andguidance, getting a mentor, and taking extra time. . . to study the layout, devices, tools, and otherartifacts . . . that make up the work setting.13

Beyond the Basics: Changing Views ofEssential Skills

Changes occurring in society today, as well asprojected future trends, suggest that any defini-tion of what it means to be literate will need tochange. Elementary- and secondary-level educa-tors have begun to reexamine and redefine theskills and knowledge considered essential to theeducation of all Americans. Many of today’sadults do not have these skills and knowledge.Technological advances will continue to changethe ways people communicate with one another,shop, interact with social institutions, get infor-mation, and do their jobs. Projections about thechanging nature of work suggest that a somewhatdifferent profile of skills may be needed by highschool graduates entering the workforce in thefuture. Changing economic and technologicalforces will continue to create displaced workerswho need to relearn basic skills, upgrade thoseskills, or learn new skills, These trends suggestthat adults cannot rely on a limited period offormal schooling during youth to carry themthrough the next 50 to 70 years of life.

There are many competing ideas about whichnew skills are the most important ones peopleneed, but little empirical evidence exists tosupport any particular viewpoint. Throughout theeducation community today, there are many

lively and productive debates going on about newgoals, new skills, and new visions of whatschooling should provide to all Americans. Simi-larly, there are many competing visions of whatadditional skills deserve room on the “literacyplate.” Several of these new efforts are discussedbelow.

Portable Skills: Literacy as Problem SolvingResearch in cognitive science suggests ways of

understanding the underlying information-processing and problem-solving skills commonto a wide variety of reading, writing, computa-tional, and communication tasks.14

The cognitive science conception of literacyorients us to think about literacy as a tool forknowledge construction, a tool for learning. Thisview of literacy takes us beyond routine acts ofdecoding or calculation, and even beyond fairlycomplex acts of filling out bureaucratic forms orfollowing job instructions, . . . The goal is toeducate a citizenry who are able to use print tolearn, in new and changing environments. Citi-zens must learn how to learn from texts, ratherthan merely interpret them and memorize facts.They must be able to critically evaluate what theyread, to express themselves clearly and cogentlyin written and oral form, and to use various formsof computer technology as tools for learning.Within cognitive science, literacy has been recon-ceptualized as reasoning or problem solving inorder to generate new knowledge.15

Although this work is still under development,its most prominent application is the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)Literacy Assessment, which has grouped literacyskills into three areas-prose, document, andquantitative-each thought to represent distinctand important aspects of literacy. The NAEP

13 sen~ A. &zen, //=f(lmlng Educa~”on for WO~k: A cOg~lCIL,e ,~cie~c.e perspecfl~re @e&elq, CA: NatiO@ center for Research in

Vocational Educatiou December 1989), p. 61.14 Haye5, op. Cit., footnote 6.

15 sM~ Micbels and Mary Catherine ()’comor, “Literacy as Reasoning Within Multiple Discourses: Implications for Policy andEducational Refo~’ paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Oi%cers 1990 Summer Institute, Newtoq MA, p. 5.


Box 2-A—Life Skills and Competencies: Two Examples

Adult Performance Level Project: CompetenciesFunded by the U.S. Office of Education in 1971, the Adult Perfomance Level (APL) project was designed to

define “fictional competency.” The original goal of the project was to: “0. . foster through every means theability to read, write and compute with the functional competence needed for meeting the requirements of adultliving.’ ‘1 In order to establish a comprehensive basis for defining important skills, the APL study held conferenceson adults’ needs, surveyed Federal, State, and foundation officials as to what should be taught in adult educationclasses, conducted a literature review, and interviewed undereducated adults.

This process generated a two-dimensional definition of functional competence “.. . best described as theapplication of a set of skills to a set of general knowledge areas. . . which result from the requirements imposedupon members of a society. “2 Five general knowledge areas were identified: consumer economics, occupationalknowledge, community resources, government and law, and health. In addition, four primary skills were identifiedthat”. . . seemed to account for the vast majority of requirements placed on adults. The four skills were calledcommunication skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening), computation skills, problem-solving skills, andinterpersonal relations skills.

1 Anabel Powell Newman and Caroline Bevemtoe~ A&h Literacy: Contexts and ChulZenges (New~ DE: InternationalReading ASSOCiiltiOU 1990), p. 68.

2 No~e~ Norrhcutt, The University of ‘kXM at Aust@ “Adult Functional Competency: A Summary,” unpublishedmanuscript, March 1975, p. 2.

3 Ibid., p, 2.

study is attempting to identify the information- computers as part of a basic high school educa-processing skills that underlie competent per-formance in each area and develop ways to teachthose skills.16

Technology SkillsNew technologies, especially those that are

computer-based, are viewed as increasingly im-portant tools. Most recent high school graduateshave some experience with computers. In addi-tion to being used in schools as instructional aids,computers provide students with valuable skillsfor the labor market and other aspects of theirlives. As early as 1983, the National Commissionon Excellence in Education saw the need for allstudents to receive instruction in the use of

tion, along with English, mathematics, science,and social studies. Their report, A Nation at Risk,recommended that high schools equip graduatesto:

(a) understand the computer as an information,computation, and communication device; (b) usethe computer in the study of the other Basics andfor personal and work-related purposes; and (c)understand the world of computers, electronics,and related technologies. 17

Similarly, the most recent revision (1991) ofthe Comprehensive Adult Student AssessmentSystem (CASAS) competencies used in adult

16 ~ ~Sch et ~<, Beyo~ the ~chooi Door$: The Literacy Needs of Job see~r~ sewed by the Us. Depart~~t Of Labor, prepared forthe U.S. Department of Labor (Princeton, NJ: Educational ‘I&sting Service, September 1992).

17 IJ.S. Department of ~ucatio~ National Commissionon Excellence, A Narion at Risk (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ot%ce,Apfl 1983), p. 26,


CASAS Competency ListA recent attempt to define the range of possible competencies for adult basic education efforts is the

Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS). CASAS is based on a competency list that has beendrawn up by adult basic education programs throughout California and other States; these Skills represent the”. . .basic and life skills necessary for an adult to function proficiently in society.”4 To be included on the list, acompetency must be rated as appropriate and relevant by at least 80 percent of the participating consortiumagencies. (CASAS then allows programs to tailor their curriculum and their assessment to the populations theyserve by selecting relevant competencies from the list.) Each year the participating organizations meet to reviseand update the competency list. The list that follows gives examples of competencies that have been identifiedwithin seven content areas.5

1. Consumer Economics-includes skills such as:. uses weights, measures, measurement scales, and money;● understands methods and procedures to obtain housing and services; and● uses banking and financial services in the community.

2. Community Resources-includes skills such as:● understands how to locate and use different types of transportation and interpret related travel

information;● uses the services provided by the Post Office; and. uses published or broadcast information.

3. Health-includes skills such as:● understands common ailments and seeks appropriate medical assistance;. understands medical and dental forms and related information; and● understands basic health and safety procedures.

4. Occupational Knowledge-includes skills such as:● understands basic principles of getting a job;● understands wages, benefits, and concepts of employee organizations; and● understands materials and concepts related to job training, employment, keeping a job, and getting a

promotion.5. Government and Law-includes skills such as:

● understands voting and political process;● understands historical information; and. understands the concepts of taxation.

6. Computation-includes skills such as:● uses measurement;● interprets data from graphs or computes averages; and● uses estimation and mental arithmetic.

7. Domestic Skills-includes skills such as: performs self-care @S; and● perform home-care skills.

4 cqm~e ~t s~~ ~m~s- CW S~@& ACCOWI@@ System for Fe&rally Funded 321

Addt Basic Education Progranw Ewmtive Summary (San Diqgo, C& 1991), p. L5 Comprehensive Adult Student AmtmMM f$mtem CAMS CompetenqyL&t@n Dieso, *g 1992); @ ~~~

Adult student Assessmait Systuu ABE 321 Z&tMnistrators MM (San Diego, C!A: 1991).


basic education programs added the followingnew

■

■

■

skills to their competency list:

Interpret operating instructions and directionsfor use of a computer,Read or interpret computer generated print-outs, andDemonstrate use of business machines such ascash registers and calculators.18

Although directly educating people about com-puters is important, researchers have stressed thatreading, comprehension, and reasoning skills arefundamental for computer use. One survey ofsmall businesses found that employers feel theycan train workers in computer-related skillsrelatively quickly if those workers have goodgeneral educational skills with reasoning andcommunication proficiencies.19 While confirm-ing the place of computer competence in asecondary school curriculum, A Nation at Riskrecommended a brief period of computer educa-t i on ( 1 / 2 y e a r ) c o m p a r e d w i t h s u b j e c t s s u c h a s

English (4 years), mathematics (3 years), socialstudies (3 years), and science (3 years). Availabledata suggest that long periods of training incomputer use are not necessary for most jobs. TheNational Commission for Employment Policyhas predicted that as of 1995 only about 1 percentof all workers will have jobs that require long-term training in computer use, while about 23percent of the labor force will have jobs withcomputer-related demands that require a minimalamount of training.20

These trends suggest that it will be increasinglyimportant for adult education efforts to offerlearners opportunities to use computers, gainfamiliarity with them as personal tools, andunderstand their role in society as communication

and information devices. Since the software andhardware are constantly changing, these effortswill probably be most effective if they givestudents an underlying set of “user skills” thatwill enable them to understand and use newtechnologies, rather than train students in anyspecific software or application. Further researchis needed to identify which cognitive skillsunderlie effective use of technology.

Literacy Skills for the WorkplaceIn recent years, a growing number of policy

reports have suggested that workers will neednew skills to perform jobs in the workplace of thefuture. Many of these reports have attempted tolist the skills necessary for productive, entry-levelworkers. The most recent report of the SecretaryCommission on Achieving Necessary Skills(SCANS) proposed a three-part foundation ofskills and personal qualities, as well as fivecompetencies that ‘‘. . . lie at the heart of jobperformance. . . . These eight requirements areessential preparation for all students, both thosegoing directly to work and those planning futureeducation. ’21 The three foundation skill areasare:

Basic skills—reading, writing, arithmetic: andmathematics, speaking, and listening;Thinking skills—be able to learn, reason, thinkcreatively, make decisions, and solve prob-lems; andPersonal qualities—individual responsibility,self-esteem and self-management, sociability,and integrity.

The five workplace competencies that workersshould productively use are:

18 cornprehe~ive Addt student Assessment System, CAMS Competency U“SZ (StUI Diego, CA: 1991), p. 10.

19 Hew M. b%n and Russell W. Rurnberger, ‘‘Education and Training Needs for Using Computers in Small Businesses, ” EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 8, No. 4, winter 1986, pp. 423-434.

ZO See ibid.

21 U.S. Department of Labor, The SeCmttUY’SCOmmiS sion on Achieving Necessary Skills, What Work Requires of Schools:A SCANS Reportfor America 2000 (WashingtorL DC: June 1991), p. xv.


Changes occurring in society today suggest that any definition of what it means to be literate will also need tochange. For example, although most recent high school graduates have received instruction in computers, manyolder adults have never had the chance to develop technology skills.

Resources—know how to allocate time, money,materials, space, and staff;Interpersonal skills—be able to work on teams,teach others, serve customers, lead, negotiate,and work well with people from culturallydiverse backgrounds;Information—be able to acquire and evaluatedata, organize and maintain files, interpret andcommunicate, and use computers to processinformation;Systems-understand social, organizational, andtechnological systems, monitor and correctperformance, and design or improve systems;and

■ Technology—be able to select equipment andtools, apply technology to specific tasks, andmaintain and troubleshoot equipment.

Table 2-1 lists the eight SCANS requirementsalong with the lists of workplace skills from threeother selected reports. Although some of the skillsand competencies differ, there is a fair degree ofoverlap and consensus. Broadly speaking, theskills fall into four groups: academic skills (e.g.,reading and writing), social skills (e.g., oralcommunication and teamwork), organizationalskills (e.g., problem solving and leadership), andattitudinal skills (e.g., motivation and good workhabits) .22

22 Russell W. Rumberger, ‘‘The Deftition and Measurement of Workplace Literacy, CaL~ornia’s Workjorcefor the Year 2000: ImprovingProductivity by Expanding Opportunities for the Education and Training of Undeserved Youth and Adults, study papers, California WorldorceLiteracy Task Force (Sacramento, CA: January 1991).


Table 2-l—Workplace Skills and Competencies: Some Examples From Selected Reports

American Society forTraining and National Academy

Skill areas SCANS Development of Sciences Stanford study

Academic ● Basic skills● Thinking skills

Social ● Interpersonal skills

Organizational . Resources● Information● Systems

Attitudinal ● Personal qualities

Other ● Technology

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

�

Reading, writingComputationLearning to learn

CommunicationInterpersonal skillsTeamworkNegotiation

Problem solvingCreative thinkingOrganizational effec-tivenessLeadership

Self-esteemGoat-setting/motivationPersonal/career de-velopment

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

—

Reading, writingComputationReasoningScience and technologySocial and economicstudies

Oral communicationInterpersonal relation-ships

Problem solving

Personal work habitsand attitudes

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Written communicationNumeracyReasoningLearning

Oral communicationCooperationWorking in groupsPeer trainingMulticultural skills

Problem solvingDecision makingEvaluationPlanningObtaining and usinginformation

Initiative

—

KEY: SCANS= Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.

SOURCES: Russell W. Rum berger et al., Edumtiona/ Requirements for New T=hndogies and Work Organization: Research Plan (Stanford, CA:Stanford University, 1989); Anthony P. Carnevale et al., Wbrk+iace Basics: The Ski//s Emp/oyers Want(Washington, DC: The American SOciety forTraining and Development, 1988); National Academy of Sciences, Report of the Panel on Secondary Education for the Changing Workplace, HighSchoo/s and the Changing Wor/@ace: The Emp/oyers’ View (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1984); and Secretary’s Commission onAchieving Necessary Skills, What Work Requires of Schoo/s (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, June 1991).

No research defines which skills area prerequi-site for all types of work. Similarly, there is littleconcrete information on the ‘basic’ skill require-ments of various jobs in the United States.23

Nonetheless, the consensus represented in theseand other reports seems to be that ‘‘workplacebasics’ should be expanded to include more thanjust academic and technical skills; organizationalskills, social skills, and attitudinal qualities allmay contribute to employability.

Literacy Skills for Family LifeAnother area of literacy that has received

increased attention in recent years focuses on

families. Parents of young children are faced withnew demands as their children prepare for andenter school. Many of these parents are unable toparticipate actively in their children’s education.This parental interest and motivation, coupledwith evidence that higher levels of parentaleducation are related to better educational out-comes for children, has led to a growing focus onfamily or intergenerational literacy efforts. Theseprograms aim to help parents (or other caregivers)improve their own basic skills while they learnnew ways to incorporate reading, writing, andcommunication skills into the lives of theirchildren. The benefits are thought to be twofold:

.

Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy I 39

as they improve their own life chances throughincreased education, caregivers also improve thechances that their children will be successful inschool.

Box 2-B provides some examples of the kindsof skills and competencies family literacy pro-grams seek to provide. Beyond basic skills,parents often gain skills and knowledge related toimproving parent-child relationships, understand-ing child development, providing supervision,setting positive expectations, using written ma-terials at home, and becoming involved in thechild’s school andtions.

Scientific LiteracyThroughout this

have been made in

other community organiza-

century enormous advancesscience and technology, and

many of the serious problems of today’s worldrequire an understanding of scientific and techno-logical concepts+. g., acid rain, shrinking tropi-cal rainforests, pollution, disease, population

growth, and proliferation of nuclear technologies.Some educators have argued that the futuredepends in large measure on the wisdom withwhich people use science and technology. Many

believe that all U.S. citizens need abetter grasp ofscience. For example, the American Associationfor the Advancement of Science has recentlylaunched a major initiative to define what consti-tutes scientific literacy in a modern society andoutline a plan for achieving it.24

Another initiative focuses on how the FederalGovernment can increase public understanding ofscience. 25 A working committee reporting to thepresidential Office of Science and Technology

Policy has adopted the following goal: “By theyear 2000, all segments of the American popula-tion will show improvement in scientific literacyand will display increases in the knowledge andskills necessary to make informed decisions. ’ ’26

They describe a scientifically literate American asone who can:

. . . participate in discussions of contemporaryscientific issues, apply scientific information inpersonal decision making, locate scientific infor-mation when needed, and distinguish valid infor-mation and sources from those that are not. To be

scientifically literate, an individual should pos-sess the skills necessary to understand andevaluate publicly disseminated information onscience and technology and interpret graphicdisplays of scientific information.27

So What Skills Do People Need?Although it would be nice to be able to answer

this question by stating a clear, concrete set ofskills that a person needs to acquire to beconsidered “literate,’ the answer has to be “itdepends. ’ As the discussion shows, literacyinvolves not one or two skills but a wide anddiverse profile of skills and knowledge. More-over, ‘‘. . . literacy is not an all-or-nothing statelike small pox or pregnancy. It is instead acontinuum of skills that are acquired both in andoutside of formal schooling and that relatedirectly to the ability to function within soci-ety. ’28 There is no absolute threshold of skill orcompetency above which people can be certifiedas literate and below which they can be said tohave a literacy problem.

~ F. J~es Rutherford and An&ew AhlgreU Science~or All Americans (New York NY: Oxford UIIhfe@ PRSS, 1990).

25 Offlce of Science ~d Tec~olo~ Poficy, F~~ coord~~g Cowcfi for Science -~fig, ~d mhtlology: Cotittee on

Education and Human Resources, Public Understanding of Science Subgroup, “Report on the Expert Forum on PubIic Understanding ofScience, ” Alexandria, VA, Aug. 20-21, 1992, unpublished repo~ 1992.

26 Offlce of Science and lkchnology Policy, Committee on Education md HUIIMII Resources, Subcommittee on Public Understanding ofScience, “Strategic Plan for Public Understanding of Science, ” unpublished repo~ Sept. 15, 1992.

27 Ibid., p. 1-2.

~ Vene* et al., op cit., footnote 2, p. 3.


●

●

●

●

●

●

knowledge needed to become employed or topursue further education or training.

First Year Report, prepa&dfor U.S. Department of Education (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc., Oct. 28, 1991), p. 6.2 mm x ~ ~o~ ~m s-n Dm@ tmd -W E. Hayes, Breakz”ng the Cycle ofIlliteracy: The Kew Family

Literacy Model Program, Final Project Report 1988-89 (buisvillc, KY: The National Center for Family Literacy, n.d.), pp.19-35.

—

Literacy is not an on/off characteristic, and it ismore than the ability to read and write a little.Literacy describes a wide variety of communica-tive acts, interpersonal strategies, and survivalskills. It is more appropriate to picture a spectrumof literacies across a variety of specific needs andcommunities, from barely able to write or recog-nize your own name to highly and multiculturallyeducated. It is more accurate to ask whetherpeople are sufficiently literate to meet their ownneeds and what society expects of them than toask if they are literate.29

DEMOGRAPHICS OF ADULT LITERACYDespite all the complexities, addressing the

literacy needs of the Nation ultimately requiressome way to understand the size and scope of theproblem. Who is affected? Who should receiveeducational services? What resources are neededto meet the literacy needs of U.S. adults effec-tively? What literacy skills does today’s techno-logical society require for adults to functioneffectively? What skills might be required to meetsocietal demands 10 or 20 years from now?Answers to these and other questions requiresome method of defining and measuring thedimension of “adult literacy. ” This sectionexamines some common ways of defining andmeasuring “literacy,” and presents some esti-mates of the number of U.S. adults who lackadequate skills.

School Completion RatesSchool attainment has been the most com-

monly used ‘measure’ of literacy for the Nation.In the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corpsdefined “functional literacy” as 3 or more yearsof schooling, ass uming that a person with thatmuch schooling could read the essential printmaterials of daily life. Over time, the number ofyears of schooling thought to equal adequate

Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy 41

Figure 2-l-Highest Level of Education Attained byU.S. Adults Ages 25 and Over, 1990

Graduate orprofessional

Bachelor’s degree

Some college

High school graduate

9 to 12 years(no diploma)

5 to 8 years

4 years or less

0% 10?40 209/0 30%

Percent of adult populationTotal = 159 million

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990Census, unpublished data, tb. ED90-1.

literacy has increased. During World War II, theArmy defined fictional literacy as equivalent toa 4th-grade education. In 1947, the CensusBureau applied the term “functional illiterates”to anyone with less than 5 years of schooling; 5years later, in 1952, they raised it to the 6th grade.By 1960, the U.S. Office of Education had adopted8th grade as the standard and “. . . finally, by thelate 1970s, some noted authorities were describ-ing fictional literacy in terms of high schoolcompletion. ’30

Figure 2-1 presents the school completion ratesas surveyed in the 1990 census. If the completionof 4 years of schooling is considered a sufficientliteracy goal, then 97.3 percent of today’s adultpopulation meet this standard. However, if themuch higher standard of a high school diploma isused, then only 75.2 percent of adults would beconsidered ‘‘literate’—this means over 39 mil-lion adults have inadequate schooling.

School attainment figures show literacy ratesvary considerably for different age cohorts. Over-

29 al p. Ne~ and Csroli.ne Beverstock MulrLiteracy: Contexrs and ChaZZenges (Newarlq DE: International Reading AasoeiatioKL1990), p. 49.

W St- and Kaestle, op. cit., footnote 5, p. W.

42 I Adult Literacy

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10“/0

5 %

0 %

and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Figure 2-2—Dropout Rates for Persons Ages 16 to 24,1972-91

Black, non-Hispanic- - - - - - - ~ ~ -- . ‘---- - ------” -+,.:,:.,,, -.,., ,,,,, , - - --- - - - -~,, .,.,.,,,., ...:.;, .,.. All groups ‘- - --- --

- - - - - - - - - - -. - - -. - — — — - - - — — — — — —. -— —— — — —— —_ \ . - —— -

White, non-Hispanic-— - - -—

L ’ - - [ I I I I I ,11972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1991

Since 1970, considerable progress has been made in decreasing the number of black dropouts. White dropout rates havedecreased slightly. The Hispanic rate has remained high.NOTE: Figure includes persons ages 16 to 24 who were not enrolled in and had not graduated from high school. The raoial-ethnie group categoriesused here are those defined by the Bureau of the Census.

SOURCE: Data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey presented in U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Edueaticm Statistics, Dropout l%tes in the Urrited Stafes, 7997 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, S@ember1992), fig. 5.

all, high school graduation rates are much loweramong older Americans. While less than one-halfof adults over age 75 are high school graduates,86.6 percent of those between 25 and 44 haveattained this level.

Nationally, dropout rates have been decliningfor blacks and whites, but not for Hispanics (seefigure 2-2). Between 1972 and 1991, rates forblacks dropped from 21 to 14 percent and forwhites from 12 to 9 percent.31 Rates for Hispanicshave shown no consistent trend, but have re-mained high. However, Hispanics make up anincreasing proportion of all dropouts, because thetotal population of Hispanics ages 16 to 24increased during this time period while the

populations of whites and blacks did not. In 1991,16- to 24-year-old dropouts were 50 percentwhite, 32 percent Hispanic, and 16 percent black(see table 2-2, column d).32

Other demographic data, shown in table 2-2,indicate that in 1991, there were similar numbersof male and female dropouts between ages 16 and24. Dropout rates were higher in homes withlow-incomes (26 percent) than in middle- (12percent) or high-income homes (3 percent). Peo-ple between the ages of 16 and 24 were morelikely to be dropouts if they lived in central cities(16 percent), than in suburban (9 percent) ornonmetropolitan areas (11 percent). However,using absolute numbers of 16- to 24-year-old

31 Fi~ p~sented here we status dropout rates, which represent the proportion of individuals at any given time who are not enrolled inschool and have not completed high school. There are a number of different ways of memuring -ut rates; for further discussion of thesemeasures end some of the methodologies issues involva see U.S. Departmen t of E!dueation, National Center for Education Statistics, DropoutRates in the Um”ted States: 1991 (WAingtoq DC: U.S. Governmen t Prindng Office, September 1992).

32 ~id., p. 21. w Poptitioxl of whites Wes 16 to 24 ~ d~- from WPm xirnately 28 million in 1980 to mound 22 million in 1991.The black population of 16-to 24-year-olds has held relatively constant during this time period at about 4 million. The population of Hispanicsages 16 to 24 has increased from appro ximately 2.5 million in 1980 to around 3.5 million in 1991.


Table 2-2—High School Dropouts Ages 16 to 24, by Sex, Race-Ethnicity, Income, Region,and Metropolitan Status, 1991

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)Number of status Status

Population dropouts dropout rate Percent of Percent of(in millions) (in millions) (percent) all dropouts population

SexMale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race-et ethnicitya

White, non-Hispanic . . . . .Black, non-Hispanic ., . . .Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Family incomeb

Low-income level . . . . . . . .Middle-income level . . . . .High-income level . . . . . . .

RegionC

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Metropolitan statusCentral city . . . . . . . . . . . . .Suburban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Non metropolitan.. . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15.415.8

2.01.9

1 3.00/011.9

51 .6%48.4

49.40/050.6

21.94.53.5

2.0.6

1.2

8.913.635.3

50.315.732.0

70.214.411.3

26.511.8

2.7

40.155.0

4.9

18.958.222.9

5.918.1

7.1

1.62.1

.2

5.97.8

10,86.7

.5

.81.51.1

9.19.7

14.115.9

13.719.539.327.5

18.824.934.721.5

10.514.1

6.6

1.71.3

.7

16.39.4

11.3

45.434.919.7

33.845.121.1

100.0 100.031.2 3.9 12.5

a Not shown separately are non-Hispan~s who are neither bla& nor white, b~ wf-lo are inc[ud~ in the total. nese racial-ethnic group ~tegOrieS

are those defined by the Census Bureau.b Family iwme in current residen~ ~~ in~me is ~fin~ as the ~ttom 2(J percent of all family Incomm for 1 wl ; middle income IS bfween 20

and 80 percent of all family incomes; and high income is the top 20 percent of all family incomes.C The Northe~t ~nsiS~ of ConnWticM, M~ne, Mas~&ruset~, NW Hampshire, New Jersey, New YoA, Pennsylvania, Rhoda [Sknd, t3d

Vermont. The Midwest consists of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota,and Wisconsin. The South consists of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florfda, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina,Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, DC, and West Virginia. The West consists of Alaska, Arizona, California,Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexicm, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commercs, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey 1991 data in National Center for Education Statistic+Dropout Rates in the United States: 7991 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, September 1992).

State, the rates ranged from 4.3 percent in NorthDakota to 14.9 percent in Nevada and 19.1percent in the District of Columbia. A total of 25States had rates between 9 and 12 percent, while14 States had rates below 9 percent; 11 States plusthe District of Columbia fell above 12 percent(see figure 2-3).

Data on school attainment and dropoutrates confirm that since the turn of the century,significant progress has been achieved in

dropouts (column b), 1.7 million lived in centralcities, 1.3 million in suburbs, and 0.7 million innonmetropolitan areas, indicating that substantialnumbers of dropouts live in suburbs as well ascentral cities.

Data from the 1990 census also allow aregional examination of recent dropout rates. In1990, about 1.6 million, or 11.2 percent, of all16- to 19-year-olds were high school dropouts.When dropout rates were computed for each


Figure 2-3-Percentage of High School Dropouts Ages 16 to 19, by State, 1990

U.S. Average=11.2%

?

o- HI ~/@u“, -* 7.0

m MA=9.5RI=12.9CT=9.2

- , NJ=9.3DE= 11.2

}= ‘* DC=19.1

F

u-l; MD= 11.0WV= 10.6VA=1O.4

,.D 9.0-1 2.O?AO

12.1 -20.0%0

NOTE: All persons agee 16 to 19 who were not enrolled and had not graduated from high school were counted ae dropouts.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educatbn Statietica, tipout%fesln the Ur?/tedStates: 1991 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, September 1992), fig. 4.

increasing the numbers of Americans whocomplete secondary school.33 Even with nochange in the high school dropout rate, highschool completion levels will rise for the Nationas a whole as the population ages and the cohortof older, less-educated adults becomes a smallerportion of the population.

The most significant problem with usingschool attainment as an index of literacy is that

it reveals very little about actual knowledgeand skills possessed by adults. The skills ofadults with the same level of educational attain-ment vary widely. Indeed, there are many knowl-edgeable and skilled adults whose formal levelsof schooling are not high.

Furthermore, although most analyses of em-ployment and earnings demonstrate better out-comes for high school graduates than for drop-

33-Id L. I-Io@&OQ All One System: Demographics of Educah”o~indergarten Through Graduate School (wash@ton, w:Inatitnte of ~tiOlltd Leadership, 1985).


outs, academic skill levels also influence theseoutcomes. Within each group-high school gradu-ates and high school dropouts-those with betteracademic skills earn more. 34 In addition, l o w e r

levels of basic skills are associated with theincreased likelihood that young adults (ages 18 to23) will experience other difficulties such asjoblessness, poverty, dropping out of school, andunwed pregnancies.35

Tests of Literacy SkillsOne response to these arguments is to try to

estimate literacy rates by testing people’s skillsdirectly. Beginning in the 1970s, survey research-ers began to assess people’s

. . . ability to read bureaucratic forms, instruc-tions, and advertisements that are encountered inmost adults’ lives. . . . The 1970s estimates offunctional illiteracy ranged from 15 percent toover 50 percent of the American population, , . .Not only did the studies produce varying esti-mates of illiteracy, but each single report con-tained estimates that differed depending on whichcut-off point was used.36

One of the most popular, and seeminglystraightforward, methods of measuring “liter-acy’ is to assess the difficulty of the readingmaterial a person (or a group of people) can read.For example, it is common to hear reports of highschool graduates who read at an 8th-grade level orlarge numbers of adults unable to read newspaperstories written at the 1lth-grade level.

Many attempts have been made to try to ratecommon ‘‘real-life’ reading materials assumednecessary for everyday functioning. Although

these methods depend on readability formulas,which can give widely disparate results, someinteresting findings have been reported. Forexample, newspaper articles are reported to varybetween 9th and 12th grade, while newspaperelection coverage tends to be written at thecollege level. Best sellers, in contrast, haveaveraged around the 7th-grade level for the past50 years. Some reports have suggested that manysocietal tasks are quite difficult:

An apartment lease and food-stamp notices, forexample, are at the college level, an insurancepolicy is at the twelfth-grade level, and an aspirinbottle is at the tenth-grade level. Antidote instruc-tions on a bottle of corrosive kitchen lye are at theninth-grade level, while tax forms and directionson how to prepare a T.V. dinner are at theeighth-grade level. Only a driver’s license man-ual, estimated to be written at a sixth-gradereading level, falls within the grasp of many in thebottom 30 percent.37

The use of reading level estimates is fraughtwith technical and conceptual problems.38 Theprimary difficulties include the following:

Determining what it means—Technically,reading level means ‘‘. . . that grade at which theaverage student can understand 75 percent ofwhat is presented. " 39 Thus materials assigned an

8th-grade reading level may not be fully under-stood by all persons reading at that level. Anindividual’s reading skills also vary a great dealdepending on such factors as background knowl-edge, interest, and familiarity with particularwritten materials (see chapter 3).

Conceptual limitations—Most modem defin-itions of literacy include much more than reading,

34 Gordon Berl~ ad ~&ew Su, To~,~~d~ Mo~~ p~~~Ct Union: Basic Skills, poor Families, and Our Economic Future mew York ~:

Ford Foundatio~ February 1988).

35 Ibid,36 R1c~d Vencz@ et ~,, op. ~it,, foo~ote 2, pp, 13-15. see also St-ad ~~fle, op. cit., foo~ote 5, for a more complete description

of some of these survey efforts.3-I st~ and Kaestle, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 115.

38 See ~so KeMe~ Cadedead, ‘ ‘Reading Level: A Metaphor That Shapes PHwtk%’ Phi Delta Kappan, February 1987, pp. 436-441.

39 st~~ and Kaestle, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 11 q.

46 Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

encompassing such skills as oral communication,writing, problem solving, reasoning, and computa-tion. By focusing exclusively on reading levelscores, many argue, we ignore these and othercritical literacy domains.

Technical problems—Determining readinglevels depends heavily on the particular test used,the types of reading skills tested and the difficultyof the items. In addition, readability formulas,used to determine difficulty, are not widelyagreed on, and so give different results.

In the 1970s, survey researchers began to focuson a broader view of literacy and to test peopledirectly for their ability to read a wide range ofeveryday materials and complete associated tasks.For example, in the Survival Literacy Test, adultswere asked to complete five forms: a SocialSecurity number request, a bank loan application,a driver’s license application, a public assistanceform, and a Medicaid form.40 National studiesconducted in the 1970s and early 1980s attemptedto set some criteria to distinguish “functionalliterates’ from “illiterates.” Many of thesestudies were criticized for using arbitrary cutoffpoints or for ranking all people on a singlescale-implying that literacy is one-dimensional,rather than a more complex set of skills.41

The most recent national survey of ‘literacy”has attempted to correct some of the limitations ofearlier studies. In 1984, NAEP began the YoungAdult Literacy Assessment to examine the abili-ties of young adults ages 21 to 25. Instead oftrying to produce a single estimate of functionalilliteracy, this study attempted to emphasize themultiple nature of literacy skills and to report howmany young adults had reached various skilllevels on different kinds of tasks. To do so, theNAEP Young Adult Study adopted the following

definition of literacy based on the advice of panelsof experts: “Using printed and written informa-tion to function in society, to achieve one’s goals,and to develop one’s knowledge and potential, ’42

The NAEP study characterized literacy skills interms of the following three “literacy scales”:

prose literacy-the knowledge and skillsneeded to understand and use informationfrom texts that include editorials, news sto-ries, poems, and the like;document literacy—the knowledge andskills required to locate and use informationcontained in job applications or payroll forms,bus schedules, maps, tables, indexes, and soforth; and

quantitative literacy—the knowledge andskills needed to apply arithmetic operations,either alone or sequentially, that are embed-ded in printed materials, such as in balancinga checkbook figuring out a tip, completing anorder form, or determining the amount ofinterest from a loan advertisement.43

Performance in each of these areas is describedin terms of a proficiency scale that extends fromO to 500.44 Tasks are placed along the scale todescribe various levels of proficiency; increas-ingly difficult tasks characterize higher levels onthe proficiency scales. Literacy skills can then bedescribed in terms of the numbers of young adultswho successfully complete tasks at each profi-ciency level. (See figure 2-4 for examples ofdocument literacy tasks at different proficiencylevels.)

The conclusions of this study include thefollowing:

1. Most young adults demonstrate the skillsand strategies necessary to complete tasks at thelower end of all three literacy scales. Such tasks

~ LAS I-IUAS and Associates, Swvivul Literucy Study (W@ingtom DC: National Rewhg counc~ IWO).

41 St- and Kaestle, op. cit., footnote 5.

42 ~ S. w ~d ~ Jqebl@ ~“terag: P~@Z~ OfA~n”Ca’S yo~g A&d~s, No. 16-PL(J2 -tom NJ: NtioA AS~SIXMXlt Of

~U@tiOK& ~W~S, 1986), p. 3.

43 Ibid., p. 4.44* mean of this scale was set at 305 with a standard deviation of about 50.


include writing a brief description about a job,locating a fact in a sports article, matchinggrocery coupons to a shopping list, enteringpersonal information on a job application, andfiling in information on a phone message form.‘‘The overwhelming majority of America’s youngadults are able to use printed information toaccomplish many tasks that are either routine oruncomplicated. ’45 The authors conclude that" . . . it is clear from these data that ‘illiteracy isnot a major problem for this population.

2. Sizable numbers of young adults havedifficulty with tasks of moderate complexity.

Basic skills in uncomplicated applications show

high mastery. But in more complex contexts

where judgments of relevance and similarity mustbe made and several dependent steps or matches

done, abilities decline dramatically. . . . There can

be no doubt from these data that problem-solving

skills are weak, that even college graduates oftenfail to consider all relevant information in a

literacy task, or are confused by logical/mathe-matical data.47

3. White young adults obtained the highest

scores on all three scales while black young adults

scored one fu l l s tandard devia t ion lower ; the

mean scores of Hispanic young adults tended to

fa l l ha l fway between black and whi te adul ts ,

Although some of this difference is explained by

the lower school attainment of blacks and Hispan-

ics, the gap is reduced only slightly whenattainment is controlled.48 It is important to note,however, that although black and Hispanic youngadults are overrepresented among the youngadults with low literacy skills, the majority of this

group is white, since whites make up 77 percentof young adults.

4. The above findings were further substanti-ated when the reading proficiency of these youngadults was compared with NAEP samples of 4th-,8th-, and llth-grade students. Further evidencethat ‘‘illiteracy is not a major problem isdemonstrated by the finding that 94 percent ofyoung adults read at or above the level of theaverage 4th grader. Roughly 80 percent reachedor exceeded the average 8th-grade level, while 62percent read as well or better than the average1lth grader.

The results of studies that have attempted toassess literacy skills directly are complex anddifficult to summarize. One group of researchers,having reviewed the major studies of functionalliteracy rates, concluded the following:

Based on these studies, we find it reasonable toestimate that about 20 percent of the adultpopulation, or around 35 million people, haveserious difficulties with common reading tasks.An additional 10 percent are probably marginal intheir functional-literacy skills.49

Literacy Target GroupsOne of the reasons the size of the literacy

problem is difficult to estimate is that literacyskills are not easy to observe or to measure. Inaddition, adults with low literacy skills havewidely different needs. Thus another way tocharacterize the literacy problem is to examinetarget groups of the total population likely to havelow literacy skills. The section that followsdiscusses three such groups: those without a highschool diploma, immigrants/nonnative English

45 Kirsch and Jungeblu~ op. cit., footnote 42, p. G

46 ~ld,, p. 5, ~e~e authors note that about 2 per~nt of tie young ~~t pop~ation Were es~t~ to hve such hted htt3113Cy SkikS @t

they could not complete the tasks. “Roughly one percent (or about halo of this group reported being unable to speak English. . . . The Englishspeaking one percent. . . responded to a set of oral-language tasks. The comparatively low perforrnan ce indicates that this group (about 225,000people) may have a language problem that extends beyond processing printed information. ’

47 Vene+ et aI., op. cit., footnote 2, P. 28.

48 ~id. Pp, 31.32. ficl~-e~c ~oup categories usd here are those used by the National Assessment of ~ucatio~ ~ogress r~~chers.,49 st~m and Kaestle, op. cit., footnote 5, P. IW.

Figure 2-4—Assessing Literacy Skills Used in Everyday Life: The Young Adult Literacy Assessment

IThe Young Adult Literacy Assessment was conducted in 1984 to survey the literacy abilities of young adults ages 21 to 25. Each participant wasinterviewed and asked to complete tasks similar to those encountered by adults in everyday life. Tasks were presented in each of three literacy domains:

prose, document, and quantitative. Tasks of varying difficulty levels were used in each area; performance was scored on a proficiency scale that extendsfrom O to 500. More difficult items characterize higher levels on the proficiency scale. The figure shows the Document Literacy Scale and some sampletasks of varying difficulty that participants were asked to complete.

SELECTED TASKS AT DECREASINGLEVELS OF DIFFICULTY

365

{

Use bus schedule to select appropriate bus for343 given departures & arrivals334320 Use sandpaper chart to locate appropriate

grade given specificatlons ,’

300 Follow directions to travel from one Iocation ‘to another using a map

Q’ -

294 Identify information from graph depicting . . -source of energy and year

&278

262

100/

404

20

Inll

The graph below shows prediction of United Statesenergy consumption through the year 2000. Usethe graph to answer the question that follows.

Estimated U.S. Power Consumption by Source

n Coal

~ Petroleum

N a t u r a l g a s

_ Nuclear power

D Hydropower

Use index from an almanac 1971 1980 1985 2000Locate eligibility from table of employee benefits

In the year 2000, which energy A. Petroleumsource is predicted to supply less B. Natural gaspower than coal? C. Nuclear power

D. HydropowerE. I don’t know

m257

255

253

249

221

219

211

196

192

181

169

160

110

uLocate gross pay-to-date on p stub

Complete a check given informatlon on a bill

Complete an address on order form ‘

Locate intersection on street map

Enter date on a deposit slip

Identify cost of theatre trip from notice

Match items on shopping list to coupons ‘,

Enter personal Information on job application

Locate movie in TV Iistlng in newspaper

Enter caller% number on phone message form

Locate time of meeting on a form

Locate expiration date on driver’s license

Q

Sign you name.. . . . . -- . . . . .~ “ . . \ “ ’- ‘-.....

03/15/85 I =~ OWRTIME GmS3 CEF NW M3 PAY

625 I ~] 625 ]00] 45!318850)0 \ ] 50]0 ] 1 YEAR TO DATE 1 1

FKI WI+ STATE WH am WH Flex m U40N J411ED FD F133S IN PAS mrx=—

108 94 13 75 38 31I

734 98 82 50 261 67 r .—. K. - - - 1YEAR TO

, , “ l - —u l . -

N;;-NEGOTIABLE (X)E -rTPE WINr m m MU’JT

07 DEN 4 12

Here IS a wage and tax statement that comes with a paycheck.What is the current net pay?

What is the gross pay for this year to date?

-- . .

Here is a Social Security card.Sign your name on the line that reads “signature.”

g,r

SSOURCE: Irwin S. Kirech et al., Lltenxy: Profiles of Amerka’s Young Mdts-/%a/ Repo@ No. 16-PL411 (Princeton, NJ: National Assessm ent of Educational Progress, September 1986). s

50 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools

speakers, and those seeking jobs or better em-ployment. These groups are not independent ofone another-an individual who is counted in onegroup (e.g., no high school diploma) is often amember of another (e.g., nonnative English speaker).

Adults Without a High School DiplomaBecause people can be identified fairly easily

as either holding or not holding a credential suchas a diploma, this group can be counted andidentified. As figure 2-1 illustrates, 25 percent ofAmericans age 25 and over (39 million people) donot hold a high school diploma. In addition, about4 million persons ages 16 to 24 had not graduatedfrom high school and were not enrolled in 1991.50

Although this is the group that most conven-tional adult education programs target, peoplewithin this group have widely differing levels ofbasic skills. Although some of these individualsmay be unable to read at the most rudimentarylevels, most have already achieved some level ofcompetence in reading and writing. For example,data from the Young Adult Survey indicate thatapproximately 75 percent of 21- to 25-year-oldswho have no diploma can read at least as well asthe average 4th grader.51 Of those who stayed inschool beyond the 8th grade, 54 percent read aswell as the average 8th grader and 27 percent aswell as the average 11th grader. Among thosewith lower educational attainment (O to 8 years),the figures were somewhat lower (37 percent for8th grade and 15 percent for llth grade).

immigrants and Nonnative English SpeakersAnother population of considerable interest in

literacy efforts is immigrants and other adults notproficient in speaking English. As of 1989,appro ximately 16.5 million foreign-born peoplewere legally residing in the United States; another

for a Lifetime

2 million undocumented immigrants were alsothought to be living in the United States at thattime.52

Immigration rates during the 1980s rank amongthe highest levels in U.S. history, surpassed onlyby the first two decades of this century (see figure2-5). Approximately 6 million legal immigrantsentered the United States during the 1980s. Inaddition, recent decades have shown a shift in thecomposition of immigrant populations.

As recently as the 1950s, two-thirds of the legalimmigrants to the U.S. came from Europe andCanada. By the 1980s, that percentage haddropped to 14 percent. In the ‘80s, 44 percent ofthe nation’s legal immigrants came from Asia and40 percent came from Mexico and other LatinAmerican countries.53

It is difficult to estimate the literacy needs ofthis foreign-born population. Available data onthe amount of schooling immigrants have re-ceived in their native countries reveal someinteresting trends. For example, those immigrantsentering the United States between 1975 and 1980have completed the same number of years ofschool on average as the U.S.-born population(12.4 years, foreign born; 12.5 years, U.S.-born).However, these immigrants are concentrated atboth the high and the low ends of the schoolingdistribution. A higher proportion of these immi-grants have attended college (38 percent) thanhave people born here (32 percent). But a greaterproportion of these immigrants are also found atthe lowest education levels (31 percent have lessthan 9 years of schooling compared with 17percent of U.S.-born). In contrast to this bimodaldistribution for these immigrants, the largestproportion of the U.S. population clusters toward

W N~o~ Cen@r for EthKtUiOn Statistics, op. Cit., fOOtKDtC 31.

51 AS ~st~ ~ & Natio~ As=mat of MumtioM.I -SS m 1984. s= Kirsch and Jungeblu~ op. cit.,, foofnote 42.

52 K~n A. W-w, U&-medI~”gr~~ Li~g in the u~”t~ Stites (w-o% w: U.S. wp~ Of C~, B~u

of the census, August 1990).

53 “IU%~ U@oa’* CQ Researcher, vol. 2, No. 16, Apr. 24, 1992, p. 368.


Figure 2-5-@ gal Immigration to the United States, 1820s

Millions of Immigrants per decade10 , .—

= All other 8.8

8 ~~ Europe and Canada

6 PA 5.7

0.6m.

2.8

B

to 1980s

6.0

1820s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 9 0 s 1 9 0 0 s 1 0 s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s

SOURCE: Data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service presented in “illegal Immigration,” CQ Researcher, vol. 2, No. 16, Apr. 24, 1992,p. 370.

the middle of the distribution at the high schoolcompletion level.54

Those immigrants at the lowest levels ofeducation often have varying experiences withprint materials and written languages as well aslimited proficiency in speaking English. Manycome from rural villages and tend to fall into threecategories:

. . . nonliterates, who cannot read or write in anylanguage; semiliterate, who have the equivalentof a few years of formal education and minimalliteracy skills; and non-Roman alphabetic liter-ates, who are fully literate in their own language(such as Lao or Chinese) but who need to learn theRoman alphabet.55

Estimates of the total number of adults whohave limited English proficiency are difficult toobtain. Most are based on self-reported answers tosurveys conducted by the Bureau of the Census;

such self-report data probably show lower num-bers than a direct test of English languageproficiency would indicate.

The 1990 census indicates that 25.5 millionadults (13.8 percent of all adults ages 18 and over)speak a language other than English at home (seefigure 2-6). Of these adults, about 75 percentreport speaking English well or very well. How-ever, a total of 5.8 million adults report that theyspeak English not well or not at all. These areself-reports of spoken language proficiency andtell us little about people’s skills at reading orwriting English.

People who do not speak English at home areheavily concentrated in several regions of theUnited States (see figure 2-7). California, with 8.6million, has more than twice as many as any otherState. Five States (California, Texas, New York,Florida, and Illinois) account for 63 percent ofthose adults who speak anon-English language at

S4 U.S. ~~ent of ~r, The Effects of 1mmi8r~tiOn on the v-s. Economy and ~or ~ar~f (w-()~ m: U.S. &lVtXllIIltXlt

Printing Ofilce, 1989). Data on the educational attainment of immigrants enteaing the United States in the 1980s were collected in the 1990census, but will not be available until 1993.

55 U.S. ~~ent of ~Ucatioq ~lce of vo~tio~ and ~ult ~ucatiou Te~hing ~t$ with Lim”ted English Skills: Progress and

Challenges (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Offlce, October 1991), p. 13.


Figure 2-6-Ability to Speak English in Non-English Speaking Homes: 1990 Census

N Adults (ages 18 and above) Children (5 to 17 years old)25.5 million speak a language

**6.3 million speak a language

other than English at home other than English at home

When asked how well they spoke English: When asked how well they spoke English:

6.7°/0 do not 2.3% do not

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census, unpublished data, tbs. ED90-4 and ED90-5.

home. Ten more States have over 400,000 suchindividuals; these 15 States combined account for84 percent of the nationwide population.

There are a number of States that have highproportions of non-English speakers, even thoughthe absolute numbers are not particularly high.For example, New Mexico ranks highest amongthe States with 35.5 percent of its populationreported to be non-English speakers at home.However, New Mexico has far fewer people whoare non-English speaking than does California,which is second at 31.5 percent (0.5 million ascompared with 8.6 million in California). OtherStates that have relatively high proportions ofnon-English speakers but comparatively lowabsolute numbers include Hawaii, Rhode Island,Nevada, Alaska, and the District of Columbia (seetable 2-3 for proportions by State).

Those Seeking Jobs or Better EmploymentThere has been increasing interest in understand-

ing the relationship between literacy skills and

employment. Many experts today argue that thereis a growing job-literacy gap-a discrepancybetween the skills of our population and thoserequired to per-form most of society’s jobs.Estimates of the extent of this job-literacy gaphave been very difficult to obtain, but the resultsthat are available indicate that two different kindsof trend=’ . . dumbing down and rising liter-acy demands-are occurring at different levels inthe occupational pyramid and in different sec-tors.’ ’56 (See box 2-C.)

Nonetheless, it seems useful, as another methodof describing the literacy problem, to attempt toestimate the number of individuals who havedifficulty finding or keeping employment be-cause of literacy difficulties. The Department ofLabor (DOL) has recently commissioned a studyof the literacy skills of three groups served byDOL programs: persons enrolling in the JobTraining Partnership Act (JTPA) programs, per-sons applying for jobs through the EmploymentSystem (ES), and persons filing claims for

S6 St*@ Kaestle, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 121.


Figure 2-7-Number of People, Ages 5 and Above,Speaking a Non-English Language at Home, by State, 1990

- -

Y’”7 - l-.-.(MT ND

RMN

ID SDWY i

#● J’

“.. OW

HIP

‘ MA=O.9

@‘T CT=O.5

k NJ=l .4

n 100,000-399,999 ‘“” -

400,000 and over

NOTE: The actual numbers (in millions) are given for States wfth 400,000 or more people speaking a non-English language at home.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commeme, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census, unpublished data, tb. ED 90-6.

Unemployment Insurance (UI). This population,totaling about 20 million people, representsindividuals who have experienced persistent dif-ficulty finding jobs, who are unemployed andlooking for work, or who are seeking betteremployment opportunities. ‘‘These groups in-clude a significant segment of Americans who,with proper assistance, could enhance their liter-

acy skills and in turn contribute in large measureto the growth of our nation. ”57

Building on the framework established in theNAEP Young Adult Literacy Assessment, asample of the DOL program participants com-pleted literacy tasks in three areas: prose, docu-ment, and quantitative literacy. This assessmentgoes beyond the Young Adult study, however, in

57 Eacational W#ing $knrice, “Workplace Litczacy: A Project Conducted by ETS for the @artment of Labor,” infmmatiod Pampllleqn.d., p. 3.

331-048 0 - 93 - 3 C?L . 3

54 Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Table 2-3-States With 5 Percent or More of thePopulation (Ages 5 and Above) Speaking a

Non-English Language at Home, 1990

Rank State Percentage

1.2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

12.

13.14.15.16.17.18.

19.20.21.22.23.

24.

27.28.29.

30.31.

33.

35.36.37.38.

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.5%California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.4Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24.8New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.3Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.8

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0

SOURCE: US. Department of Commeree, Bureau of the Census, 1990Census, unpublished data, tb. ED 90-6.

setting five levels of literacy proficiency withineach area, and describing the information-processing skills required for successful perform-ance at each level.

The findings of this assessment show that largeproportions of the DOL population demonstratelimited literacy skills. Overall, tasks at levels 1and 2 (the lowest two of the five defined levels)were found to ‘‘. . . require relatively low-levelinformation processing skills and it seems likelythat skills evident at these levels would placesevere restrictions on full participation in ourincreasingly complex society, including theworkplace. ’58 Approximately 40 to 50 percent ofthe JTPA and 40 percent of the ES/UI populationsdemonstrated literacy skills at these two lowestlevels compared with slightly over 30 percent ofthe NAEP sample of young adults.59 Of the totalpopulation of roughly 1 million JTPA and 19million ES/UI participants, approximately 7.5 to8.5 million are estimated to have significantliteracy limitations. Regarding those adults whodemonstrated skills at levels 1 and 2, the authorsconcluded:

Unless an attempt is made to upgrade the levelof literacy skills of these individuals, their successin job training programs may be limited, thusdenying them access to the job market. Moreover,for those individuals who do succeed in a jobtraining program without a concomitant increasein their literacy skills, the question remainswhether a demonstrated low level of proficiencywill enable them to avoid future employmentdifficulties that may arise from projected in-creases in skill requirements.60

Even more striking are findings regarding theseadults’ responses to questions about their own

Sa wh et al., op. cit., footnote 16.

59 wh~&tafor~L populations were compared with t.k pdO~ e of the young adult sample, many si@lcant diffeKXXXS were found(p <.05). Both DOL populations had significantly more people at the two lowest proficiency levels for document literacy. For quantitativeliteracy, both DOL groups were more heavily represented at level 1, while only the JTPA group was significantly larger at level 2. The onlysignitlcant difference for prose literacy was the larger representation of JTPA clients at level 1.

@ -h et ~., op. cit., footnote 16, pp. 9-10.


Box 2-C-The Future of Workplace Skills1

●

●

●

●

●

The economy will continue to create many lower skill jobs. It seems unlikely that skill requirements for thesejobs will change greatly over the next decade; some may be de-skilled, a few maybe upskilled. These jobs

also will not require much formal education beyond high school.Some jobs in some industries that have traditionally been defined as low or medium skilled will be upgradedas companies adopt new technologies and work practices. Current workers in these jobs will need retrainingto develop new job skills; outside applicants will find the hiring process more demanding than m the past.The fastest rate of job growth will be in high skill professional, technical, and managerial jobs-jobs thattraditionally have required postsecondary education or college degrees.In many industries it has become more difficult for people without postsecondary education to progress fromlower level positions within firms to higher level positions.Many of the workers who will join the labor force between now and the year 2000 will not be well matchedto the better jobs created by the economy. Roughly one-third of the new entrants will come from minoritygroups that have traditionally received less and poorer quality education. Immigrants, many of whom needto develop English language skills, also will be a more important source of laborforce growth.

1 m bOX is adapted tlom U.S. Congress, Office of ‘RcImology _menti Worker Training: Competing in the NewInternational Economy, OTA-ITE 457 (TVashingtom DC: U.S. Govemment Printing mice, September 1990), pp. 155-157.

2 ~=e Ml ~ Ruy A. ~e~ The J@h of :he Codng ~or Shor@8e: Jobs, Sh”lls dIwomS ofhk?rids

W+orce 2(MO (Wash@ton, DC: Economic IWcy Institute, 1990), pp. 65-67.3 WM B. Jo~~n ~ ~ld H. ~&, W&@?~~~e 2~: Wod ad wO&rSfOr r)le 21St Cewry _pO& ~:

The Hudson Institute, June 1987), p. 97.4 S=RU=U w. -W ~ H- M ~V~ “sc~~ for me Modm Workp@,” Invesn”ng in People:A Strategy

to A&iress America’s Workjlorce Crises, background papas, vol. 1, prepared for the Secretary of Labor’s Commission onWorkforce Quality and Labor Market Efficiency (’Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor, September 1989), pp. 95-98.


perceptions of the adequacy of their literacyskills.

Some 65 and 60 percent of the JTPA and ES/UIclient groups, respectively, perceive that theycould get a better job if their reading or writingskills were improved and roughly 80 and 70percent, respectively, report that their job oppor-tunities would improve with increased skill inmathematics. 6l

Overall this translates into approximately 11.6million DOL jobseekers who perceive their inade-quate reading and writing skills to be a barrier tobetter employment and 14.9 million who perceiveso for their mathematics skills. Taken together,these findings indicate there is a significantneed for adult education programs aimed atimproving the literacy skills of jobseekers.

Another method of anticipating needs foreducation is to examine what proportion of thecurrent workforce has literacy skill limitations.Many workers are employed at jobs for whichtheir skills seem adequate. But what wouldhappen if their jobs changed substantially? Majornational and global economic changes are drivinglabor market changes. For example, a special1986 Bureau of the Census survey estimated that,between 1979 and 1984, about 5.1 million work-ers were displaced by major layoffs or plantclosings from jobs they had held for more than 3years.62 How much of the current workforcemight require improved literacy skills to benefitfrom retraining, keep a job with changing skilldemands, or get a new job?

There is no clear answer to this question.Available data are usually based on specific

companies that have surveyed the ‘‘basic’ skills(reading, writing, arithmetic, and oral communi-cation) of their workers or examined the skilllevels of displaced workers. OTA’s earlier workbearing on these topics has concluded that mostestimates of basic skills levels among employedworkers have been based on data from only a fewcompanies. 6 3 F o r e x a m p l e i n o n e m a n u f a c t u r i n g

firm, about 20 percent of the hourly workers wereunable to cope with technical training because ofdeficient basic skills. Most of these workers hadhigh school diplomas and did not think they hada basic skills problem.64 OTA’s 1986 analysis ofdisplaced workers found that 20 to 30 percent ofadults entering displaced worker programs in themid- 1980s needed to improve their basic skills.65

Seeking Better InformationThe task of defining and estimating literacy—

knowing the magnitude and character of theproblem-is not straightforward. Definitions ofwhat literacy is and what it means to be literatehave changed and continue to change. Studies ofliteracy rates become rapidly outdated. In addi-tion, because literacy is a‘ ‘hidden’ problem, it iseasy to underestimate and difficult to study.Literacy skills are more easily assessed foridentifiable groups, such as those in job trainingprograms or those graduating from high school,than for the population as a whole. Yet it isdifficult to determine optimal policy directionswithout some sense of the size and scope of theNation’s literacy needs.

Another problem plaguing attempts to surveya nationally representative population is that of

61 Ibid., p, 8.

62 U.S. COWSS, mlw of lkchINIog kwssme~ Technology and Structural Unemployment: Reemploying Displaced tilti,OTA-ITE250 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1986), pp. 105-109.

63 US. COWS, mice of ‘I&bnoIO~ Aasessmen~ Worker Training: Competing in the New International Economy, OW-HZ 457

(Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1990).

~ Larry Mikulecky, “Second Chance Basic Skills Educatioq” Investing in People: A Strategy to Address Americans Wor~orce Crisis,background papers, vol. 1, U.S. Departmmt of Labor, Commis sion on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Effkiency (cd.) (Washington DC:U.S. Government Print@ ~CC, September 1989), p. 236.

65 Offl= of -10= Assessment op. cit., footnote 62.


those who remain ‘ ‘uncounted. ” Many surveyshave to exclude those individuals who cannotcomplete the forms or answer the questions. Forexample, the NAEP Young Adult Survey foundthat about 2 percent of the population had ‘‘. . .such limited literacy skills that it was judged thatthe simulation tasks would unduly frustrate orembarrass them. "66 Thus the NAEP conclusionsabout the literacy proficiencies of young adultsare based on the 98 percent of the sample whowere English-speaking and who were able torespond to the printed task. Similarly, during thebase-year survey of the National Education Lon-gitudinal Study of 1988, 5.4 percent of thestudents were excluded from the sample becausethey were unable to complete the questionnaire" . . . owing to limitations in their languageproficiency or their mental or physical disabili-ties. ’67

Many surveys also sample only the noninstitu-tionalized population. This policy, while practi-cal, may also contribute to further underestima-tion of the size of the total problem. For example,over 1 million adults were in prisons in 1990.Approximately 80 percent of U.S. prisoners areestimated to be high school dropouts.68 Theseexamples illustrate that those excluded fromnational samples may have some of the highestliteracy needs.

The Adult Education Amendments of 1988required the Department of Education to submita report to Congress defining literacy and estimat-ing the extent of adult literacy in the Nation. Anationally representative household survey ofadults over 16 is currently being conducted by the

Department under contract to the EducationalTesting Service; inmates of Federal and Stateprisons are also included. The definition ofliteracy used in the NAEP Young Adult LiteracyAssessment has been adopted. This approach willnot yield a single number of ‘illiterates,’ but will" . . . produce a variety of estimates that show thepercentages of adults performing tasks at differ-ent levels of difficulty. ’ ’69

Among the goals of the survey are the follow-ing:

Describe the types and levels of literacy dem-onstrated by the total adult population, adultswithin specified age ranges, and adults com-prising “at-risk” subgroups;Characterize and help explain demonstratedliteracy skills in terms of demographic andpersonal background characteristics;For the first time, profile the prose, document,and quantitative literacy skills of the Americanworkforce;Relate literacy skills to current labor-marketindices as well as occupational categories; andCompare assessment results from this surveywith those from the 1985 literacy assessment ofyoung adults conducted by NAEP and withthose from the Workplace Literacy Assessmentbeing conducted for the U.S. Department ofLabor.70

The information obtained from this surveyshould help educational planners, policymakers,and researchers understand the literacy needs ofvarious populations, improve and design effec-tive educational programs, and make decisions

66 KfiSch ~d JUgeblu~ ~p, Cit., f~~~t~ 42, p. 5, About one.~ of hose who co~d not Complete the survey were estimated tO be

Spanish-speaking. The other one-halfwere administered oral-language tasks; results suggested that many of these adults have a general problemwith language not limited solely to the use of printed materials.

67 phillp fiufw ad Defise Bradby, Charac~erl~~ic~ of Ar-Risk ~~~e~r$ in NE~:~ (washingto~ w: U.S. Department Of E.dllCatiOq

National Center for Education Statistics, July 1992), p. 5.68 Hwold L, Hod@~on, A De~grapfiic ~Ok ~t T~~~rr~W (w~~gto~ DC: ~titute for ~ucatioti tiadership, Inc., Center fOr

Demographic Policy, June 1992).

@ u.S. Dep~en[ of Uucation, ‘‘Report to Congress on Deftig Literacy and the National Adult Literacy Sumey, ’ unpublished repro%July 1990, p. 4.

~o Educatio~ lksting SerVICe, “National AduJt Literacy Survey, ” brochure, n.d., p. 8.


about the best ways to use technology to reachlarger segments of the population in need.

LITERACY NEEDS: GROWINGOR SHRINKING?

As these estimates suggest, a large number ofU.S. adults need to improve their literacy skills.As many as 20 to 30 percent of the adultpopulation (35 to 50 million people) have difficul-ties with common literacy tasks. Howe\’er, tounderstand the Nations’s literacy ‘‘problem”more completely, one must consider not onlythe pool of people in need today, but also lookat factors that may increase or decrease thenumbers of people needing 1iteracy servicestomorrow”.

New people will continue to enter the pool of

those with 1iteracy needs. Each year new immi-grants, high school dropouts, displaced workers,and others will be added to the already largenumber of those who need to be served. Recent

Census Bureau project ions for the years 1992 to2050 predict that new immigrants done will total

about 1 million each year. 71 In its strategic planfor adult education, the State of California hasestimated that the number of people with literacydeficiencies will grow by about 3 percent peryear. 7 2 A p p l y i n g t h i s f i g u r e t o t h e e n t i r e U . S .

literacy pool produces an estimate of 1 to 1.5million new entrants each year. One nationalestimate puts the number of new entrants to the

adult basic education pool at 2.3 million.73

Related factors such as rising or falling immigra-tion or dropout rates will affect the numbers ofadults who will enter the pool each year, and theeffectiveness of adult literacy programs willinfluence the number of those who leave it.74

Any change in national goals for what a highschool education should provide could also dramati-cally affect the number of adults who will requireliteracy services to reach those goals, “[f theaverage amount of schooling seen as necessarycontinues to rise, as it has throughout this century,and if the definition of skills essential to literacycontinues to broaden, the number of adultsneeding literacy services could grow much larger.Demographic data also suggest that literacy needsare higher in some regions of the United States.Furthermore, projections of population growthindicate that the South and West will experiencemost of the growth in the Nation in the nextdecade .75 These are the same regions that tend tohave higher dropout rates and higher numbers ofnon-English speaking homes (see figures 2-3 and2-7). Strategies for adult literacy education needto consider these regional differences.

One strategy for reducing the pool of those withliteracy needs is to try to lessen the number of newentrants. Such a preventive approach would seekto assure that today’s children are successful inschool and obtain the literacy skills they need,Although the absolute number of children in the

71 U.S. D~~entof comme~e, 13ureauof thecmsus,populufim Projections of the UnitedStates, by Age, Sex, Race andllispanic Origin:1992 to 2050 (WashingtorL DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1992). This estimate represents a middle range projection andreflects 1990 immigration law changes, as well as current knowledge of emigration, undocumented migration, and movement to and fromPuerto Rico. Higher assumptions about immigration would put the expected yearly totals at about 1.3 million, lower range assumptions at aboutMlO,O(X) per year.

72 c~o~ State Dqartment of Education, Adult EducationUni4 Adujtl?ducationf orrhe 21st Century.’ [email protected] to Meet California’s

L.mg-Term Adult Education Needs, 1989 ed. (Sacramento, CA: May 15, 1989).73 pad ~~er, “~f~ Adlllt FUIICtiOMJ Lit_Cy, “ Functional Literacy and the Workplace: Proceedr”ngs of a National Invitational

Conference, Washington, DC, iWay 6,1983 (Washington, DC: American Council of LifeInsurance, Education Services, 1983). This totat isbased onestirnates of 1 million dropouts and nonfictional graduates,400,000 legal immigrants, IOO,OOOrefugees, and 800,000 illegal entrants.Other estimates of iltegat entrants are more conservative than this. The Bureau of the Census’ best estimate adds about 200,000 netundocumented immigration to the United States each year. See Bureau of the Census, op. cit., footnote 71.

74 See ch. A for a discussion of the adult education providers mcl programs.

75 EI~@&,Soq op. cit., footno~ 68. See atso U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the CCIMS, Projections of the Population of Statesby Age, Sex and Race: J989 to 2010 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1990).


population has remained relatively constant overthe last two decades, their proportion of thepopulation has declined dramatically and shouldcontinue to do so. In 1960, children under age 18accounted for 36 percent of all Americans; by2010, they are expected to comprise only 23percent. Thus the pool of new entrants to thefuture workforce will grow smaller. Minorities,particularly Hispanic and Asian children, areexpected to make up an increasing proportion ofthe population under age 18.76

The number of children living in homes wherea language other than English is spoken is alsoincreasing dramatically; while the 1980 censusreported that 9 percent of 5- to 17-year-olds fell inthis category, the 1990 figures have risen to 14percent—an increase of almost 1.8 million school-age children over the previous decade.

These and related demographic trends suggestthe following educational consequences:77

■

■

■

■

■

—

The number of children entering school frompoverty-level households is expected to in-crease.The number and proportion of minority schoolchildren will increase.More children will enter school from single-parent households.A larger number of children who were prema-ture babies will enter school; these children aremore likely to experience learning difficultiesin school.There will be more school children who wereborn to teenage mothers and mothers who havenot completed high school.More children will enter school from homeswhere a language other than English is spoken.

Education has important intergenerational effects.When parents are assisted by literacy programs, theynot only improve their own skills but also increase thechances of school success for their children.

Taken together, these projections suggest thatthe number of children entering school with oneor more factors that put them at risk for educa-tional difficulties will rise. The chances of anyone child experiencing multiple risk factors islikely to increase as well.78 Thus, the burden on analready resource-depleted school system is grow-ing, not declining. Programs focused on opti-mizing early development, promoting school-readiness, and preventing school failure andschool dropouts are extremely important in-terventions. 79

Research findings have suggested another fruit-ful policy avenue for improving the future educa-tional attainment of today’s children. One of themost consistent findings of the research onpositive educational outcomes for children is theinfluence of mothers’ education level. This sug-gests the potential effectiveness of educational

76 Natlo@ Co~SSion on ~l~em Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agen& for children and Fam”lies ~&Shhl@OQ ~: U.S.

Government Printing Oftlce, 1991).77 H~Km op. cit., footnok 33; and Aaron M. paum etal., “~e~“ Nature of the Disadvantaged Popu.latiorx Current Dimensions

and Future Trends, ” Educationcd Researcher, vol. 18, No. 5, June-July 1989, pp. 16-22.

78 For a di~~sion of educational risk factors, see Pallaa et al., Op. tit., fOOtnOte 77, pp. 1G22.

w S=, for ~~ple, R.E, Slavin et aI. (eds.), Eflective Programs for Students At Risk (Boston, MA: AflYII and BXOU 1989).


interventions focused on mothers (or primarycaretakers). One study, for example, found that:

. . . having a mother who completed high schoolwas a significantly more important determinant ofthe school enrollment of sixteen- to seventeen-year old youth than whether the mother wasmarried or whether she had an additional $10,000in family income per year, although both of thesefactors were also important. . . . Similarly . . .[another group of researchers] used data from theNational Longitudinal Survey of Youth MarketExperience to predict young people’s test scoreson the basis of their mothers’ and fathers’education and other variables. They found that anextra grade of attainment for the mother-whenfather’s education, race and region of the nationwere constant-was associated with an extrahalf-grade equivalent of achievement for herchildren. Because of this intergenerational effectof the parent’s education on the child’s, it isunlikely that we will be able to make a majordifference for the child unless we place equalpriority on education and academic remediationfor the parent.80

Educational efforts aimed at adults with lowliteracy skills today are likely to have twoimportant outcomes: improving the skills and thelife outcomes for adults, and at the same timeincreasing the likelihood of positive educationaloutcomes for those adults’ children or futurechildren. 81 As yet very little research evidence isavailable to document the direct effects onchildren of raising a parent’s education level.Research in this area is needed in order to designprograms that can optimize the direct benefits forchildren as well as parents. Existing evidence iscompelling enough, however, to recommendthat parents (especially mothers) of smallchildren receive high priority in literacy policyand planning.

A comprehensive literacy policy must considerthe changing needs of people throughout the lifecycle. The challenge of adult literacy is to developa long-range policy that anticipates the literacyneeds of tomorrow while addressing what isalready a large and demanding problem today.

so Ber~ ad s- op. cit., fooblote ~, p. 36.

81 See, for example, Catherine E. Snow et al., Unfu@ledExpectations: HomeandSchoolInjluences on L“teracy (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1991); and Thomas G. Sticht et al., The Intergenerational Transfer of Cogru”tive Skills, vols. 1 and 2 (lYorwood, NJ: AblexPublishing Corp., 1992).

Adultsas

Learners 3

L earning and going to school have most often beenassociated with childhood and youth; most of our ideasabout learning and teaching are based on educatingchildren. Adults, however, do not stop learning when

they end their formal schooling. Whether they finish high school,college, or neither of these, adults find themselves faced withchanging roles and life choices and, as a result, need new skillsand knowledge throughout their lives. More and more, adults areseeking out educational opportunities-to relearn skills theyhave forgotten, to acquire skills they never got, or to learn newskills that were not even taught when they attended school. Butadults are not children; their diverse needs, goals, and lifesituations would challenge even the best system of adulteducation. Thus, a discussion of how best to address the literacyneeds of the Nation must include a careful look at the adultsthemselves-how they use literacy in their lives, how they learn,and what motivates them to improve their skills or gain newknowledge.

FINDINGS■ Adults with low literacy skills do not fit common patterns and

stereotypes. They are at all ages and stages of the life cycle andhave many different backgrounds, many different lifestyles,many different experiences and skills.

■ A person’s literacy skills vary in the different contexts of theirlives, such as home, work, or school. For example, people areoften more skilled at reading job-related materials than theyare at reading unfamiliar materials. Each person can be thoughtof as having a profile of literacy skills adapted to that person’slife situation and circumstances.

61


■

■

■

�

Traditional school-based approaches used toprovide education for children do not work wellfor adults because:—adults have many roles and responsibilities

and thus many competing demands for theirtime;

—adults bring with them a wealth of concepts,knowledge, and experience on which tobuild new learning;

—adults have little time for learning, so theymust often seek to learn things that aremeaningful and can be applied immediatelyin their daily lives;

—for the most part, adults seek educationbecause they choose to do so-participationis voluntary, dropping out and recenteringare common.

The people most likely to benefit from adulteducation are least likely to participate in it.Situational barriers such as work schedules,childcare responsibilities, transportation, andcost often prevent participation in formal edu-cation. In addition to these situational barriers,adults also have attitudes and feelings aboutschool and learning that affect their decisionsabout further education.Taken together, these findings suggest thatadults are more likely to invest the time andenergy in opportunities to learn if those oppor-tunities:—are provided in supportive environments that

reduce the stigma attached to low literacy;—utilize materials and methods that respect the

strengths, experiences and goals of learners;-offer content and materials that build on

daily life experiences; and-can be delivered in ways that allow flexibil-

ity and choice-so that individuals can learnat their own pace, on their own time sched-ules, and under conditions that work best fordifferent individuals.

Technologies offer considerable promise formeeting the needs of adult learners, becausethey can deliver learning in places other thanclassrooms, facilitate the efficient use of pre-cious learning time, sustain the motivation ofadult learners, and reach many different typesof learners in the ways they learn best.

LITERACY IN EVERYDAY LIFE: ADULTSWITH LOW LITERACY SKILLS1

The world of adults with low literacy skills inthe United States is unknown territory for most ofus. The research base is slim indeed. Little isknown about what most adults read, how they useliteracy in the various domains of their everydaylives, and how literacy interacts with technology.Still less is known about how adults with lowliteracy skills lead their lives in a print-basedsociety, especially the great majority of thoseadults who are not enrolled in literacy programs.

A large number of adults with limited literacyskills have found a variety of ways to survive ina print-based culture, as shown by a few ethno-graphic studies. They have talents and skills insocial relationships and in practical life skills.Many adults with low literacy skills are success-ful in the workplace; lack of such skills is oftenmasked by other competencies so that colleaguesand peers are unaware of these workers’ ‘‘hiddenproblem.” In contrast, some new immigrants maysuddenly find themselves perceived as nonliteratebecause they lack written and communicationskills necessary to function effectively in English,despite being highly literate in their nativelanguage. Whatever their current life circum-stances, however, most adults with low literacyskills are aware that society places a great deal ofvalue and status on literacy.

Although research on the literacy demands ofeveryday life is limited, several studies provideinsights into literacy uses in diverse communities.

1 Except where noted, this seetion draws on Center for Literaey Studies, University of lknnessee, Knoxville, “Life at the Margins: pmf~esof Adults With Low Litexacy Skills,” O’IA contractor repom Much 1992. The names of individuals have been changed in order to guarantee

anonymity.

Chapter 3-Adults as barriers | 63

Some studies have used ethnographic methodsthat provide rich, descriptive data about thecontexts and activities of participants. Some ofthese studies address the literacy practices ofadults with low literacy skills, and others addresseveryday literacy of non-native English speakingfamilies. Other researchers have investigated howworkers deal with the literacy demands of theirjobs. These studies offer some important insightsand conclusions; most are based on small samplesof people who have been studied intensively andthus their generalizability is limited.

Profiles of DiversityAdults with low literacy skills do not fit

common patterns and stereotypes. They havemany different backgrounds, lifestyles, experi-ences, and skills. Consider the following adults:

Fred Kruck is a 50-year-old steelworker whohas recently been laid off because the plant wherehe had worked for 19 years closed. Last year heenrolled in truck-driving school as part of aFederal program to train laid-off workers in newskills; he dropped out of the program, however,because of a well-kept secret-he can barely readand write. He was ‘‘. . . the top laborer in the blastfurnace, the meanest, most dangerous furnace inthe mill, where he hollered orders to a dozensubordinates, deploying equipment the size ofbuildings. It never mattered, never even wasmentioned, that he had graduated from highschool without really learnin g to read and write.Now, with his furnace gone, it does. ”2

Lisa Bogan, aged 37, was born in ruralMississippi and lived there until she came toKnoxville, Tennessee, with her frost husband in1973. Separated now from her second husband,Lisa is struggling to overcome the effects of anabusive second marriage and provide for her twochildren with a job as a sales clerk in a departmentstore. Although she has a high school diplomashe says she stopped learning in 6th grade and her

Although literacy is an important part of everyday life,individuals vary greatly in their purposes for readingand writing.

reading level is at 5th- or 6th-grade level. Bothliteracy and technology present some difficultiesfor her, and she has tried adult basic educationclasses to upgrade her skills. She is very activeoutside the home and family; she votes, attendsPTA meetings, talks with teachers, and is activein her church.

Alicia Lopez, age 47, migrated alone andundocumented from her native Mexico to the SanFrancisco Bay Area in 1981. In 1986, she becamea legal resident of the United States through theImmigration Reform and Control Act. Six yearsago she brought her daughter and infant grand-daughter to the United States. Alicia now lives ina home with her sister’s family and raises her6-year-old grandchild as if she were her owndaughter. Although she dropped out of school inMexico at age 13, she can read and write Spanishquite well; her written and oral language skills inEnglish are, however, quite limited. Until 5months ago, Alicia worked as a cook in severalfood preparation factories. Since nearly all of theemployees were Spanish-speaking, she was ableto function with very limited English. Aliciarecently enrolled in an employment training

2 Dale Russakoff, “Lives Once Solid as Steel Shatter in Clxmged World,’ The Washington Post, Apr. 13, 1992, p. Al,


program where she is learning facility mainte-nance skills and studying English. Her goal is tofind stable employment that will enable her toadopt her two youngest grandchildren, currentlyin the foster care system because of their mother’sdrug addiction. While she is determined andcapable of mastering new skills and systems, herlimited English presents significant barriers to herability to advance, particularly in the employmentarena.

As these and other profiles in the literaturesuggest, there is no one type of person nor oneuniversal characteristic that defines people withliteracy needs. Adults with low literacy skills

. . . appear to embody a range of attributes, ratherthan presenting a homogeneous picture. Some areambitious, others content; some approach lifepositively, while others are fatalistic and de-pressed. The same range of characteristics maybefound in the population at large or among literate,educated adults.3

similarly,

. . . individuals can be expected to vary greatly intheir purposes for reading and writing, in the textsthey choose to read and write, as well as in thecontexts for performance of reading and writingabilities. A person’s literacy profile might beconceptualized as a contemporary quilt in prog-ress whose configuration is closely linked tospecific settings characterized by specific oppor-tunities and constraints.4

Those in need of literacy education, or ‘secondchance” basic skills education,5 can be almostanyone:

■ Women who need to re-enter the workforce inthe wake of divorce or teenage mothers who

dropped out of school when they becamepregnant.Refugees with college degrees who speak noEnglish or children of Hispanic migrant work-ers whose itinerant way of life limited the timethey spent in school.A recent high school graduate who is havingdifficulty entering the workforce or a 50-year-old auto worker whose plant recently closed.A mother at home who wants to be able to helpher children with their homework or a workingmother who needs to improve her mathematicsskills in order to get a promotion.A truck driver who needs to pass a newlymandated written examination in order to keephis job or an inmate at a prison who is requiredto meet a minimum standard of literacy.

“The target population encompasses Americanswho are employed, underemployed, and unem-ployed.” 6

Adult learners vary on a multitude of dimen-sions. If the children in our public schoolspresent a picture of remarkable diversity,adults do so even more. Adults learners vary inage from 18 to over 80-with a correspondingwide variety of life experience. When children arein school, those of the same age will haveapproximately the same skill levels. Not so withadults, however; all levels of skill-horn little ornone to the highest levels-can be found at anyage. Adults also vary in the amount of experiencethey have had in the workforce and the literacydemands of the jobs they have held. harrierscome from all cultural and ethnic groups, urbanand rural. Some live in poverty, some aremiddle-class. Adults who need to learn Englishcan have extremely diverse experiences with

s M Arlene Fingere~ ‘‘Social Network: A New Perspective on Independe= and Illiterate Adults,” Adult Edwation Quatierly. VO1.33, No. 3, spr@ 1983, p, 142.

d Susan L. Lytle, “Living Literaey: Rethink@ Development in Adulth@” unpublished manuserip4 n.d., p. 8.~ ~ mf.@y, “second Chance Basic Skills BdueatiorL” Investing in People: A Strategy to Address America’s Worb$orce Crisis,

background papers, vol. 1, U.S. Department of Labor, Commis sion on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Effieieney (cd.) (Washingto% DC:Us. Gov unment Printing OfXce, Februmy 1986).

6 Ibid., p. 218.

Chapter 3-Adults as Learners I 65

I

ii

New immigrants may often find themselves perceivedas nonliterate because they do not speak English.

reading and writing in their native language—from no experience with the written word tohighly proficient (see box 3-A). In addition,adults vary in their cognitive abilities; somesignificant portion of adults with low literacyskills probably have undiagnosed learning disa-bilities (see box 3-B).

Competence and StrengthResearch reveals that adults with low literacy

skills are strong and resourceful, skilled andknowledgeable. It is often assumed that suchadults live impoverished lives, socially and cul-turally as well as in terms of literacy. In contrast,the research suggests that to lack reading skills isnot necessarily to lack other skills: indeed theadults who have been studied had many otherskills, full social lives, and much cultural knowl-edge. They were respected and “functional”members of their communities.7

A common theme among the profiles of adultswith low literacy skills is that of self-reliance andindependence. Many are determined to be inde-pendent, dislike having to rely on others, evenfamily members, and do not want to live onwelfare. They want and expect to have control oftheir own lives (see box 3-C).

Many also are faced with pressing issues ofsurvival. Their lives have a fragile stability thatcan be easily overturned by life events such aspoor health, accidents, or job changes. Thefollowing case Provides a telling example.

Les Willard is a 36-year-old man who liveswith his wife and two children in one of thepoorest neighborhoods in Knoxville, Tennessee.Les puts in long hours of work, including extrajobs on weekends and fixing things around hisown house. He needs to work these hours tosupport his extended family, which includes adisabled brother and an elderly father. If he couldget his electrician’s license, he would earn higherwages and perhaps need fewer working hours, buthe cannot get the license because his readingskills are too low to pass the required test. Hecannot improve his literacy because he needs towork such long hours. He has been physically illoff and on over the past several years with anundetermined stomach ailment. He does not seekmedical help because he has no medical coverage.When he fell off a roof and broke some ribs, hebound them up himself, and went on with his life.He sees himself as someone who “holds up,”who takes pride in managing his family responsi-bilities and taking care of his “kin.” He and hiswife have managed to build a solid marriage aswell as a supportive environment for their chil-dren and extended family. They want theirchildren to be better educated and have moreopportunities than they had and have taken

7 Hanna Arlene Fingeret, Syracuse University, “The Illiterate Underclass: Demythologizing an American Stigma” unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, 1982; ‘ ‘Social Network: A New Perspective on Independence and Illiterate Adults, “ Adult Education Quarterly, vol. 33, No. 3,spring, 1983, pp. 133-146; Linda Zeigahn, ‘‘The Formation of Literaey Perspective, ” Adult Learning in lhe Community, Robert A. Fellenzand Gary J. Conti (eds.) (Bozerna.m MT: Center for Adult Learnin g Research, Montana State Univerwty, 1990); and Linda Zeighanj“Conceptual Framework for a Study of Community and Competence, ” paper presented at the 29th Annual Adult Education ResearchConference, Calgary, Alber@ Canada May 6-8, 1988.


Chapter 3-Adults as Learners | 67

1 ~d I@& d WeriO Meyer, ‘Tdiles of and Instructional Saategies for Addt Hkd Readers,” Journal @Reading, VOL 31, No. 7, April 19S8, p. 614.

!2 J~~ - ~g ‘t- Di~bl~ w: who A,rc ~ ~ fit DO we DO wi~ l“km?” L@hlg Learm”ng:

An Omnibus of Practke and Rtxea@ vol. 11, No, 3,1987, pp. 4-7,11.s -W ~~~ ~- maaiMt@ LUTrningDis u&fUder:A Reporf zo Z/W US. Cong?w (Washhgtm ~:

DeparmmtofHedthand Humau service% August 1987), cited hu.s. m!pummtofmor, OfFice Ofstrategk Plllm@JandPolicy Developme@ The Iearnln“ g Disabledin Employment andlhirdng Programs, Reseawh @ EvaluatkmI@ort Serka91-E (waddngtoll DC: Us. Deparmm of Labor, 1991).

4U.S* ~of Labor, op. cit., footaote 3, p. 2S.5 Ibid., p. 54.


1 -k Centa for Literacy studies, Univdly of~ ~ “Life at tbc _: Profiles of MultsWith bw L&racy Will&” OT.A CO~ - - 1 9 9 2 . ‘m names of “mdM&ahI have becm cbanged


deliberate and time-consuming steps to try tosecure good schooling for them.

Strategies for LiteracyDespite their low literacy skills, many adults

have developed a rich and diverse array ofstrategies for adapting to the literacy demandsof a print-based society and for learning newskills in their daily lives. The Office of Technol-ogy Assessment’s (OTA) profiles of adults sug-gest a number of strategies that adults with lowliteracy skills use to cope with daily life. Somepeople rely on others to help, and develop socialnetworks based on reciprocal exchange. Manypeople have worked out a variety of ways ofmanaging in which they do not depend on others;such strategies of self-reliance include learningthe routine formats of bills and forms, makingeducated guesses, and using written text forspecific purposes such as writing down words tolook up in a dictionary (see box 3-D). Avoidanceof situations where literacy or language demandsexceed skills is an important strategy for many.Still others, particularly non-native speakers ofEnglish, use technology for information andcommunication,

LEARNING IN ADULTHOODMuch of what is known about learning comes

from studying children in schools. In contrast,little is known about the process of learning thatcontinues once a person leaves school. Adultscontinue to learn throughout their lives. Transi-tions in life stages and changing life conditionsoften provide the impetus for much of thislearning.

Some researchers have examined how adultslearn in the various arenas of their lives, particu-

larly the workplace. One of the most consistentfindings of the research on literacy acquisitionamong adults is that a person’s literacy skills varyas a function of different settings (e.g., work,school, and home) in which he or she developsand uses those skills. Evidence indicates thatwork-related literacy demands and uses are verydifferent from school-related ones, and that expe-rienced workers are much more skilled at on-the-job problem solving using reading, writing, andmathematical skills than at pencil-and-paper testsmeasuring the ‘‘same’ operations. One line ofresearch has looked at on-the-job reading andwriting demands.8 This research has severalconsistent findings.

Workers in most types of employment doconsiderable job-related reading. The averagetimes reported in different studies range from30 minutes to 2 hours per day. When workers’literacy activities were compared with those ofhigh school and technical school students,workers’ average daily reading time of 113minutes was found to be higher than that ofstudents in school.9

Job-related reading is primarily “reading-to-do” (as opposed to “reading-to-learn,” whichis the primary purpose of school-based read-ing).

Workers read and write to accomplish tasks, solveproblems, and make evaluations about the useful-ness of material. . . . Students in secondaryschools read primarily to obtain informationneeded to answer teacher questions.l0

Work-related literacy demands are stronglyrepetitive and contextualized, and related toknowledge that the worker already has. Workershave repeated opportunities for reading and

s See, for example, Thomas G. Sticht et al., Human Resources Researeh Organization “Project REALISTIC: Determination of AchdtFunctional Literacy Skill hvels,” Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 7, No. 3, 1972, pp. 424-465.

g Larry Mikulecky, “JobLiteraey: The Relationship Between School Preparation and Workplace Actuality,” Reading Research Quurterly,vol. 17, No. 3, 1982, p. 418.

lo ~ -W% ~d J-e ~ger, ~ti~te for he study of Adult Literaey, Pennsylvania State University, “Tr~g for Job Li~~Y

Demands: What Research Applies to Practice, ” unpublished repom 1987, p. 4.


. — — —

re-reading the material, and their job experienceprovides them with knowledge that helps themunderstand the written material.


11 wl~~ Man Diehl, Indiana University, “Functional Literacy as a %riable Construct: An Examination of Attitudes, Behaviors, andStrategies Related to Functioriat Literacy, ” unpublished Ed.D. dissertation 1980, p. 251.

12 LW Ww&, ‘‘Literacy Task AMlySiS: Defii ad M

easuring Oecupationrd Literacy Demands,” paper presented at the AdultEducation Research Conference, Chicago, IL, 1985, p. 12.

13 ~lec~ and Ehlinger, op. cit., footnote 10, P. 11.

14 Sylvia Scribner, ‘‘Studying Working Intelligence, ” Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Conttzrt, Barbara Rogoff and JeanLave (eds.) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), pp. 9*, and Sylvia Seribner, ‘Think@ in Action.’ some Characteristics of

Practical Thought, ’ Practical Intelligence: Nature and Origins of Competence in the Everyday World, Robert F. Steinberg and RK. Wagner(eds.) (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 13-30.

‘s Scribner, ‘‘Think@ in Actioq ” op. cit., footnote 14, p. 28.


Box 3-E—Profile of Tom Addington1

1 Adapted from Center for Literacy Studies, UXdVerSity Of ‘MW$~ ~~fle, “Life at the Margins: Profiles of AdultsWith Low Literscy Skills,” OTA contractor reporg March 1992. The Mmcs of individuals have been changed.

mr’-

—u)

0am3u<

CL1681 ’63 3Nnr ~

analvmmu U3nNvMl Oav 3UW ml W133dsZME -W =WWl

Nm

! ImvaLmoms maon ma

I “Eqlvxl &UJ13!paJJ E? Uo Uoly?tmo}u! e6esop pue ‘dwu snq E ‘d!ls JIsodep ~ueq e ‘pJe3 l.lodeJ polps e Jo esuas 6upiEuJ epnpu! Sysel i@Je]!l h2p~JaA0 LJOUJ~oO


1‘Mlyn c. mmcr, “caducdng Bvdusdon ill Adult LMacy Program: rssuc#J and RcammmM On&” papcxprcY?altcdat the Midwest RMcamh-to-Prachco“ Conferc.ncq St. P@ MN, Oct. 3-4,1991.2** dbwsionofthemks Oflitcraeytosts lw@kbrd L. V’, “MatchingMaacyl&thg With SOciahlicy:

what AmtlMAwmawe& “ F$b Ixicfm ~.1 (Phihd@hiq PA Natkmd C!uMr on Adult I&racy, hhy ~, 1992).3~,~.d~,footnoteLP“3“4 - c ~~ S~EMIe StOCMI (*.), m ?&hnologyjbrLiterucy w*Edan W w MN: ~

saint Paull%~ r% ~ 1987)9 p. 171.

perform practical problem solving than in their ward) used a variety of complex and fairlyreading or computational ability per se. sophisticated mathematical calculations to aid in

Other studies of problem solving in everyday their decisionmakin“ g in grocery stores. However,situations also show selective and creative ap- these same shoppers were then tested with apreaches. One group of researchers studied prob- paper-and-pencil test on the same mathematicallem-solving activities as people did their grocery operations they had used in grocery shopping.shopping. 16 "Expert" shoppers (who ranged in Average scores were 59 percent on the arithmeticformal education level from the 8th grade up- test, “. . . compared with a startling 98 percent—

16 J- ~ve et ~., “The Dialectic of Arithmetic in Groce~ Shopping, “ in Rogoff and Lave, op. cit., footnote 14, pp. 67-94.


5 Thomas G. Stichg Applied Behavioral and Cognitive Science% Inc., “lkstiag and A$sewmat in Adult Basic B&cation

and English as a Second Language Program,” report prepared for the U.S. Department of E&cat@ Division of AdultE!ducaaoll“ and Literacy, January 1990, p. 11.

6 see, for example, Janice Lee Albert SXKI W- D’~ Samuel& Ad@ Learners’ Perceptions qfkUteraqy Pro~ranuand thehqact of Par@p@”on on Thefrk”ves (NOW YorlL NY: Literacy kdtance Center, Inc., August 1991).

7 S= m A. _ @ SUSSII z DSU@ “TheyReally Put a Hurtin’ on My Brain”: fzarning in Literacy volunteers

of New York City @aMglA NC: Literacy Sout4 January 1991).8 Fafurtherdiscua8iOl10f tkXC is8ue8, 8ee Us. c~ Office ofl@clinology Asacssment Twting in American Schools:

Asking the Right @estions, OTA-SET-519 (W@in@q DC!: Us. Govmmerlt [email protected] office, March 1992).

virtually error free-arithmetic in the supermar- everyone looks much less skilled than they reallyket. ’ ’17

Results of these studies suggest that avail-able methods for assessing people’s literacy donot give the full picture of what people can do.Just as research in cognitive science has indicatedthat knowledge and processes are intertwined, theresearch on everyday uses of literacy confirmsthat when the process (literacy as skill) is sepa-rated from the knowledge (everyday context),

are. This suggests that many people who performpoorly on paper-and-pencil tests may neverthe-less be functioning adequately, or to their ownsatisfaction, in their everyday lives. These resultsalso suggest the need for new kinds of literacyassessment methods; the trend toward developingperformance assessments in education offers thepromise of providing a broader and more complexpicture of individual accomplishment (see box 3-F).

17 Ibid,, pp. 82-83.


These findings about the importance of contextin learning are highly congruent with the view oflearning that has emerged from the cognitivesciences. This approach, which applies to bothchildren and adults, challenges many of thetraditional assumptions about learning on whichmost classrooms have been based.18 The tradi-tional model assumes that complex skills can bebroken down into simple skills, each of which canbe mastered independently and out of context.Not until all components are mastered can morecomplex “thinking skills develop. Moreover, inthis model, the teacher is the active partner in theeducational process, imparting knowledge to apassive student as though filling an empty jug.

In contrast, the “constructivist” view of learn-ing underscores the importance of the studentactively constructing his or her own knowledge.This view of learning suggests the followingprinciples to guide the design of effective learningenvironments: 19

■ People do not easily or predictably transferlearning-either from school to “real life,”from real life to classrooms, or from one subjectto another. Educational experiences shouldhelp students transfer skills, concepts, andknowledge they have learned to new situations.

■ Learners are not passive vessels into whichknowledge can be poured, but rather activeparticipants in their own learning. “The studentneeds chances to engage in choice, judgment,control process, problem formulation; s/heneeds the chance to make mistakes. We have anadage in our culture, ‘Experience is the bestteacher.’ In other words, you learn when you

do, a popular observation borne out by theresearch. Although not sufficient for effectivelearning, doing is necessary.”20

Knowledge is acquired from experience withcomplex, meaningful problems rather thanfrom practicing subskills and learning isolatedbits of knowledge. “Human beings-even thesmall child-are quintessentially sense-making,problem-solving animals. . . . As a species, wewonder, we are curious, we want to under-stand. . . . Fractionated and decontextualizedinstruction fails to mobilize this powerfulproperty of human beings in the service oflearning. ‘ ’21

Learners are not blank slates, but rather carryconcepts and knowledge they have acquiredelsewhere into the learning situation. “In otherwords, the teaching challenge is not to write ona clean slate. It is to confirm, disconfirm,modify, replace, and add to what is alreadywritten there. "22

Skills and knowledge are best acquired incontext. Previously it was thought that in orderto make skills and knowledge more generaliza-ble, most learning should be general andseparated from the context of everyday life.“Context, however, turns out to be critical forunderstanding and thus for learning. . . . Theimportance of context lies in the meaning thatit gives to 1earning.’ ’23

ADULTS SEEKING LEARNINGOPPORTUNITIES

Adults learn all the time, in all the arenas oftheir lives. For some adults, new roles and lifetransitions-becoming a parent, moving to anew

18 For h -ion se ~~ B. ~ck @ r)w&l p. I@nic~ “ASSCSS@ tlM - curricduux hkw ‘kd8 fOr ~-01.ld

Ref~” paper prepared at the National Commission on ‘ksting and Public Poky, August 1989.19 ~five~ipl~ IUKI ~ir ~“on~h-tim Sue E. Barymq hchera Collegq Columbia University, “Cognitive Science:

Indicting ‘May’s Schools and Designing Effective Learning Environments,” unpubW manuscrip~ Apr. 24, 1991.

m Ibid., p. 4.

21 Ibid., f). 8.

22 rbid., p. 9.

m Ibid., p. iii.


1 tipti from center for Literacy Studies, University of lkrmes~ Knoxville “Life at the IWl@ls: PrOfileS of ~~wWith Low Literacy Skills,” OTA contractor repofi March 1992. The ms of individuals have been changed.

part of the country, taking a new job, developinga medical problem-precipitate new learning andthe acquisition of new skills. Most people desir-ing to gain new knowledge or improve their skillsprobably do so informally, e.g., by reading booksor listening to books on tape, watching television,setting up informal tutoring exchanges with afriend or relative, observing others, doing volun-teer work, using the library, or attending lectures

at community centers (see box 3-G). But someadults seek formal education through enrolling incourses or engaging a tutor.

Evidence shows that people most likely tobenefit from adult education are least likely toparticipate in it. In 1990-91, a 1arge-scaIe,nationally representative survey was conductedabout the educational activities of adults in theUnited States. Thirty-eight percent of adults ages


17 and over reported participating in someeducational activity during the 12-month pe-riod.24 Findings included the following:

People with jobs were more likely to participatethan those who were unemployed or not in thelabor force (41 percent as compared to 21percent and 14 percent respectively);People with higher levels of education weremore likely to attend (see figure 3-l);People with higher incomes had higher partici-pation rates;Adults between the ages of 35 and 44 had thehighest rates of any age group;Adults with children under 16 had higher ratesthan those with no children (37 percent ascompared to 28 percent); andMen and women participated at the same rate.

These findings suggest that “. . . those whowould benefit greatly from participation in somepart-time educational activity seemed less likelyto do so-that is, adults with a 12th-gradeeducation or less, who were not employed, orwhose households were at thelevels. ’ ’25

The Decision to Participatein Adult Literacy Education

lowest income

Adults entering literacy programs are signifi-cantly different from children in school. They are,for the most part, ‘‘schooled. Most of them havehad at least 7 years of schooling, many have hadsome high school, and some have graduated fromhigh school, but without proficiency in reading orother basic skills. Furthermore, these adults enterthe classroom with a wealth of life experiencesthat reframe and often screen both their percep-tions and their participation in the learningexperience. They usually are volunteer learners,and face issues of entry and commitment many

Figure 3-l-Percentage of Adults (17 and Over)Participating

1990-91,

Years of SchoolCompleted

Bachelor% degreeor higher

Assoclate's degree

Some college

High school andvocational school

12th grade

9th to 11th grade

Up to 8th grade

in Educational Activities Duringby Current Education Level

(

0% 1OO/o 20%0 30% 40% 50%0 60%Percent participating in adult education

NOTE: “Edueationai activities” induds ail full- and part-time fonnai andinformai educatbnai experiences in which adults partidpated over the12-month period preeeding the survey. This includes enrollment incoiiege, vocational training, GED instruction, Engiish as a seeondlanguage, and any other type of education or training provided by anytypeof provider indudingcolleges and universities, empbyers, commu-nityorganizatbns (e.g. library, museum), and State and ioeal agenaes.Those stili attending elementary or secondary sohooi were exductectfrom the swey.

SOURCE: Roslyn Korb et al., U.S. Department of Echeation, Nat ionalCenter for Educatbn Statistbs, “Adult Education Profile for 199G91 ,“NCES #91-222, Septembsr 1991.

times in their adult lives as they drop out of andreenter programs. These adults have a strongsense of self, an emotionally laden history of past1earning experiences, and a complex set ofmotivations.

Why do more adults not enter literacy pro-grams? What factors affect their decisions to seekeducational opportunities?

~ me ~ey did not include those enrolled fidl time ill high sChOO1.

2S Ros@Kmbet~., Us. ~-entof~~ou N~o~C@mfor~u~tion s~tistics, “~tit~umtionfi~e for 1X91, ” NCES

91-222, unpublished repc@ September 1991, p. 2.

Chapter 3–Adults as Learners | 79

Painful past experiences with schools andteachers. Most people with low literacy skills

26 Hma ~lene F@er~t ~d Susan ~Ck D- They R~alj~ put a Hurtin’ on My Brain: Learning in Literacy vOblt.?t7S Of ~eW York city

(RaleigL NC: Literacy South, January 1991), p. 41. Fortunately, the center director worked out an arrangement so that Ms. Altrnan coutdbeginmore quickly.

27 Ibid., p. 39,28 L~@ K. BOC. ~~p~c.patio%>s Dfle/oPin~, ~~”~iSren”n~ andEva/~t~ng ~u~r Education, ~an B. KIlox m(t ASSOCiat~ (~S.) (SaII

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1980), p. 127.

29 SW ch. 4 for tier description of the United Auto Workers/Ford workplace 1- program.

30 H~ B~er, ‘ ‘me Stigma of Illiteracy, ” Aduh Basic Education, VO1. 1, No. 2, s urnmer 1991, pp. 67-78.

31 F~ge~t and Dar@ op. cit., footnote 26, p. 151.


have not experienced success in school situations.“For many, public school is associated withshame and pain from the time they were young. ’32

Some, like Tom, describe not being able to learnor understand but being passed on through thesystem:

I wasn’t learning nothing, they just passed meto get rid of me. They’d send me down on the ballfield, rake the ball field off or tell me to go to sleepor something or other. . . . Seemed like theydidn’t have enough patience so I just quit goin’.I wasn’t learnin’ nothin’. They wouldn’t try tolearn me nothing so I just quit goin’. . . . Theyought to took their time ‘cause I was willing tolearn. They ought to took their time to learn mebut they didn’t seem like they cared that much.33

Although most students have painful past experi-ences with schooling, they are affected in differ-ent ways: some retain negative self-evaluations ofthemselves as learners, some do not believe in theusefulness of education, and some remain reluc-tant to subject themselves to schools and teachersonce again.

The threatening nature of change. The deci-sion to enter a literacy program often is theculmination of a long period of personal struggle.‘‘Even after they have admitted to themselves thatthey need to develop better literacy skills, it canbe years before someone enters a program. ”34

Deciding to come usually means the participant isdeciding to change something about their life-tobe different than they are now.

In the future I would like to go to school becauseI would like to have something more meaningful

than a factory job. If I go to the school, I want totry to find some interesting job-you know–-tolearn how to get some more money doingsomething different because I need to be someother woman, you know. I don’t want to be thesame all the time.35

Often the decision to enter a program cannot beattributed to a single event, but is part of a largerprocess of change or life transition. Losing a job,confronting alcoholism, breaking up an intimaterelationship, or having one’s children beginschool can lead to changing roles and life choices.“As adults move through the life cycle, newmotivations to learn are constantly being gener-ated by the need to perform new roles. ’36 Whiledeciding to address a literacy problem can beassociated with a sense of hope and empower-ment, it can also trigger fear of failure or of beingincapable of realizing one’s dreams. Researchershave also suggested that improved literacy can bea threat to the balance of power in a family orbetween a couple.37 Improved literacy can alterthe stability of the person’s current life situation.One learner describes it in this way:

At first my husband didn’t approve. He wouldsay, “You’re always going out; you read toomuch; you think you know everything. " . .Because I couldn’t read, I was more dependent onhim. When I learned to read he lost somethingbecause I didn’t need him so much. I think it wassomething like what can happen when an alco-holic stops drinking.38

Fear of job loss. Many prospective learnersexpress a fear of reprisal such as job loss ifemployers learn about their true literacy skills.

32 Ibid., p. 31.

33 Cenkr for Litmcy Studies, op. cit., footnote 1, p- 19.

u F@e,t ~d D- op. cit., foomote 26, P. 35.

35 K~=n Rw~l, ccLi@wy ~ ~a@6~e: ~n@g t. be sO~ODy,” ~L ~.re~acy: Them l~~ue of TESL Talk, Jill Bell (cd.),

vol. 20, No. 1, 1990, p. 104.36 H~ Beder, ~ult ~.teracy: 1$~W~fOr P~/i~ ~~~pracfice (~ab~, FL: fieg~ publi~g CO., 1991), p. 50,

37 Rwtill, op. cit., foomote 35.

38 Kathleen A. Fitzsimmons, “African-Ameriean Women Who Persist in Literacy Programs: An Exploratory Study,” The Urburz Review,vol. 23, No. 4, December 1991, pp. 245.

Fear of supervisor punishment has been identifiedas a deterrent to participation in a number ofworkplace literacy programs.39 Some of theseprograms have had to offer offsite classes or enlistunion support to encourage employees to attend.

I was kinda scared the first time when I couldn’tread really. . . . I was kinda scared to talk to myboss actually about that because I thought she wasgoing to fire me. So one day I told her I wantedto talk to her. So she was willing to listen and I tellher I have a reading problem. And actually shewas very sympathetic with me. She helped mea

The Importance of MotivationAn adult’s motivation is often quite high by the

time they walk in the door of a literacy program.

Motivation is the force which impels voluntaryadult learners toward literacy education. When itis strong, adults can be expected to overcome thebarriers to participation that life imposes. Whenmotivation is weak participation is highly un-likely. It follows that if literacy programs candevelop recruitment and instruction which iscongruent with learners’ motivations, success inattracting and retaining students will be consider-ably enhanced.41

A number of theorists and researchers havestudied the motivations of adult learners. Al-though findings vary from study to study depend-ing on populations studied and methods used,several general principles have emerged from thisresearch. 42 Adults give a variety of reasons forparticipating in adult education. These motiva-

Chapter 3-Adults as Learners! 81

ii

i

Adults turn to education for many reasons includinghelping their children with homework, getting a newjob, reading for fun, or learning something new.

tions go well beyond a simple desire to improvebasic skills or get a high school diploma. Onereview of the literature suggests that the goalsreported in most studies can be grouped into threebroad types: employment goals (to gain orupgrade employment), hopes related to children,and self-improvement.43 In fact, one of the mostfrequently cited motivators for attending adulteducation is self-improvement, which includesreasons such as becoming a better person, want-ing to learn new things, being more independent,becoming better informed. These self-improve-ment reasons appear to be equally, if not more,important than vocational motivators (e.g., get-ting abetter job, making more money).44 Motiva-

39 Lw mm~, ‘wO&pl~e Literacy Programs: ~g anizationand Incentives,’ paper presented at “Adult Learning and Work A Focuson Incentives, ’ a conference sponsored by the U.S. National Center on Adult Literacy, Nov. 4-5, 1991.

40 Ffigemt ad D- op. cit., footnote *6 P 39

41 Beder, op. cit., footnote 36, P. 39.

42 For a more complete review of the research see ibid.

43 ~ Balmuth, Kingsborough Community College, City University of New York, “Essential Characteristics of Effective AdultLiteracy Programs: A Review and Analysis of the Research” unpublished paper, 1986.

44 Beder, op. Cltc, fm~ote ’36. se @ ~ord A&b, us. ~p~ent of ~u~oq The way we Are: The Community cOh?gt? US

American Thermometer (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing (Xtlce, February 1992),p.31. This report suggests that adults who attendcommunity colleges ‘‘. . . are more interested in learning, in acquiring new skills, and in completing . . . basic general education than inadvanced credentials, even if those credentials yield greater economic rewards.


tion also seems to be influenced by age and thelearner’s place in the life cycle. For example,diversion (a desire to dispel boredom) is given asa reason for participating by younger and olderpeople, but less so for those in middle age.Concerns about professional advancement, incontrast, were highly motivating to those inmiddle age, less so in later years.45

Why People Do Not ParticipateMost estimates suggest that somewhere be-

tween 5 and 10 percent of eligible adults haveenrolled in federally sponsored literacy programs

46 AS the above section haswithin the last year.demonstrated, the adult who shows up at an adulteducation program is likely to be highly moti-vated and has managed to overcome or set asideother potential barriers to participation. But whatof the adults who never come? What do we knowabout those who do not participate in literacyprograms? It is much easier to survey, observe,and interview adults who come to programs thanthe much larger part of the population who do not.Lack of information about nonparticipants is amajor problem facing those who would increaseparticipation rates.47

Some researchers have attempted to find outwhat the common barriers are to attending adulteducation classes. Most of these efforts aresurveys that provide a list of possible reasons fornot attending classes and ask adults to select theones that apply to them.48 This research is oflimited generalizability, however, because it tellsus only what people say keeps them from

participating, which can be greatly affected bysocial desirability (e.g., it is easier and moreacceptable to say cost and time are deterrents thanto admit one is too anxious to try it or that onethinks education is worthless). Nevertheless thiswork has helped to illuminate the commonly citedreasons that people give for not attending.

Most of the research on barriers or deterrents toparticipation in adult education has been con-ducted with a broad range of adults, and does notfocus on those with few skills. A synthesis of thisgeneral research suggests eight major types ofdeterrents:

“1. Individual, family or home-related problems

2,

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

(e.g., child care, poor health, transportationdifficulties)

Cost concerns, including opportunity costsand lack of financial assistanceQuestionable worth, relevance, or quality ofavailable educational opportunitiesNegative perceptions regarding the value ofeducation in general, including those related toprior unfavorable experienceLack of motivation or indifference towardlearning (e.g., anomie, apathy)Lack of self-confidence in one’s learningabilities, including lack of social support/encouragementA general proclivity toward nonaffiliation(e.g., marginal involvement in social activi-ties)Incompatibilities of time and/or place, espe-cially those associated with conflicting de-mands of work. ”49

45 Beder, op. cit., footnote 36. See alSO K. Patricia Cross, A&A as Learners (San FIWKiSCO, CA JOSSV-EhSS, 1981).46 For e~ple, S= ~ ‘d~~ “Nonparticipation in Adult EducatioxL” NCAL Connections, newsletter, winter 1992, pp. 4-5,

47 Gordon G. Darkenwal~ Literacy Assistance CmtW, ~., “Adult Literacy Educatiom A Review of the Remarchand priorities for Future

-,” unpublished report, 1986.4s For ~mp]e, smey i~m include s~~nts such as: “I would feel strange going btlck to whoo~’ “I don’t ~ve enough * ~ to

go back to school, “ ‘‘School is too m “‘‘Ihaven’t known where there are any classes,” “I don’t need a diplo~’ ‘‘My fiends would laughat me if I wtmt back to school. ” Hal Beder, ‘‘Reasons for Nonparticipation in Adult Basic lliucatioq ” A&h Education @urterfy, vol. 40,No. 4, Summer 1990, pp. 207-218. For a review of these sumey attempts see Beder, op. cit., footnote 36.

49 CL. S- Detewents t. Participan”on: An A&lt E&cation Di/e~ (Col~bus, OH: ERIC cl~gholl~ on Add~ ~, ~d

Vocational &hlCiltiOU 1986), p. 35.

Chapter 3-AduIts as Learners | 83

Table 3-l-Factors Affecting an Individual’s Decision to Participate in Adult Education

Internal factors External factors

●

●

●

●

●

�

Self-evaluation (especially beliefs about self .as a learner)

●

Attitudes toward education and school●

Motivation and importance of personal goals

Expectation that education can help with●

goals

Perceptions about the amount of effort●

required


Reasons for nonparticipation thus fall into twomajor groupings: reasons internal to the personand those that are external or in the environment(see table 3-l). Internal reasons (which have alsobeen called dispositional or psychosocial) includeattitudes and feelings about the usefulness andvalue of adult education and evaluations aboutoneself as a learner.50 External reasons can besituational (cost, time, transportation), informational(not knowing about relevant opportunities) andinstitutional (issues under the control of theschooling institution such as scheduling, registra-tion procedures, course prerequisites, and loca-tion of the classes).

Different barriers are likely to be more or lessimportant to different kinds of people. For exam-ple, situational barriers tend to be associated withthose who are married, have children, and hold ajob. Cost factors tend to be cited by younger agegroups, and adults of lower socioeconomic statustend to be more deterred by lack of information.51

However, very little is known about whichdeterrents are most important and whether theelimination of those barriers would actuallyincrease participation.

Of the situational barriers, lack of time seemsto be most often and consistently cited by adultsas a deterrent. ‘‘Clearly, such proven strategies as

Attitudes of family and peers

Life-cycle transitions/role changes

Access to information about relevant educa-tional opportunities

Situational barriers to participation: (e.g., time,money, transportation, childcare needs)

Institutional barriers (e.g., fixed schedules, regis-tration requirements, course prerequisites)

varied and flexible scheduling, distance learning,and provisions for self-pacing will make educa-tion more accessible to adult learners. ”52 Otherstrategies for removing situational barriers mightinclude providing childcare or transportationcosts, locating learning sites near the workplace,providing better information about available re-sources, and so forth. Decisions about whichsituational barriers to remove-for example, byproviding childcare-will depend on the specificgroups being served by programs.

Because they are more concrete, situationalbarriers are often the easiest to remove or changethrough policy decisions. Attitudinal barriers mayprove to be far more difficult and complex toaddress. Dislike for school, low perception of theneed for education, and perceptions that a largeamount of effort is required to make gains in adulteducation all reduce participation of those most inneed. Strategies for removing some of theseattitudinal barriers might include developingways to encourage or motivate those who do notperceive a need or to convince learners thatprogress is possible and leads to desired out-comes. If dislike for school is a substantialdeterrent to adults with low literacy skills, theneducational programs may need to be “de-schooled” and removed from some of the institu-

50 G. Dmkenw~d ~d S. Me- A&ft Ed~atiOn: Fou~afiom Of practice (New York NY: khlrper d ROW, 1982),

51 B~er, op. cit., footnote 36.

52 ~ou ~en~e ~d Gordon C+ D~~~~~ “Det~en~ to ~cipation in ~~t E&~tion: Profdes Of PoteIldid kUTle13, ’ A&/l

Education Quarterly, vol. 41, No. 1, fall 1990, p. 40.


A lack of time or transportation prevents many adults from attending literacy classes. This classroom on wheelstravels throughout Los Angeles bringing learning resources to adults in their own neighborhoods.

tional trappings of schools. Although these are allstrategies worth exploring, no one really knowswhich, if any, will have the greatest impact onincreasing participation rates.

MEETING ADULT LEARNER NEEDS:THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY

New technologies offer considerable promisein addressing the special concerns faced by adultlearners who wish to improve their literacy skills.Technology can deliver instruction to learners inmany new and different ways, whether they arecomputer-based, video-based (e.g., television andvideotapes), or audio-based (e.g., radio, audio-tape, and telephone). Some of the promise of new

technologies reflects effects on increasing andsustaining motivation. Another plus is the possi-bility that instruction delivered via technologiesmay directly influence cognitive understanding—that is, help learners master new informationbetter, more comprehensively, or more quickly.Other advantages come from the flexibility andefficiencies these new technologies offer to adultswho have very small amounts of time to devote tolearning.

Although those using technology to teachliteracy have considerable anecdotal evidence ofits effectiveness, very little empirical evidence isavailable to substantiate these claims. Someresearch evidence has accumulated about the


effects of technology on learning,53 but much Of itis based on studies done with children. Theresearch that has been done with adults comesprimarily from higher education and militarysettings.

With these caveats in mind, then, the promiseof technology for adults with low literacy skillscan be described in a number of areas.

Reaching barriers Outside of ClassroomsTechnology can facilitate the delivery of learn-

ing experiences in places other than classrooms.Adults can learn at times and places convenientfor them; many situational barriers such as lack oftransportation or childcare can be overcome bybringing instruction into homes and communities.Similarly, for many adults with low literacy skillsprivacy is important; learningin their own homesmay offer a less stigmatizing way to obtain furthereducation. Because of painful past experienceswith classroom-based learning, some adults withlow literacy skills may be more motivated to giveeducation a ‘‘second chance’ if it can be deliv-ered in nonschool-based settings, such as thehome, libraries, or community centers.

Attempts to offer adults instruction that is moreconvenient has its roots in the correspondencecourse-a method invented in the late 19thcentury to provide instruction to learners unableto attend a class.54 Communications media such asbroadcast television and audio recording havelong been used in corporate, military, and univer-sity continuing education sectors as a means tooffer education at a distance. More recently newforms of telecommunications have offered newpossibilities for reaching learners.55

But do adults learn as well or as effectivelywhen taught at a distance? Is face-to-face instruc-tion an inherently superior way of teaching or canother methods be just as effective? Most studiesthat have compared face-to-face instruction withother methods such as teleconferencing, video-based instruction, or instruction via radio andaudiotapes have found that achievement gainsmade by students exposed to the technologieswere at least equal to those made by studentsreceiving face-to-face instruction.56 In addition,although the research findings indicate that theabsence of face-to-face contact is not detrimentalto learning, the literature suggests that a require-ment for successful distance education may be acarefully designed learner support system. In sucha system students are supported by teachers whodo things such as help students organize studytime and develop study skills, provide diagnosticcounseling and tutorial assistance when neces-sary, and monitor and help sustain student in-volvement and motivation for learning. 57

Using Learning Time EfficientlyTechnologies can facilitate more efficient use

of precious learning time. Because they mustjuggle multiple roles and responsibilities, mostadults have very little time to devote to learning.Many adults who have tried to participate inliteracy programs find themselves unable tosustain their participation because of conflictingjob schedules, family responsibilities, or trans-portation problems. Although they may haveprecious parcels of free time, these do not alwaysoccur when classes are scheduled. To sustain theirmotivation, many adults may need to take advan-

53 s=, for ~~ple, Jerome Johnstoq Electronic tiarning: From Audiotape tO Vriieodisc (HiUadde, NJ: ~w~@ ~1~~, 1987).

M Michel (3. Moore, ‘‘Effects of Distance ~: A Summary of the Literature,” OTA contractor report, May 31, 1989.55 s= U.S. CoWe~~, Offim of ~~olom ~Xss=nt, ~“~ing for ~arning: /l New COur.W for Education, OTA-SET-430 (W~hiX@Oq

DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, November 1989). Available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Rdnieal InformationService (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springtleld, VA 22161 (703) 487465Q order #PB90-156%9.

56 Johnsto~ op. cit., footnote 53; Moore, op. cit., footnote 54; and Saul ROC_ “~“ From lkehnologies: A Perspective on theResearch Literature,” O’IA contractor qort, Deeember 1992.

57 Moore, op. cit., fOOtnOte 54.

331-048 0 - 93 – 4 QL. 3


tage of these small segments of time or may bedrawn to opportunities that offer other efficien-cies such as learning while commuting, waiting inthe doctor’s office, or on a lunch break. Technol-ogy offers ways to deliver education at times andplaces that can maximize the efficient use of freetime.

There are a number of other ways that technol-ogy can make learning more efficient. When agroup of students sits in a classroom and learnsfrom a teacher, the pace of instruction is set by theteacher. Some students could move at a fasterpace, while other students, perhaps with less priorknowledge or with other needs, could benefitfrom a slower pace. Technology can allowstudents to master content at the pace that suitsthem best. For example, audio and videotapes oflectures allow students who need repetition torevisit the material until it is mastered, while otherstudents move on to new materials. Features ofcomputers and multimedia technologies can allowthe learner to set the pace at which text is read ormaterials are presented. People can spend moretime on things they do not understand, whilemoving quickly through those they have alreadymastered. A lecture or a broadcast presented at afixed rate is understood by some learners butleaves some bored and others confused. Allowingthe learner to control features such as pace, theneed for repetition, and the need for extraexplanation or feedback helps optimize timespent learning. This capacity of the technology isparticularly important for adults, since they cometo educational settings with an extremely widerange of life experience, knowledge, and formalschooling.

A review of adult education studies comparingcomputer-based education (CBE) to conventionalinstruction methods found positive effects onadult learners.58 First, these CBE methods raised

achievement scores by an average of 0.42 stand-ard deviations-or the equivalent of an increasefrom the 50th to the 66th percentile. In addition,in 12 of the 13 studies that reported instructionaltime, the computer methods were faster; i.e.,adults learners typically required about 70 percentof the time required by conventional teachingmethods. These results suggest that, at least ingeneral adult education, the learner can learn asmuch or more of the material in a shorter amountof time than with conventional methods.

A more recent review of interactive videodiscmethods in the military, higher education, andindustrial training suggests a very similar pat-tern. 59 Across 47 studies reviewed, results sug-gested that interactive videodisc instruction in-creased achievement an average of 0.5 standarddeviations over conventional instruction, an in-crease from the 50th percentile to about the 69thpercentile of achievement. Results also suggestedthat the more the interactive features were used,the more effective was the instruction. Theaverage amount of student time saved across eightstudies that looked at this factor was 31 percent.These results suggest that adults (in military,higher education, and training settings) learnmore in less time with interactive videodiscmethods. Studies to date are not detailed enough,however, to allow conclusions about whetherfactors such as self-pacing account for theseefficiencies.

Sustaining MotivationTechnologies can enhance and sustain the

motivation of adult learners. Many factors candeter an otherwise motivated adult from partici-pating in a literacy program. Technology offersways of protecting the privacy of learners. Inaddition to its capacity to deliver instructionoutside of classrooms, technology offers other

58 Cmc. Km et ~., “The Effectiveness of Computer-Based Adult Edueatiom A h4eta-Anslysis,” Journal of Educational ComputingResearch, vol. 2, No. 2, 1986, pp. 235-252. See slso Rockmaq op. cit., footnote 56.

59 J.D. ~e~her, Effectiveness ad Cost of Interactive Vi&odiic Instruction in Defense Trtu”ning and Education (Alexandrk VA: btitukfor Defense Analyses, July 1990).

Chapter 3–Adults as Learners! 87

Ii

Computers offer privacy, self-paced instruction, and patient feedback-features that adult learners value.

privacy options. Working on computers, forexample, learners no longer have to worry aboutmaking mistakes or feeling evaluated by teachersand peers. Computers are patient, nonevaluativetutors. But privacy need not mean isolation.Learners can use electronic networks, fax, tele-phones, and other distance technologies to shareinformation and communicate with learners ortutors in other location-still retaining theiranonymity but participating in new kinds of‘‘schools’ and ‘‘communities."60

Educators working with technology have longbeen aware of a kind of “novelty” factor thatimproves the motivation of students working withtechnology. Learners, it seems, find technology a

‘‘fun’ way to learn and may also find it rewardingto master ‘‘new machines. Adults with lowliteracy skills may particularly enjoy the opportu-nity to work with computers and gain experiencewith this important and pervasive technology.Some educators have also argued that computermethods also sustain motivation, because theycan allow learning materials to be customized tomeet the interests of individual learners. Forexample, a learner could scan a newspaper articleof her choice into the computer; she couldpractice various assignments using content inwhich she is interested.

Multimedia technologies allow learners tobranch off and explore ideas of particular interest.

@ ‘M-@ -, ‘‘Li- & R&chines: h Overview of the Use of ‘l&Imology in Adult Literacy IkOgIWUS,” Upubw ~~PL1993, p. 7.


The computer’s capacity to allow learners choicesover content as well as provide immediate feed-back on the learner’s responses makes it particu-larly well-suited to maintaining the motivation ofa student as he or she progresses. These featuresare particularly important for adult learners whooften feel that learning is difficult and may needto re-experience themselves as successful learn-ers.

Research on attitudes and motivation in rela-tion to technology-based instruction is fairlylimited, though many of the published conclu-sions seem to be positive. Some of the positiveeffects associated with computers may be noveltyeffects of using technology rather than the in-structional potential of the delivery system itself.61

Research with students from elementary to col-lege age indicates that students enjoy usingcomputers for several reasons: they like beingable to make mistakes without embarrassment;they enjoy immediate, helpful feedback; and theylike graphics and game formats. Some studieshave suggested that computers are motivatingbecause they give students the feeling of being incontrol. Other studies have suggested that com-puters contribute to students spending more timeon a task, which in turn can contribute to higherlevels of achievement.62

The benefits on motivation of factors such asimmediate feedback, encouragement for correctanswers, and being able to work on content ofpersonal interest has long been known. Thedesign of software that incorporates these featuresis likely to influence motivation and learningmore than the effects of the technology alone.Good instructional software that builds on what isknown about adult learning is likely to influenceachievement and attitudes. Most available re-search cannot, however, distinguish among the

various explanations for the motivating effects oftechnologies.

Individualizing InstructionTechnologies can offer opportunities to indi-

vidualize instruction, reaching all types of learn-ers in ways they learn best. Different media offerdifferent modalities for presenting material: somematerials may be understood better if they can beheard (e.g., a persuasive speech) or seen demon-strated (e.g., the steps involved in cardiopulmon-ary resuscitation). Information presented in twomodalities at the same time can sometimesfacilitate learning; e.g., beginning readers oftenbenefit from hearing text read to them while theyfollow along with the text.

Audio and video technologies have long beenused in classrooms to supplement print-basedmaterials. The expanding capacities of new multi-media technologies offer opportunities for learn-ers to access materials in many different forms—text, graphics, moving video, still video, digitizedaudio-and to combine these modes in uniqueways. Thus, the new technologies offer ways ofindividualizing instruction to meet the needs ofdifferent types of learners.

The research on this topic is not extensive butit suggests that individuals do differ in theirresponsiveness to different media. Several studieshave suggested that lower achieving studentsbenefit more from the availability of audio andvideotaped versions of courses. In one study,university students in the lowest quartile ofachievement who received their psychologycourse via audiotape outperformed the live lec-ture students; in addition, fewer of the lowerachieving tape students dropped the course.63

61 RW~ op. cit., footnote 56.

62 Jay P. Sivin m(j Ella R. BMo, Interactive EdU~tiOIld SyS@llS ~~ ~., “M.kXWO mputers and Related Learning ‘Ikdnologies:Overview,” unpublished manuseripc n.d. See also Kathy A. Krendl and Debra A. Lie- “Computers and Learning: A Review of” ReeentReseare h“ Journal of E&cational Computing Research, vol. 4, No. 4, 1988, Pp. 367-389.

ISJs= Jobto~ op. Cit, footnote 53.


Some of the most pertinent evidence comesfrom the British Open University, which in the1970s and 1980s created a large number ofmultimedia courses (i.e., these courses includedcomponents of printed text, television, radio, andaudiotape). These were higher education coursesdesigned to be completed primarily at home.Research on the use of the various media in thesecourses indicated strong individual differencesbetween students in their ability to learn fromdifferent media.

Whereas most students on most courses do seemto make an effort to watch the majority oftelevision programmed, there is no coherentpattern for radio. Some students listen to none,Others listen to them all. Some listen to half. . . .Although radio may not be used a great deal by alot of students, those students who do use itregularly find it extremely valuable. . . . Theweaker students who do watch or listen rate thebroadcasts as more helpful than do the moresuccessful students. a

Having examined other possible explanations, theresearchers concluded that some students havedifficulty with text, as they have not beensuccessful readers in their past academic experi-ences. These students are likely to rely on audioand video for a simplification of the material.

One group of researchers working with adultliteracy learners developed an inventory to distin-guish between auditory learners and visual learn-ers. Results suggest that those learners who readat lower levels (junior high and below) have astrong preference for auditory-based instructionalmaterials. 65 These researchers argue for the im-portance of including clear digital audio compo-nents in effective literacy courseware.

Providing Access to Information ToolsFor many years, printed text was the primary

medium through which people gained informa-tion. Schools and libraries provided access tobooks and other texts, and taught people how touse these resources to get needed information.Today a whole new information infrastructure isemerging; access to it depends on understandingand using a variety of technologies.

As individuals, those of us already equipped witha computer and a modem on our desks do notrepresent the Americans who have the most togain by greater access to information. We alreadyhave the means to find out most of what we wantto know, electronically or through books, maga-zines, and, most importantly, through telephonecalls to fellow members of the informed, More-over, our basic needs (e.g., for health, education,and a job) are largely met.66

Just as the inability to read has often isolatedpeople from the mainstream of society, techno-logical ‘illiteracy’ threatens to marginalize thosewho lack technology access. Helping adults learnto use information tools promotes lifelong learn-ing and independence. Everyone is entitled toknow how to make effective use of the variety,quality, and quantity of information available aswell as the powerful tools for creating andmanipulating information (see box 3-H).

CONCLUSIONSThe findings of this chapter on adults and

learning have several important implications forliteracy policy planning. Contrary to stereotype,adults with low literacy skills are strong andresourceful, skilled and knowledgeable. Eachbrings a wealth of concepts, knowledge, andexperience as a base for new learning. These

~ An~Ony W. Bates, ‘ ‘Adult Learning From Educational IUevision: The Open University Experience, ” Learning From Television:Ps}cho/ogicul and Educational Research, Michael J.A. Howe (cd.) ~ndon, Engl~d: ~ade~c Wesst 1983), PP 73-74

65 John A. Gretes, ‘‘Using Interactive Videodisc for the Assessment of Adult Learning Styles, ” paper present at the NATO AdvancedResearch Workshop “Item Banking: Interactive Testing and Self-Assessment,” Liege, Belgium, Oct. 27-31, 1992.

66 Francis D. Fisher, ‘ ‘What the Coming Tklecomrnunicatiom Infrastructure Could Mean [o Our Family,” The Aspen Instirute Quarterly,vol. 5, No. 1, winter 1993, p, 121.


1 A&pti fim M* H@lnd ad Jim stb~e, “Does Video Instruction Have a Part to Play in Adult LiteracyProgram,” wpubW msnuscrip~ 1993.

2 JOhU 1. ~A Place CalledSchool: Prospects for the Future (New Yorlq NY: McGraw-Hill, 1984).3 B- A. MarcMlonis and Herman Niebuhr, Television Ikchnologies in Combatting Illiteracy: A Monograph, ED 253

772 (washi@oQ DC: National Institute of Educati~ 1985).4 W= f~ & s-, university of ‘Ibnnea~ Knoxville, “IMe at the Mar@: Pro51ea of Adults With Low

Literacy skins,” O’w COrmdOr V* - W9Z p. 138.5 -~e~ ~~~=isim ~ts ~ ~ po~ti~ Swtion MCIM-” Zwchers CoUege Record, vol. 94, No.

1, fau 1992, p. 74.

adults are not passive vessels into which learningshould be poured, but active builders of their ownskills and knowledge-participants in the educa-tional process. These adults are capable of mak-ing choices, of mastering their own learning tools,and of becoming competent consumers of learn-ing opportunities. The delivery of literacy serv-ices must consider these learners as potentialconsumers exercising choice over available op-tions.

The great majority of adults needing literacyskills do not participate in educational programsfor which they are eligible. The problem ofnonparticipation--- what causes it and how factorssuch as culture and life history may affectit—-needs to be better understood. New models ofeducation, tools of instruction, and methods fordelivery need to be developed that will appeal tononparticipants.


Adult learners participate in learnin g opportu-nities for a wide variety of reasons, which include,but are not limited to, employment and workforceparticipation. ‘‘Adult literacy education mustfocus on meeting learners’ goals, for as long asparticipation is voluntary society can reap itsbenefits only if learners are able to reap theirown. ’ ’67 Literacy policy and planning needs torecognize that learners have a broad range oflearning goals and outcomes. Adult literacyeducation can be viewed as an investment in aneducated citizenry. To paraphrase Thomas Jeffer-son, education should enable all citizens toexercise the rights of self-government and topursue happiness and individual developmentwithin society. Literacy policy and practice canbe developed to build on the goals and motiva-tions of individuals learners.

67 B~er, op. cit., footnote 36, p. 161.

The LiteracySystem:

A Patchwork ofPrograms and

Resources 4

T he literacy service delivery ‘‘system’ is a heterogeneousand eclectic mix of funding sources, programs, adminis-trative agencies, and service providers. Literacy pro-grams range from individual tutors working one-on-one

with learners in small voluntary programs to federally sponsoredresearch efforts affecting thousands of learners. Instruction andservices are provided by school districts, community colleges,employers, labor unions, community-based organizations, librar-ies, and churches. Programs take many different approaches:some focus on basic reading and writing skills; others onfamily-based literacy, workplace literacy, or on daily livingskills; and some tackle literacy as an element of job training. Thiscomplex, diverse system is frequently criticized for beingfragmented and inadequate. There is an almost universal sensethat more can and should be done, and that it can and should bedone better.

FINDINGS■ The providers of adult literacy services are diverse and do not

form a comprehensive system for addressing the literacy needs

■

of the Nation. Students seeking literacy assistance are con-fronted with a web of disconnected, often overlappingprograms.There is no one best approach to providing adult literacyservices, but some programs have been more successful inmeeting learners’ needs than others. Success seems to reflectgreater resources, secure funding, and a philosophy thatresponds to the learner’s individual needs.Data do not currently exist to enable the Office of TechnologyAssessment (OTA) to make any reasonable estimate of the

93


■

■

■

■

total funding devoted to adult literacy educa-tion. Public support is the most identifiablesource. Federal funding has grown signifi-cantly in the last few years, and has providedleadership, leveraging other dollars towardadult literacy. However, the greatest growthover the last decade has been in State support,now outstripping Federal funding for literacy.As the major funders, Federal and State pro-grams and policies largely define who is servedand how and where they are served.The overall amount spent by business andindustry on literacy training for their workers isexpanding due to union and public perceptionof the links between literacy and economiccompetitiveness, but there is no aggregate dataon these programs.A number of factors, including new Federal andState laws, a diverse population of learners, andchanging technologies have combined to in-crease the variety of learning sites and publicand private agencies funding and administeringprograms. Most importantly, new opportunitiesgo beyond the traditional school-based pro-grams run by local education agencies (LEAs).The content of adult basic education (ABE),adult secondary education, preparation for thegeneral equivalency diploma (GED) examina-tion, and English as a second language (ESL)instruction shows little variation across pro-gram sponsors. An increasing emphasis onmatching curriculum to the learner’s dailyneeds has led to more contextualized content,especially as workforce and family literacyprograms gain in popularity.Most programs have been based on an open+entry/open-exit model, allowing students to proceed

at their own pace and leave when they choose.While this approach is important for adults andassumes different motivational factors thanthose of schoolchildren, it also means that

many adults do not remain in programs longenough to receive the full benefit of instruction.

Rapid turnover and high dropout rates lead tolimited learnin g gains.Most instruction is provided by part-time orvolunteer teachers. Certified teachers are gen-erally K-12 educators without special trainingin the art and science of teaching adults.Volunteers receive little training and supportfor the challenges they are expected to meet.Funding is a constant concern. For m o s tprograms, unstable and short-term fundingmake it difficult to plan, to purchase necessaryequipment or materials, or to develop profes-sional staffing ladders. The instability of fund-ing also gives a negative message to the clients.The use of technology in adult literacy pro-grams is limited, but growing. Technology canoffer benefits for individual learners and forprogram management. For today’s labor-intensive system, technology is an alternative

for overburdened programs unable to providecomprehensive individualized instruction tolarge numbers of students.The barriers to more effective use of technol-

ogy are similar to those faced in K-12 educa-tion, but more severe in adult literacy programs.These barriers include funding limitations, staffunschooled in teaching with technologicaltools, adminis“ trators unaware of technology’spotential, and uneven curriculum coverage in

current software.

THE DELlVERY SYSTEMThe patchwork of the present system is best

understood by answering these questions: whoprovides the funds, who admini sters the pro-grams, who is being served, what kind of instruc-tion do they receive, and who are the teachers?

Who Provides the Funds?Money for programs comes from many sources:

Federal, State, regional, and local governmentagencies on the public side and businesses,unions, foundations, charitable institutions, andindividual donors on the private side. Estimating

Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources | 95

a total amount of literacy funding is complicatedbecause most programs receive support frommultiple public and private sources, literacyservices may be subsumed under broader fundingcategories, and data collection requirements ofsponsors do not necessarily complement oneanother. OTA finds that it is impossible to specifythe total amount spent on adult literacy servicesacross the Nation.

It is clear, however, that the public sector is themost identifiable and largest source of support.Consequently, the public sector has an enormouseffect on program administration.

Federal Programs and DollarsThe Federal Government supports adult liter-

acy education through an assortment of targetedprograms administered by several Federal agen-cies. These programs not only provide a base offunding for local literacy efforts, but also greatlyinfluence State and local funding, administrativestructures, priorities, target populations, services,and instructional approaches. These efforts areexplored in more detail in chapter 5.

At least 29 different Federal programs in 7agencies support adult literacy and basic skillseducation as one of their primary purposes, andmany more include adult literacy as a peripheralgoal. Chief among the Federal literacy programsis the Adult Education Act (AEA), administeredby the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Infiscal year 1992, the AEA provided $270 millionfor the following programs: State basic grants;State literacy resource centers; workplace literacypartnerships; English literacy programs; and na-tional research, evaluation, and demonstration.ED also supports literacy education throughspecial programs for adult prisoners, commercialdrivers, homeless adults, Native American adults,and migrant adults, and through the Even StartFamily Literacy Program, the Bilingual Family

Literacy Program, the Library Services and Con-struction Act, and the Student Literacy Corps.

Although ED continues to have primary re-sponsibility for adult education, the influence ofother agencies, particularly the Departments ofHealth and Human Services (HHS) and Labor(DOL), is growing. HHS administers the newFederal $1-billion Job Opportunities and BasicSkills (JOBS) training program for welfare recipi-ents, as well as programs for refugees and eligiblelegalized aliens and family literacy activitiesunder the Head Start program. DOL has responsi-bility for the $4-billion Job Training PartnershipAct (JTPA), which authorizes basic skills educa-tion as a means toward its primary goal ofworkforce development for disadvantaged youthand adults. Other Federal programs with adultliteracy and basic skills education as a majorpurpose are spread across other agencies, includ-ing the Departments of Defense, Justice, andInterior, and ACTION.

Because many Federal programs authorizingmultiple activities do not require that obligationsor expenditures for adult education activities bereported separately, available data is limited forestimating Federal funding.1 At best, one canarrive at a partial, low-end estimate by totalingidentifiable adult education and literacy obliga-tions. Using this method, OTA estimates thefiscal year 1992 spending for adult literacy to bea minimum of $362 million.2

State and Local Programs and DollarsAll States participate in the major Federal

literacy-related programs, and most participate inseveral smaller Federal programs as well. Inaddition, States fund their own programs, both tofulfill their matching responsibilities under Fed-eral programs and to carry out State-identifiedpriorities. As a result, State-level activities andprograms in support of literacy vary considerably.

1 Judith A. Alamprese snd Donna M. Hughes, Study of Federal Funding Sources and Services for Adhlt Education (Washington DC:Cosmos Corp., 1990), p. vi.

z See ch 5 for furrher discussion.


New Jersey, for example, administers 63 different agencies, library funds to State libraries-therebasic skills and literacy programs through 6different State agencies; Illinois reports 33 differ-ent funding sources.3

Many State agencies are involved in theadministration of literacy-related programs. Al-though State administrative structures roughlytrack the Federal structured funds flow toState education agencies, JOBS funds to welfare

are important variations by State. In many States,the agency with responsibility for elementary andsecondary education programs also admini stersadult education.4 Other States place adult educa-tion in agencies responsible for vocational educa-tion, community colleges, or job training.

To bring coherence to literacy efforts, 40 Stateshave created State-level coalitions to coordinate

3 us+ D_cnt of ~uWtio4 A su~~ f/epo~: Natio~l Fo~ on t~ A&t Eduation Delivery System (waShhl@O~ ~;: U.S.

Goverrmwat Printing Office, 1991), p. 15.4 Critics have charged that this arrangexnenti which has historical precedent in the ~ has contributed to the ‘‘second-class status” of

the adult basic education program. See William F. Pierce, “A Redefined Role in Adult Literacy: Integrated Policies, Programs, andProcedures,” background paper for the IYoject on Adult Literacy, Southport Institute, 1988, p. 16.


provided a strong foundation for the program to evolve. Baltimore Reads also received considerable publicity and

financial support from the family of baseball star Cal Ripken. 3

“Baltimore Reads” has become an integrated system of citywide literacy programs and includes a hotline,literacy hubs and satellites, technical support and assistant, and research into challenges faced by adult learners.The original six community-based literacy programs have expanded to 21 programs. Baltimore’s literacy effortsleverage Federal, State, and local monies, as well as business and foundation support. The city’s share of FederalAdult Education Act funds, adminis tered at present through the community college, are supplemented by Federallibrary service funds, $800,000 from city-administered JTPA funds, State welfare reform, and a separate StateLiteracy Works Program.

The BCLC/BRI program provides curriculum expertise and technological support to local literacy efforts. Acurriculum specialist helps programs identify useful materials and instructional approaches, and maintain contactwith the professional literacy community. One of BRI’s major goals is to experiment with and evaluate newtechnologies to provide technical assistance and a “technology vision’ to local programs. Since most programshave neither the resources to acquire hardware and software nor the expertise to install and maintain it, BRI’stechnical specialist-’ the Indiana Jones of used computers ’’-plays a variety of roles, from ‘ ‘computer guru,”to part-time classroom teacher, to software evaluator. A used computer donation program has increased theinstalled hardware base; e.g., when a city department changed its system, BRI received the 10 computers that werebeing replaced.

Various technologies have been installed in different centers. For example, in the Ripken Center a computerlaboratory with an integrated learning system supplements classroom instruction. Students can listen to lessonson headphones, which helps those with low reading skills. One student noted: “The headphones give instruction,put reading on the brain. ’ Baltimore’s public library system plans to open small computing centers in four of itslocal branches to allow computer access for area residents, with assistance from BRI’s technical specialist. TheRipken Center is also a test site for software under development by the Educational Testing Service, an interactivevideo and computing system used to teach problem-solving strategies in the areas of document, text, andnumerical literacy.

3 Ripke% ~ B~timore 1~~ ~d Orioles baseball team hero, appears in public S=i@ ~ouncements, d~s ~e~ ~

signing to support BRI, and, through the program “Reading, Runs, and Ripkeq” money is domted to BRI based on the homeruns hit by Ripken over the season. He and his wife have been leading f~ial backers and literacy advocates for the city. Oneof BRI’s new literacy centers is named ‘‘The Cat Ripkeq Jr. Literacy Center.”

literacy agencies and organizations.s Some are sources; few are able to coordinate programs andplaced under the Governor’s Office,6 while others policy for all the relevant service providers inare placed under the Department of Education7 or their State.another existing agency such as the Office of Many cities and localities also provide publicCommunity Colleges, 8 Public Library Office,9 or funding for literacy services and solicit fundingDepartment of Commerce.10 These coalitions from local industry and philanthropic sources (seeserve predominantly as public information re- box 4-A). Most major cities have literacy councils

5 Robert A. Silvanilq To~urd integrated Adult Learning Systems: The Status of State Literacy Eflorts (Washington, DC: National

Govcmors’ Association, 1991), p. vii.

h Arkansas, Flor]da, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada. New York, and North Carolim.7 Aruona, Colorado, Conncctlcut, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Rhode Island, ‘and Utah.8 Oregon.9 Alabama, District of Columbia, and Wyoming.

10 Texas.


that provide public information on literacy re-sources, coordinate efforts to connect learnerswith programs, and provide technical assistance,training, and funding assistance.

It is difficult to determine how much fundingfor adult education comes from all State and localsources, especially as compared to the Federalshare. States face the same problems as theFederal Government in accurately estimatingcontributions from all relevant sources, especiallyfrom programs in which basic skills education isjust one of many allowable activities. Localliteracy programs generally keep detailed data onreceipts and expenditures, in categories definedfor their own needs.

Statistics are available on State and localmatching contributions under the AEA, the majorsource of Federal funding for adult literacy inmany States. These statistics show that State andlocal matching expenditures for adult educationhave mushroomed in the past several years andnow outstrip Federal AEA contributions. Forexample, while Federal expenditures for adulteducation rose from $100 to $158 million be-tween 1980 and 1990, during the same timeperiod State and local expenditures went from$74 to $622 million.11 (See figure 4-l.)

Care must be taken in interpreting estimates ofAEA matching funds. First, aggregate data maskwide variations among States and localities (seetable 4-l). Most of the growth in State and localmatching funds is attributable to large increases

in a handful of States,12 with several Statesproviding only the minimum match required bylaw or slightly more.13 One 1990 study of” ninegeographically diverse local programs found thatin five sites, State and local dollars provided themajority of support, ranging from 67 to 95 percentof the total, while in the other four Federalfunding predominated.14 In addition, AEA match-ing funds may not be a reliable proxy for totalState spending, since past studies have found thatStates may underreport their true AEA contribu-tions.15 Moreover, these AEA matching expendi-tures are only part of the picture. State and localmatching under other Federal programs-such asJOBS, public library programs, and Even Start—is increasing the pool of total literacy funding, asare expenditures for State-initiated literacy pro-grams. Finally, the growth in State funding maybe slowing as some States confront fiscal crises.

In sum, while aggregate State and local findinghas grown-and likely exceeds aggregate Federalfunding from all sources-the Federal Govern-ment remains the leading partner in some States,an essential partner in the rest, and a catalyst forfunding in all.

Private SupportPrivate support for literacy comes from many

sources: foundations, United Way contributions,businesses, unions, and individuals. While thereare a few corporations and foundations support-ing literacy efforts nationwide—the United Par-

11 Feder~ B~ic ~~ts to Smtes under the Adult Education Act were $100 million in fiscal year 1980 ~d $157.8 million iII f~c~ year 1990(actual dollars). This represents a 57.8 percent increase since 1980. State and local expenditures were $74.3 million in fwal year 1980 and$622.1 million (actual dollars) in fiscal year 1990, a 737.4 percent increase since 1980. Figure 4-1 shows this growth in adjusted dollars. R.S.Pugsley, Ofllce of Vocational and Adult Educatioq Division of Adult Education and Literacy, U.S. Department of Educatioq personalcornmunicatioq October 1992.

12 Joan Y. SeamOq director, Division of Adult Education and Literacy, U.S. Department of Educatiou persona-l commtiwtioq .Apr. 1,1992.

13 The State minimum acceptable match increased from 10 to 15 percent for fiscal year 1990, to 20 percent for fiscal year 1991, and to 25percent for f~cal year 1992.

14 ~ A. Ku~er et al., AMt Educafi”on Programs and Services: A View From Nine Programs (Washington, DC: Pehvin Assc~iates,1990), p. iii.

15 ~id. me incentive to underreport likely stems from a desire to have more flexibility in the use of State funding, ShlCe funds tit ~ nOt

reported as matching are not governed by AEA planning and other requirements.

Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources I 99

400

350

300

250

20O

‘ >“1

\ I [1

5 0

0 ( ,

Figure 4-l—A Comparison of Federala and State/Localb

Fiscal Years 1980-93

Fiscal year 1980 dollars in millionsc

Expenditures for Adult Education,

-------

--.*

.-.

------● -

--”- - - -. . - ” - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

a Federa I dollars are

.-——— — —-~—-- --– ‘– — --- ‘– -- - - — ‘ - -

1 It :’ 1 cj~~ i 9E 4 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 d 1 992 d 1993d

--- Federa l spend ing — State spending

Federal basic grants to States under the Adult Education Act.b Statel[oGql expend ltur~s for 199I, 1992, and 1993 are estimates by the U.S. Department of Education.C Fl~cal ~ear 1 98(J dollars ~eFe ~alcula!~ ~~ing the congressional Research service’s Implicit Deflator for State and Local Government Purchases

o f Se rv ices

d Estimat~ State/lml expenditure.

SOURCE. R S. Pugsley, U.S. Department of Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy, Office of Vocatlona[ and Adult Education,unpublished data, October 1992.

cel Service Foundation, Coors Brewing Co., andToyota Motor Corp., to name three of the largestefforts—many more companies support effortsbenefiting literacy activities in the communitieswhere their employees live and work (see table4-2). Industries spend millions of dollars trainingtheir own employees in basic skills,l6 as well assupporting overall literacy efforts in their com-munities. Unions have provided support forliteracy out of general dues or, in some cases, ona shared basis with industry (see box 4-B).

Who Administers Programs andProvides the Services?

In the literacy world, distinctions must be madeamong the entities that provide the funding, thosethat administer the programs, and those thatdeliver the actual services to adults. Often theseentities are different. For example, a local serviceprovider, such as a community-based organiza-tion (CBO), may receive funding from severaldifferent Federal and State programs and private

16 ~C tO@ Swnt bY ~q@erS, ~~v~m~t w~~ies, ad ~o~ on @ro@ employ= basic ~S is not ~OW p~isdy, bllt prowlydoes not greatly exceed $1 billion per year. U.S. Congress, Office of ‘Rdmology Assessment, Worker Training: Competing in the NewInternational Economy, OTA-ITE457 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, September 1990), p. 154.


Table 4-l-Fiscal Year 1990 Expenditures and Enrollments Under the Adult Education Act,State-by-State Comparison

Total Federal Total State/local Total 1990 total Cost perState or other area expenditures expenditures expenditures State match enrollment student

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . .California . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . .Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . .District of Columbia . . . . .Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Massachusetts . . . . . . . . .Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . .Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Hampshire . . . . . . . .New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . .New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . .New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Carolina ...,....,North Dakota... . . . . . . . .Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . .Rhode island . . . . . . . . . . .South Carolina . . . . . . . . .South Dakota . . . . . . . . . .Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . .Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Washington . . . . . . . . . . . .West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . .Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Puerto Rim . . . . . . . . . . . .Guam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No. Marina lo. . . . . . . . . . .

$2,777,200378,254

1,487,0001,782,3909,196,7821,343,3851,772,830

544,735604,801

5,611,2963,742,737

571,644648,262

6,290,8173,132,1641,588,7701,288,9972,509,1842,838,563

814,5262,458,8552,877,4064,904,7682,025,9411,902,4223,056,131

584,101924,073591,838666,701

4,083,836886,496

9,719,8484,219,967

574,5545,836,2881,830,9801,217,9646,784,560

821,4832,351,279

590,2003,113,8008,437,165

722,932484,168

3,394,1701,631,5031,528,2392,513,690

412,4592,630,440

149,02199,943

United States . . . . . . . . . . $132,951,650

$2,800,3041,760,9602,725,0577,442,486

216,952,480357,748

11,921,606230,091

4,220,53552,679,924

2,601,3151,388,706

180,0007,304,958

21,748,7713,329,586

287,351263,625

6,244,1234,351,2643,601,4019,621,265

123,452,00510,714,081

335,7221,606,738

403,231190,258465,856536,041

19,519,8331,357,127

26,777,64019,311,736

257,7776,471,483

285,6007,345,4491,214,5891,400,9437,789,840

164,098525,977

7,608,6913,484,0002,086,0093,210,7575,208,3451,286,2166,360,491

267,329308,337

00

$622,069,755

$5,577,5042,139,2144,212,0579,224,876

226,149,2621,701,133

13,694,436774,826

4,825,33658,291,2206,344,0521,960,350

828,26213,595,77524,880,935

4,918,3561,576,3482,792,8099,082,6865,165,7906,060,256

12,498,671128,356,773

12,740,0222,238,1444,662,8691,077,4221,114,3311,057,6941,202,742

23,603,6712,243,623

36,497,48823,531,703

832,33112,307,7712,116,5808,563,4137,999,1492,222,426

10,141,119754,298

3,369,77716,045,8564,206,9322,570,1776,604,9276,839,8482,814,4558,874,181

679,7882,938,777

149,02199,943

$755,021,405

50.21%82.3264.7080.6895.9321.0387.0529.7087.4790.3741.0070.8421.7353.7387.4167.7018.2310.1668.7584.2359.4376.9896.1884.1015.0034.4645.7817.0744.0444.5782.7060.4973.3782.0730.9752.5813.4985.7815.1863.0476.8121.7614.4547.4282.8281.1648.6176.1545.7071.6739.3310.490.000.00

82.39%

40,1775,067

33,80529,065

1,021,22712,18346,434

2,66219,586

419,42969,58052,01211,17187,12144,16641,50710,27426,09040,03914,96441,23034,220

194,17845,64818,95731,815

6,0716,158

17,2627,198

64,08030,236

156,611109,740

3,58795,47624,30737,07552,444

7,34781,200

3,18441,721

218,74724,8414,808

31,64931,77621,18661,0813,578

28,4361,311

160

3,565,877

$159406

90305238

82220260401372

545361

15142710314823117489

100313

1,415493101143162

84331151108

72231235394126

73206152240121166

9070

169505203201106217166

9881

382$217a

. .aAverage.

SOURCE: U.S. Departmentof Education, Division ofAdultEducation and Literacy, Office ofVocational and Adult Education, n.d,

Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources 1101

Table 4-2-Examples of Private Sector Support for Literacy

Donor foundation Recent grantsor company (amount and date) Description of literary support

Barbara Bush Foundationfor Family Literacy

Bell Atlantic

Black and Decker StanleyTools

Coors Brewing Co.

William H. DormerFoundation

John S. and JamesKnight Foundation

L.

Southland Corp. (7-ElevenStores)

Toyota Motor Corp.

United Parcel ServiceFoundation

1 990: $500,0001991 : $500,0001992: $500,000

1989-91 : $595,0001992-95: $500,000

1991: $100,000 in tools,manuals, and otherjob materials

1990: 5-year, $40-million grant

1990: $336,0001991 : $96,500

1 990: $309,0001991 : $233,0001992: $597,000

1 991:$1 20,000

1991: 3-year, $2-million grant

Phase I-1989:$2.25 millionPhase II—1992:$1.51 million

— . A—- - - - . . . . . .

Grants to 10-15 organizations {for up to $50,000 each) to establishcommunity family literacy programs, train teachers, and publish anddisseminate materials documenting successful programs.

In cooperation with American Library Association, establishes library-based family literacy programs in local libraries in mid-Atlantic States.

In partnership with HomeBuilders Institute and U.S. Department ofEducation, to upgrade education and skills for construction workers.

“Literacy. Pass It On” program commitment to provide literacy servicesto 500,000 adults through literacy hotline, support to volunteerorganizations, and an advertising campaign to raise awareness of theIiteracy needs of women.

Multiyear grants to support innovative literary projects in community-based organizations (CBOs), for young first offenders in a work campin Tennessee, and for unemployed ex-offenders on release fromcorrectional institutions.

Supports projects in 26 urban and rural communities where Knight-Ridder newspapers operate. Recent grants supported hiring staff,creating computer labs, establishing hotlines, and purchasing andcreating texts and software for a range of Iiteracy programs.

Grants to 77 community literacy organizations in Maryland, Virginia,West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

Grant to National Center for Family Literacy to establish intergenera-tional literacy programs in five cities under national grant competition.

Grants to United Way of America, Association for Community BasedEducation, Literacy South, Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.,U.S. Basics, and local Iiteracy volunteer agencies for capacity building,training instructors and staff in CBOs, and developing new familyliteracy projects.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993, based on reports from Business Council for Effective Literacy, U.S. Department of Education,Foundation and Corporate Grants Alert, and personal communications.

sources, and may have to adhere to the require-ments of the several different agencies or organi-zations that administer these programs. Con-versely, a Federal agency may channel funding toa State administrative institution, which in turnmakes grants to several different types of localservice providers.

Several different types of organizations admin-ister local programs, including LEAs, CBOs,libraries, community colleges, regional adminis-trative units, and others. Numerous entities also

provide the actual literacy services, among themschools, community colleges, businesses andindustries, correctional facilities, and communityand volunteer agencies. Federal administrativestructures and finding streams seem to have amajor influence on who administers funds andprovides services at the local level: JTPA servicestend to be provided by CBOs, library literacyservices by libraries, and AEA services by LEAs.Because AEA is the largest and most influentialprogram, education agencies are the predominant


Box 4-B—Ford’s Skills Enhancement Program1

Ford’s Skills Enhancement program (SEP) was setup under a United Auto Workers-Ford collective-bargainingagreement in 1982. The program is funded under Ford’s Education, Development and Training Program (EDTP)serving hourly employees nationwide. Company contributions, based on hours worked per employee, generateapproximately $40 million per year for the program.

Since EDTP activities are on the employees’ own time and supported by monies that would otherwise go toworker wages, the union is careful to distinguish the EDTP programs from job training activities that are Ford’sresponsibility to provide to employees during working hours. The SEP is one of the several EDTP ‘Avenues forGrowth,” including: 1) tuition for personal development courses; 2) college tuition assistance and onsite classes;3) retirement counseling; 4) financial planning; and 5) advisers for general life/education planning. SEP beganin 1983 as basic skills enhancement with offerings in adult basic education, general equivalency diploma (GED),high school completion, and English as a second language. In 1987, the word ‘basic” was dropped from the titlebecause of the stigma it created; at the same time, more upper-level classes were added to improve the image ofthe program. Confidentiality is central to the program. ‘‘People see me in the lab and don’t know if I’m learningbasic fractions or math for statistical process control. There isn’t the sense of being dumb if you are in there.”

Central features of SEP include individual assessment, academic advising, open-entry/open-exit participation,competency-based instruction, and varied instructional techniques, using a considerable amount of computer-aided instruction. Having the program onsite reduces some of the negative associations with school that someworkers have not shaken from their younger days, and makes it possible for workers to come in at breaks or beforeor after shifts. Using an integrated learning system, employees can pickup exactly where they left off, eliminatinga lot of otherwise wasted time trying to get started. “It’s totally pressure free. I can go back over and over thematerial until I get it. And besides, it’s fun. You can’t just pickup a history book and keep reading. You’d fallasleep. The computer keeps you interested, keeps you going.’

Walton Hills is more heavily computer-oriented than other centers for another practical reason: space at theplant is at a premium. The 30- by lo-foot classroom has space for computers along three of the walls, a fewcabinets, and two small tables that seat about six people each. There is very little group instruction; rather, studentswalk in, pick up their assignment sheets, and go to work on their own, using the teacher as a resource. Placementtesting is available, but some learners, like Doug, are afraid of teats. “I’d rather start at the beginning and, if that’stoo easy, I can always move ahead.’

Instruction is provided by the United Technologies Center (UTC), a self-supporting arm of nearby CayahogaCommunity College. Walton Hills contracted with UTC because of its extensive resources and experience withcomputer-aided instruction. The UTC manager at Walton Hills is a full-time instructor and three other teachers,now retired, share two and one-half part-time positions in the program. The participants are typical of the 2,000hourly employees at the plant, but there is a much higher participation rate among women than men.

Seven of Doug’s fellow classmates have passed the GED, but, eventhough his teacher thinks he’s ready,Doug’sbeen hesitating. “I’m not sure-tests and I don’t get along. It costs a lot more to take the test here at work, butI’m not sure about taking it at the high school. Just walking in the door there, the smells, everything about thatplace makes me feel bad all over again. But here at work I like being a student.”

Chapter 4–The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources I 103

administering agency and also the primary serv-ice deliverer, and schools the most common siteof service delivery. Currently, 60 percent of thefunding under the AEA State grant program goesto LEAs; the remainder goes to higher educationinstitutions (22 percent), and a mix of intermedi-ate agencies, other State agencies, and CBOs.17

Within these general trends, States have devel-oped various delivery systems, taking greater orlesser advantage of the latitude that exists in mostFederal laws for using a range of local serviceproviders. For example, Massachusetts distrib-utes AEA funds through a direct competitivegrant process that puts CBOs and other nonschoolproviders on equal footing with LEAs; as a result,CBOs receive about one-half the AEA funding.18

Texas—a populous State covering a vast geo-graphic area-has used a unique regional ap-proach to deliver adult education services. Texaschannels adult education funding from severalsources (including the AEA, the State adulteducation program, State Legalization ImpactAssistance Grants (SLIAG), and JOBS) through60 regional cooperatives, headed by a locallydesignated fiscal agent. Most of the fiscal agentsare independent school districts, but some areeducation service centers and public communitycolleges or universities. Each cooperative in turnarranges for services to be delivered through anetwork of public, private, and volunteer agenciesand organizations in the local community. *9

As a result of recent amendments to the AEAencouraging funding for nonschool providers andnew emphases like workplace literacy and familyliteracy, a shift may be occurring from LEA andschool-based programs to nontraditional andvoluntary literacy providers. CBOs are playing alarger role. A recent study showed that, overall,CBOs receive about two-thirds of their fundsfrom government sources20 and the remainingone-third from nongovernment sources. 21 Manyare affiliated with another organization-thepublic library, public school system, volunteerorganization, or other institution-with whomthey may share space, tutors or teachers, instruc-tional materials or training, fund-raising efforts,or other arrangements for joint program opera-tion. 22

Volunteer programs also play an importantrole, especially in reaching the most disadvan-taged learners. The two major volunteer organiza-tions, Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA) andthe Laubach Literacy Action (LLA) are trainingmore volunteer tutors and serving an increasingnumber of learners (see box 4-C). Together thetwo organizations serve over 200,000 learners inover 1,500 programs nationwide.23 Some of their150,000 volunteers work one-on-one with learn-ers as private tutors, while others perform admin-istrative assistance or assist teachers in ABEprograms. 24 Bo th L V A a n d L L A s u p p o r t t h e i r

efforts largely through sales of adult education

17 U,S, Dc~~Cnt of ~ucatiou Di~&ibution ofstafe.~~’nisteredFed~ra/ EducationFu~s: Thirteenth Annua/Report (Washington, DC:

1989), p. 54.18 ROb~ B1~k~fi~~ d~c~t~~, B~~~~ of Adu]t ~ucation, Mmsachusctts Dep~ent of ~ucatio~ persoti cOIIMIlbCiltiO~ J~~ 1992.

19 pavlo~ Ro~s~Os, T~X~~ ~Ucatlon Agency progr~ director for ad~t education, notes tit tie cooperative system is zltl effective approach

because it rcduccs duplication, paperwork and costs; improves accountability and facilitates coordination of programs at the local level; andenables the State to provide some level of service in most communities. Personal communication, January 1992.

m ~ average of 50 Pement from Stite souces; 30 ~rcent from Feder~ sources, ~d 20 prcent ~m lwd government sources. Association

for Community Based Education, National Directory of Community BasedAdult Literacy Programs (Washington DC: 1989), p. 71.21 Avera@~ ~ost $20,()()(), of w~ch 26 perc~t comes from fom&tion& 18 percent frOm COrpOmtiOIU, 17 percent frOm Ufitd Way, 12

percent from religious organizations, 6 percent from tuition, and 22 percent from miscellaneous other sources. Ibid., p. 71.

22 Ibid., p. 71.2 3 E~en T-enbaum ad Wdli- s~~g, The Major National Adult .Literacy Volunteer Organizat ions , F ina l Repor t , VOIU~ ]: A

Descriptive Review, prepared for the U.S. Department of Educatio% (Ibckville, MD: Westat, Inc., 1992), pp. 57-58.

~ Ibid., p. vii.


1 (he study showed that 94 percent of local adult U- ~ used volunteers, as did 51 percent of federally fimdedState- administered adult education programs. U.S. Department of Educatio% National Center for Education Statistics, AduZzLiteracy Programs: Services, Persons Served, and Volunteers, OERI Bulletin (Washington DC: 1986).

2 v.1(. Lawson et al., Literacy VolunteerS of -~, SyrWIM, NY, “Evaluation Study of Program Effectiveness,”January 1990, pp. 4-5.

3 For _le, the C_tio~ ~~~tion Astition ~d ~ ~~~ CO~OA ASswktio@ hl COOpCmtiOn Wi&

LVA and LL& hosted several national interactive videoconfere.nces on the subject of literacy progams for the incarcerated.

4 ~ ~~t U- fo~ OpHWXI by the New York State LVA office on the private telecommunications @ “~~w

Online,” links volunteer programs throughout the State and participating programs around the country.

5 ~ston IVWIa, Htq VOhmteers of Franklin County, hfalone, NY, personal communication, Nov~hr 1~.


Organization Laubach Literacy Action (LLA) LIteracy Volunteers of America(LVA)

Established

size:Number of local affiliatesNumber of volunteersNumber of learners

CharacteristicsVolunteers

Learners:

Budget and sources

Philosophy and approach

Instructional method

Training content andcommitment

Retention and attritionTutors

Learners

1968 In Syracuse, NewYork by FrankC . - h

1,023 (45 States)98,271147,087

Not available

50% female, nearly aIl are over 18,two-thirds are Iiteracy/basic readingand one-third are English as a secondlanguage (ESL) students.

$8.7 million was received at the na-tional level ($7.5 million from the saleof publications and $1.2 million Inpublic or private support). Expendi-tures: of $8.5 million in national ex-penses, $5.6 million was spent onpublications, $1.4 million on LLAoper-ations, and the remainder went tointernational literacy operations.

Promotes local choices amonginstructionalmethodsonlearn-ers’ personal goals, Including theLaubach Way to Reading series ofskill books based on a phonetic ap-proach.

One-on-one tutorlng and some small-group instruction in basic literacyskillsand ESL

10 to 18 hours of training over 3 to 4sessions, nominal materials fee ($lO),guidance and reference materials, in-service training.

Information not available at this time.

Information under development

1962 in Syracuse, New York, by RuthColvin

434 (41 States)51,43752,338

80% female, 50%0 are 45+ years ofage, 75% white, 40% have attendedor graduated from college, and 40%work full time.50% female, most are under 45, 33%white, 21% black, 22% Hispanic, 40%report having a 9th- to 12th gradeeducation, and 10% report havingless than a 5th-grade education.

$2.2 million was received at the na-tional level; 40% from the sale of LVApublications and the remainder frompublic or private donations. Expendi-tures: of the $1.9 million in nationalexpenses, one-half went to programs,services, and conferences; $662,000was spent on publishlng materials.

Eclectic followingthe goals and inter-ests of the individual student. Specificand uniform initial training of tutors isrequired

One-on-one tutoring and some small-group instruction in basic literacy skillsand ESL

18 to 21 hours of training over 4 to 6sessions, nominal materials fee, anda 1 -year oommUmenttotutor21 -hoursessions per week tn service training,guidance and reference materials.

About 50% stay a full year or more.1988-89 data indicates that 32% leftafter Iess than 1 year.40% leave before 25 hours of ln-struction; about 25% of learners stay50 or more hours.

NOTE: The Laubaoh Literacy Action profile i9 bawl on IWO data and the Uteraoy Wunteers of Amerka Inc. profile is bsfxi on1SS1 data

SOURCE: Ellen Tenenbaum and Wiliian Strang, Weatat, Inc. ‘The U40r National Adult Uteracy Whmtoar Organkatbn8-OraftFinal Rqmrtj Volume 1 :ADeacri@va Raview,”prepared forthe U.S. Department of E&cation, OffIce of Polkyand Planning, 1SS2.


Many literacy programs have recognized the need to “go where the learners are” to attract participants. Thislearning center is in a shopping mall.

publications created to assist tutors and localprograms.

Volunteer organizations face several signifi-cant challenges. LVA and LLA serve learnerswith very limited literacy skills. These clientstend to be “. . . more needy, have more cognitivelimitations, or have more traumatic learninghistories that may have caused them to fail at ABEor shy away from the ABE system. "25 Y e tvolunteers, who typically have 10 to 21 hours ofpreservice literacy training, are expected to teachthese challenging students. While all programsseek to provide more training, they are oftenhindered by the lack of staff to develop or conducttraining, resources to purchase commerc ia l lydeveloped training packages, or money to sendvolunteers to conferences for continuing educa-

tion. Many also find it difficult to scheduletraining that meets the needs of volunteers whowork and live throughout a large area.

Location of ServicesMost programs26 offer service at several sites;

the most common sites are public high schools(70 percent) and adult learning centers (40percent) .27 Approximately one-quarter of pro-grams offer services at correctional facilities,workplaces, community colleges, and communitycenters. These AEA service delivery sites haveshifted over the last decade, from locations atpublic high schools, vocational schools, libraries,and churches, toward a higher incidence ofworkplace sites, adult learning centers, commu-

~ rbid., p. 19.

U‘ ‘~-” ~or*tioIM ~=iveF* fi=ypts tiu@a s-; maIIYprogmms distribute funda to subunits orgmntecs.Thus, there are many more literacy program sites (24,32S) than programs (2,819). Malcolm Young, project director, Development Associates,Inc., persorud cofnmunicatio% Febnuuy 1993. Development Associates, Inc., “National Evaluation of Adult Education Prograrna: Profiles ofSemice Fmviders,” Fmt Intenm“ Report to the U.S. D(q) artuxmt of Education, March 1s92.

27 ~~~t 1- ccnterrefcrs to a building or section of a building used exclusively for adult education. Often these buildings arc publicschools no longex used for K-12 classes and converted for use as adult education facilities. Young, op. ci~, footnote 26.


nity colleges, and correctional facilities28 (seefigure 4-2). (See box 4-D.)

Figure 4-2—Percent of Adult Literacy ProgramsUsing Various Locations, 1980 and 1990

Who Is Being Served?Adult learners may be workers, job seekers,

welfare recipients, immigrants, inmates, highschool dropouts, or any others whose past skillsdo not match their current needs. They come fromall ethnic and racial groups. As described furtherin chapter 5, targeted Federal and State programshave focused attention on new groups of learnersserved at new sites: e.g., welfare recipients inJOBS and JTPA programs, inmates in Federalprisons, the homeless in shelters and communitycenters, and workers at their job sites. For someof these learners-in particular, welfare recipi-ents and incarcerated adults-participation maybe mandated rather than voluntary. While theproviders serving these new groups may remainthe same, these new emphases affect the type ofprograms offered.

No count has been taken of the total number oflearners served by combined Federal, State, local,and private sector efforts. Participant counts areconfounded by the fact that many learners spanseveral categories or are targeted by severalprogram funding sources: e.g., a welfare recipientmay be both a high school dropout and a recentimmigrant; an incarcerated youth may also re-ceive basic skills in a job training program. Inaddition, the same adult may enter and leave oneor more programs several times over a period ofyears.

The most complete data have been collectedthrough the AEA. These data suggest that the2,800 programs supported by the AEA served atotal of 3,565,877 clients in 1990.29 Data onnumbers of clients served is subject to debate,however. For Federal reporting purposes, clients

Publicsecondary school

Adultlearning center

Correctional facility

Workplace

Community college

Community center

Private residence

Vo-tech school

Church

Library

r 25Y0240/o

117060/0

230/o

22”/0

P 10“/01?40

00!0 20?A0 40?A0 600/0 800/0 100”/0

~ 1980 overall _ 19900verall

NOTE: Totals exceed 100 percent because many programs usemultiple sites to deliver services.

SOURCE: DevelopmentAssociates, Inc., “National Evaluation of AdultEducation Programs, Profiles of Service Providers,” First InterimReport for the U.S. Department of Education, Mar& 1992.

served are those who have completed 12 hours ormore in an AEA-funded program; however, forState reporting purposes, many local programscount all who go through the intake process(testing and placement into appropriate classes)whether or not the learner attends for the mini-mum of 12 hours of instruction.

A recent study30 indicates that between 15 and20 percent of all clients who go through the intakeprocess never actually receive any instruction.

28 D~elOprnent Associates, Inc., op. cit., footnote 26, P. 13.

29 U.S. r)~p~~~t of ~umtiou Divi~iOn Of ~~t E&cation ~ Li~mq, Offlw of vo~tio~ ~d ~~t ~u~o~ “Adldt EdU~tiOn

Program Facts-FY 1990,” fact sheq January 1992.

~ Developm~t ~sOCktes, kc., “National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs: Second Interim Repofi Profiles of ClientCharacteristics,” draft repofi 1993.


Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources! 109

Furthermore, after 40 weeks, only about 12.5percent of those who actually begin attending arestill active. When these adjustments are consid-ered, the number of those actually served to anysignificant degree in AEA programs in fiscal year1990 may be as low as 2.2 million. Participantcounts for literacy activities reported by otherFederal agencies may also be included in thistotal, since many individuals counted under otherprogram categories actually receive literacy serv-ices through AEA programs. For example, in1990, 313,671 adults in institutionalized settings(correctional institutions, rehabilitation facilities,hospitals, and mental institutions) received full-time adult education and literacy instructionthrough Federal and State funding.31 DOL ana-lysts estimate that 170,000 individuals receivedsome basic skills instruction through DOL pro-grams in 1991,32 The HHS JOBS program re-ported 118,621 participants in education pro-grams. 33 And 18,000 homeless individuals partic-

ipated in basic educational services under theStewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Actfrom summer 1988 to 1989.34 Many of theselearners are counted in the AEA totals.

An analysis of learners by program sponsorshows that different types of sponsors tend toreach different adult populations. For example,

data on entrants to programs supported under theAEA for the l-year period ending April 1992indicate that 42 percent of the learners were white,with the remaining 57 percent minorities.35 CBOsserve a higher subset of minorities; nearly three-quarters of participants are minorities.36 Genderdistribution suggests that more women than menare served in both AEA-funded programs37 andCBOS,38 but volunteer programs serve men andwomen in equal numbers.39

What Kinds of Instruction DoThey Receive?

Although adult literacy programs are oftencommonly referred to as ‘adult basic education,this is a misnomer. Several types and levels ofinstruction are offered in these programs. Pro-gram levels generally correspond to elementaryand secondary school grade levels; learners areplaced into classes based on their literacy skills asmeasured on such tests as the Test of Adult BasicEducation or the Adult Basic Learning Examina-tion. These standardized norm-referenced testsprovide norms for adults, and are used to interpretscores in grade levels (based on K-12 schoolnorms) and in relation to test performance of other

31 Fudhg for pm~ms for ad~~ in institutionalized settings was $24 million in 1990. U.S. Department of EducatioU ALL. POintsBuifetin, vol. 4, No. 1, February 1992, p. I.

32 Ac~~ f@es have not been compiled. This estimate is taken from ~“ Schwarz, “’lklevisionand Adult Literacy: Potential for Auxssto Lm.rning for an Unserved Population, ’ report prepared for The Ford FoundatiorL June 1992, p. 6.

33 Educatio~ activities are those ‘‘. . . directed at attaining a high school diploma or its equivalent, another basic education program, basicand remedial education or education in English proficiency. ’ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Family Support Adrninistratioq“Average Monthly Number of JOBS Participants by Component, FY 1991, “ instructions for completing Form FSA-104, 1990, p. 3.

34 us. Dep~ent of ~ucatioq Educa~”on~or Homeless Adults: The First yew (WasM@on, DC: December 1990), p. 1.

35 Rac~ ~d e~c identi~ of lemers ~u: ~~te, 42 pe~en~ Hisparlic, 31 per~nt; black 15 percen~ Asian or Pacific Islander, 9 percen~

and Native American or Alaskan Native, 2 percent. Mark Morgm Development Associates, Inc., personal communication February 1993.36A 1989 Smey of ~@ rew~~ tit e~c ~d rac~ identi~ of l~e~ WU: Hispanic, 30 perC@ White, 26 percent black 26 percent;

Asian, 13 percen$ Native Americam 3 percent; and other racial and ethnic groups, 4 percent. (The figure for whites was not givem butextrapolated from the other percentages listed.) Association for Community Based Educatiou op. cit., footnote 20, p. 69.

37 Fo@J.~o p~cent of p~clp~~ w~e tie; 58 Percenq fem~e. MOrg~ op. cit., foo~ote 35.

38 ~ be AssWiation for com~~ Bas~ Education Swey, 56 percent of p~cip~@ w~e fe~e; 44 p~ccnt male. AS.$OCiatiOIJ fOr

Community Based Education, op. cit., footnote 20, p. 69.39A 1991 LVA ]-er Profiie li5~ 49.2 ~rcent fe~e ad 50.8 percent male; LLA data for 1990 repofi lemers 50 percent Xde md 50

percent female.


adults.40 Critics of this approach suggest thatadults’ learning ability is more complex thanstatistical grade-level measures reflected in stand-ardized test scores.

The most common types of adult educationinclude:

■ Adult Basic Education: Sometimes referred toas “below the 8th-grade level,”41 ABE istypically divided into three levels: level 1 refersto students functioning at reading grade levelsO to 3; level 2 for those at the 4th-to 6th-readinggrade levels, and level 3 for the 6th- to8th-reading grade level. Since most ABE in-struction is roughly equivalent to the 4th-through 8th-grade levels, and the characteris-tics of programs serving level 1 students aredifferent than those serving the level 2 and 3students, OTA refers separately to level 1 asBeginning Literacy.

■ Adult Secondary Education: ASE refers toinstruction for adults whose skills are at thesecondary (high school) level. The focus isgenerally on attaining a high school diplomaeither by completing course work or passing theGED examination,42

English as a Second Language; ESL instruc-tion teaches English (reading, writing, andspeaking) to non-English speakers .43 As will bediscussed below, ESL is complicated by thefact that it includes learners with a range ofliteracy levels in their own language.

A majority (60 percent) of federally supportedadult education programs provide at least someinstruction of all three types-ABE, ASE, andESL. The percentage of programs providing ABE(92.3 percent) and ASE (85 percent) is higher thanthose offering ESL (68.9 percent). Nevertheless,ESL students makeup the largest group of clients(35.2 percent of clients are in ESL programs,versus 35 percent in ABE and 29,8 percent inASE),44 suggesting that ESL programs are thosewith the largest numbers of students, or the onesmost likely to have waiting lists.

A range of learning environments is used inadult literacy instruction. As shown in figure 4-3,individual instruction and small group instructionare the most common. Computer-aided instruc-tion or learning laboratories are used in only 14percent of federally supported ABE programs,45

Beginning Literacy

A sizable number of adults who seek literacyassistance function below the 4th-grade level.While some LEA programs serve learners at thislevel, volunteer programs and community-basedprograms traditionally concentrate their efforts onthis group.46

Beginning literacy programs typically provideone-on-one private instruction by volunteer tutorswho meet with learners 2 to 4 hours a week.Materials are developed locally or provided by

@ ~ou G. Sticht, Applied Behavioral & Cogrdtive Sciences, hC., ‘‘TMing and Assessment in Adult Basic Education and English asa Second Language Programs,” report for the U.S. Department of Education, January 1990, p. 6.

41 r)evelopnl~t Associates, op. cit., footnote 26, glossary, P. fi.

42 mid., gk).$~, P. ‘i.

43 ~ido, glossary, P. fi.

u Ibid., pp. 14-15,45 T~ay, me to~ ~m~r of comput~ ~ ele~n~ ~d ~oa sch~l ~~ction is over 3 millio~ with OWX w PfXWd Of W

elementary and secondary schools using computers for instruction. Although the total numbex of computers used in adult basic education isunknowq it is clearly far behind comparable use for K-12 education.

46 OU s~dy of ~Os no~ ~ 57 punt of s~d~~ ~t~ wi~ r- - at ICSS @ & 5th-grade leve~ ~d anotk 27 pCZXXnt with

skills at the 5th-or 6th-grade level. ksociation for Community Based Educatiom op. cit., footnote 20, p. 69.


Figure 4-3—Learning Environments Used in Adult Education Programs

Individual Instruction (1 -on-1 tutoring)

Small group Instruction

Classroom, with 1 or more aides

Computer-aided Instruction

Multlmedia learning labs

Real or simulated workplace settings

Individual self-study

—

41

/[’:$,r. .

o% 20% 40% 6004 80% 100”0

NOTE: Scale represents percentage of programs using specified learning environment for approximately one-third of instructional time or more.Totals exceed 100 percent because many programs use more than one type of learning environment.

SOURCE: Development Associates, Inc., “National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs, Profiles of Service Providers, ” First Interim Report tothe U.S. Department of Education, March 1992

literacy volunteer organizations or commercialpublishers,47 The Laubach Way to Reading series,for example, takes students through a series oflevels based on a phonics approach. These levelscorrespond, in general, with levels measured onthe Test of Adult Basic Education. Tutors supple-ment these materials with audiotapes, flash cards,word games, and beginning reading exercises.LLA encourages tutors to adopt flexible ap-proaches in using their materials.

LVA programs use a ‘‘whole language’ ap-proach, focusing on material tied to a learner’sgoals and interests, or “language experience”where learners dictate or write paragraphs based

on their lives and interests, using these words asthe basis for developing a vocabulary. Decodingskills (learning symbol and sound relationshipsand word patterns) are taught in the context ofprinted materials meaningful to the learner.

Computer use in beginning literacy programs islimited. Although the number of adult literacysoftware titles is quite extensive, there is verylittle software aimed at beginning readers. Fewsoftware applications use audio, an essentialfeature for nonreaders.48 Moreover, most earlyreading programs are geared explicitly to childrenand include features that may ‘‘turn off manyadults .49

47 The Association for COmmunity Based Education study showed 61 percent of CBOs use materials devdoped by tiefi o~ Pro&Yam ~d46 percent use material developed by other literacy programs. Furthermore, 25 percent use other materials such as newspapers, letters, andLife-skills materials. Ibid., p. 69.

48 OXIIY 23 of w ABE level 1 products (9.3 percent) take advantage of human speech. Jay Sivin-Kachala and Ellm Bialo, ~teractiveEducational Systems Desigq Inc., “Software for Adult Literacy, ” OTA contractor repofi June 1992, p. 6.

49 Ibid., p. 6.


Adult Basic EducationABE programs focus on learners who have

some reading skills. Instructors are certified inelementary and secondary education and gener-ally teach part time. Students typically participatein small classes several hours a week. Volunteertutors often assist as classroom aides or providesupplemental personal tutoring to accompanyABE instruction. Courseware includes textbooksdeveloped by commercial publishers, LVA orLLA materials, or materials created by teachers tofit the needs and interests of their students. Asmall but growing number of ABE programs usecomputer software, often networked integratedlearning systems Allowing a student to movethrough a range of instructional content andlevels. ABE programs use a vast range of softwaretitles, some created for children and others createdespecially for adult learners.50

Adult Secondary Education Programs:High School Completion and the GED

Some people believe that the most importantgoal for adult literacy students at all levels is toattain high school certification in one form oranother. 51 A high school degree has become anecessary passport to many jobs, as well as tovocational and higher education programs. The1970 amendments to the AEA added adultsecondary education as a part of the AEA grantsto States. Although the AEA has traditionallyemphasized programs for adults with a 5th-gradeequivalency level or lower, State ABE programshave tried to get the most ‘ ‘bang for the buck’ byconcentrating funds on the learners who were

easiest to reach and serve-those with a base ofskills to build on in seeking the more easilyattainable GED or high school diploma. There-fore, although the act stipulates that not more than20 percent of each State’s basic grant maybe usedfor programs of equivalency for a certificate ofgraduation from secondary school,52 States con-tinue to emphasize ASE programs with their ownmoney.

While enrollment in ABE remained relativelyconstant from 1980 to 1990, ASE growth wasmore dramatic. In 1990, ASE students numbered1.1 million, more than 30 percent of the total 3.6million adults enrolled in adult education,53 and103 percent higher than the comparable percent-age of a decade earlier.54

There are three types of ASE programs: highschool completion programs, the external di-ploma program, and preparation for the GEDexamination. Of the ASE students in fiscal year1990 programs funded by the AEA, 206,952passed the GED and another 67,000 obtainedadult high school diplomas.55

High school completion programs are mostlike a traditional high school program and aredesigned and offered through local school sys-tems. The requirements are based on the nun-herof Carnegie Units required for graduation in theparticular State where the learner resides. Classesare usually offered through the local schooldistricts, in schools and after hours, and must betaught by certified teachers. Students must attendfor the prescribed number of hours of instructionand testing is often the measure of satisfactorycompletion.

50 Ibid., p. 6.

51 Hti Beder, AMr L,ireracy: lssuesfor Policy and Prac(ice (Melbourne, FL: Kriegcr ~bhtig CO., 1991), p. 114.

52 Section 322 of the AEA.

53 us. Dep~ent of Educatioq op. cit., footnote 29, “State Administered Adult Education Program 1990 Enrollment,” table.

54 U.S. Dep@ent of &jucation, A~~. Points BuIletin, vo]. 4, No. 2, ApI# 1992, p. 1. ~ n~ber barely tOUC&S the tc)td of potential

clients---39 million U.S. adults ages 25 or older who lack a high school diploma. In additiou there are about 4 million people ages 16 to 24who had not graduated from high school and were not enrolled in 1991 in any school. U.S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States: 1991 (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Governrnent Printing Ot%ce, September 1992)

55 u.S. Dep~ent of Educatioq op. cit., footnote 29, p. 2.


The External Diploma Program is adminis-tered by the American Council on Education, theprofessional organization also responsible for theGED. External diplomas are granted based on acombination of demonstrated capabilities includ-ing oral and written communication, computa-tion, and the analysis and manipulation of data incontext. Assessment does not include standard-ized paper-and-pencil tests, but rather is based onperformance in simulations that parallel situa-tions found on the job or in personal life. This isthe smallest of the high school credentialingprograms; in 1990,3,000 adults received externaldiplomas from local schools in 10 States.56

The GED Certificate Program is the mostcommon vehicle for ASE students to obtain a highschool diploma. GED content corresponds towhat graduating high school seniors are expectedto know in the areas of writing, social studies,science, literature, the arts, and mathematics.57

The minimum score required for passing each ofthe five subtests is set by each State. Mostparticipants in GED preparation courses aretargeted at the 7th- to 9th-grade reading level,although participants range from the 6th- to the1lth-grade reading level. GED preparation classesfocus on language and computational skills, butalso cover test-taking skills and other subjects.Because the content of these classes is test driven,classes tend to be structured and use commer-cially published materials. Programs often usecomputers to provide additional independentpractice for GED students. As students may beweak in one area and strong in others, software

More than 750,000 learners took the GEDexamination in 1991. Odelia Cantu celebrates hersuccess at a graduation ceremony.

programs offer students an opportunity to concen-trate on a specific area of the test, and practice andmove at their own speed until mastery is achieved.58

Over 800,000 students took the GED tests in1991, a 6-percent increase from the previous year;the percent passing also increased, from 70 to 72percent. There was also an 8-percent rise in thenumber taking the Spanish-language GED tests .59Not all adults working toward the GED certificateare enrolled in GED preparation classes. One ofthe largest GED preparation programs in thecountry is offered over public television. GED onTV, sponsored by Kentucky Educational Televi-sion (KET), offers assistance and encouragementto students both in classes and at home as theyprepare for the examination. An estimated 1.2million students in Kentucky and throughout theNation have passed the GED examination afterviewing the KET/GED series.60

SC U.S. D~~ent of Educatioq ALL. Points Bulletin, op. Cit., fOO~Ote 54, p. 3.

57 Jmet B~d@ C ‘schoo~g, s~dy, ad ~dernic Gods: TJIC Education of GED Candidates,’ GED Profiles: Adults in Transition, No.

2, January 1991, p. 5.58 A review of adult ~ter~y sof~~e fo~d tit tie s~est pe~en~ge (19.s ~~nt) of tifles ~e suitable for the GED SublIEKket. ~OWeVt2r,

unlike many of those in the larger category of ABE (81.8 percent of all adult literacy titles), GEDpreparation software is popular among studentsand programs because these products are written for adults and not children. See Sivin-Kachala and Bialo, op. cit., footnote 48, p. 6.

59 GJ7J) ~5@ SeNice of he Ameficm Comcfl on Education, J$l$lf Statistical Report (w_O~ ~: 19%!), p. 2.

60 ~~ me Ken~c& Ne@or~ 199] Annual Report @@on, KY: n.d.), p. 5. S= dSO ch. 7.


English as a Second LanguageESL is literacy’s coat of many colors—a

program that is offered in the workplace, commu-nity colleges, community programs, prisons, andLEAs. The learners have one thing in common-aneed to learn how to speak, understand, read, andwrite in English. Beyond this, they range acrossthe spectrum, from refugees61 and recent immi-grants 62 to long-term residents, including manynon-English speakers who are U.S. citizens. ESLstudents span a range of languages, levels ofEnglish proficiency, and literacy in the nativelanguage. It can be a great challenge serving thisdiverse and complex audience of learners (seechapter 3, box 3-A). Computer software for ESLinstruction offers great promise for individualiz-ing instruction, especially when speech and audioare included to help students develop theirEnglish skills. However, ESL software for adultsis limited despite great demand. Better instruc-tional approaches and materials that providebilingual assists to students across the curriculum,especially in writing skills, mathematics, voca-tional skills, and GED preparation, are needed.63

ESL accounts for the fastest growing andlargest portion of the adult literacy program in theUnited States. ESL enrollment in Federal AEAprograms nearly tripled between 1980 and 1989,when it exceeded 1 million students; currently

one in every three students enrolled in adulteducation participates in ESL instruction.64 It isestimated that, by the year 2000, 17.4 millionlimited-English-proficient (LEP) adults will beliving in the United States, and immigrants willmake up 29 percent of the new entrants into thelabor force between now and then.65 M a n yprograms have waiting lists as long as severalyears, and could easily fill all their ABE slots withESL students.

Two pieces of Federal legislation have beeninfluential in creating this ESL demand. TheImmigration Reform and Control Act providedamnesty for millions of illegal immigrants al-ready living in the United States, and required thatall applicants demonstrate minimal proficiency inEnglish and U.S. history/government by taking atest or providing a certificate of enrollment inapproved courses.66 The second piece of legisla-tion was the Immigration Act of 1990, whichcreated a demand for ESL in adult literacy byallowing greater immigration.67 ESL programs

for adults are also supported by the AEA andseveral other Federal literacy programs (seechapter 5). Many ESL programs are offered in theworkplace, often tied to vocational skill develop-ment, for those already employed but constrainedin their advancement by limited English skills.

61 A “refug~” is defin~ as a -n who is outside his or her native country and is unable or UU- to return fOr f- Of _UtiOn

on the basis of race, religioq nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a) (42).62 ~ d,- .nmmgmnt” is defti as any alien (including refugees) except those that belong to certain speeified classes, such as foreign

government officials, tourists, or studats. 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a) (15).

63 si~.~~ and Bialo, op. cit, footnote 48, p. ~.

M U.S. ~~eti of ~~o~ ~lce of vmtio~ ~ Addt Ed~tioU Te~hing ~ts With L.irnitcxilhgkr)j SkJ”lls: Progress and

Challenges (WasMngtorL DC: 1991), p. 7. ESL instruction is more intensive than other AEA-funded programs; ESL clients average 5.9 hoursof instruction per week versus 4.4 hours for ABE and 4.2 hours for ASE. MorgarL op. cit., footnote 35.

65 U.S. ~~~ of ~ucatioq op. cit., footnote 64, p. 10.

66 ~wme 3 m.i.llion~pli~for legalization asaresult of thew amnesty provisions; about 55 percent live in California. ComprehensiveAdult Studem Assessment SystenL “A Survey of Newly Legalized Persons in Califo~” report prepared for the California Health andWelfhre Agency, 1989, pp. 1-2.

67 fi~tforwveralclaascs Of ~, from 1980to 1990 thenumberof imm@mts admitted to the United States waslixnited to270,000per year, with a maximum of 20,000 from any one country. 8 U.S.C. 1151 (a), 1152 (a). The 1990 act provided for an hcrease in totalimmigration per year, stinting with approximately 700,000 per year from f- years 1992-94 and leveling off at an annual total of at least675,000 immigrants beginningin f- year 1995. Refugees am not included in this total. Joyce Vialet and Larry Eig, “Immigmd“on Act of1990 (P.L. 101-649),” CRS Report for Congress, Dee. 14, 1990, p. 2.

Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources! 115

Who Are the Teachers?The personnel who work in adult literacy

programs are overwhelmingly volunteer ratherthan paid, and part time rather than full time. Theratio of volunteers to full-time professional teach-ers in federally supported AEA programs nation-wide is almost 8-to-la and only 1 in 4 paid staffmembers is full time. In community-based andvolunteer programs, the ratio of volunteers to paidstaff, and part-time to full-time instructors, ishigher.

Most paid staff were, or still are, K- 12 teachers.Slightly less than one-fifth of full-time instructorsin AEA programs are certified in adult education;13 percent of full-time instructors hold no teachercertification. 69 Furthermore, only 7 percent ofpart-time instructors in AEA programs are certi-fied in adult education but81 percent of part-timestaff earned other types of teaching certificates .70Most States do not require special certification inadult education for those who teach in literacyprograms; some States have no certificationrequirements of any kind (see chapter 6, figure6-3). Forty-five percent of federally funded AEAprograms do not have a single staff personcertified in adult education, a single full-timeinstructor or administrator, or a directed inservicetraining effort.71

NEW EMPHASES IN LITERACY PROGRAMSThe delivery of services is changing as the

definition of literacy expands, public awarenessgrows, new players enter the field, and newpartnerships form. While ABE, ASE, and ESLinstruction remain the “meat and potatoes” ofadult literacy programs, several new types of

literacy programs are growing in importance.Chief among these are workplace literacy andfamily literacy programs. These programs recog-nize that literacy needs are changing as thedemands of the workplace and demands placed onfamilies increase. A third type of program in-creasing in frequency is literacy for incarceratedadults.

Workplace LiteracyLiteracy requirements change as employment

demands change. In the past, when manufactur-ing, mining, farming, and forestry jobs formed thetraditional base of the workforce, those wholacked a high school diploma could get bybecause of the jobs they had and the supervisionthey received. But workers’ necessary skills arechanging as the economy shifts from manufactur-ing to a service-based workforce.72 Furthermore,new skills are needed as industries purchase newtechnologies and adopt statistical quality control,team-based work, and participatory managementprocesses. A worker in a pulp and paper mill

tion has changed his job sums upwhere modernizahis anxiety:

With computerization I am further away from myjob than I have ever been before. I used to listento the sounds the boiler makes and know just howit was running. I could look at the fire in thefurnace and tell by its color how it was burning.I knew what kinds of adjustment were needed bythe shades of color I saw. . . there were smells thattold you different things about how it wasrunning. I feel uncomfortable being away fromthose sights and smells. Now I have only numbers

~ Development Associates, Inc., op. cit., footnote 26, p. 18.

@ Ibid., p. 77.

To Ibid., p. 77.71 N~o~ Ev~Ution of ~ult ~uation ~-, BWetin No. 3, December 1991, p. 5.

72 C ‘One telling measur e of the change ahead is that the trade and service sectors will aali more jobs between 1985 and the year 2000 thannow exist in all U.S. manufacturing. ’ William B. Johnston and Arnold H. Packer, Workforce 2000: Work and Workersfor the 21st Century(Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute, 1987), p. 59.


to go by. I am scared of that boiler, and I feel thatI should be closer to it in order to control it.73

As a host of studies have pointed out, theUnited States is unlikely to remain an economicpower without improving the basic skills of itsworkers. 74 Companies may not realize the extentof their employees’ basic skills deficiencies untilthey attempt to make a major change that requirestraining, then find that their employees lack thebasic skills to read the texts or understand thecomputations required.

Schools have an important role to play, butwith 75 percent of the workers for the year 2000already out of school and on the job, theimmediate task is up to the employer. Only a fewemployers have taken up this challenge; todayonly 1 in 10 employees receives formal trainingof any kind from his or her employer, and thistraining is typically focused on executives, man-agers, and highly skilled technicians, not front-line workers.75 Helping employees acquire basicskills is not a priority with most companies .76 Theproblem is particularly acute for small companies(under 100 employees), which together employ35 percent of the total U.S. workforce.77 Despitethe fact that they are more likely to employworkers with less education, small companies do

not have the expertise to offer trainin g in-house,the resources to contract for training, or thenumbers of employees to make a focused effortprofitable. 78

Workplace literacy programs are one responseto the need for improved worker skills. Theseprograms upgrade the job-related basic skills ofemployees or prepare job seekers for work inspecific industries. Usually they are offeredthrough partnerships of business, labor, unions,schools, private industry councils, and govern-ment agencies; partnerships are especially attrac-tive for small businesses unable to mount pro-grams alone79 (see box 4-E). Workplace literacyprograms, often conducted at or near job sitesusing work-related tasks and materials, can im-prove morale, customer satisfaction, error rates,productivity, and profits.80

States have been important sources of supportfor workplace literacy, using economic develop-ment funds or other State funds, or Federal AEAbasic grants. The Federal Government also spe-cifically encourages employer-sponsored work-force literacy programs through the NationalWorkplace Literacy Partnerships Program of theU.S. Department of Education. An evaluation ofthis program concluded that these projects havemaintained high student retention rates—higher

73 S. ZUbOff, In t&@ of the Smart hfachine: The Future of Work and Power (New York NY: Basic BOO@ 1988), p. 63.

74 NatioMI cen~r for Adult Literacy, Adult Laming and Work: A Focus on Incem”ves, conference papers (Phihdelph@ PA: Nov. 4-S,

1991); Johnston and Packer, op. cit., footnote 72; U.S. Deptutment of Labor and U.S. Department of Edueatio~ The Bottom Line: Basic Skillsin the Workplace (WasMgtoq DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 1988); National Center on Education and tbe Economy, America’s Choice:High SkiZls or Low Wages/ (Rochester, NY: 1990); Oflke of lkebnology Assessmen4 op. cit., footnote 16; and Anthony Carnevale, Americaand the New Economy (AlexandrQ“ VA: American Soeiety for Training and Developrnen6 1991).

75 A@ony c~~~e and J-eiber Gainer, American Society for Training and DevelopmaK “me ~“ g Enterprise,” prepared for the

U.S. Department of Labor, Febxuary 1989, p. 48.76 seve~ Swdies of ~ploy= ~vo~emat ~ workpl~b~ic li~q ~pro- s~w~ arange of from 3 to 26p~ntof respondents

saying they offered remedial education for their employees. Office of lkehnology AssemM@ op. cit., footnote 16, p. 168.77 ~ s~ B~~~ Administration defms “small businesses” asunder 500 employees. Using this f~, there are ovex 5 million small

businesses in the United States; they employ 57 percent of the workforce. Forrest P. Chisma4The Missing Link: Workplace Education in SmallBusiness (WasbingtoxL DC: Southport Institute for Policy Analysis, 1992), p. 1.

78 we J. B~Si, sm Worbrs, s- Work: A smey of Sdl B~”neSSeS On workp~e &.iucatiOn and the Reorgam”sation of Work

(Washingtorl DC: The Southport Institute for Policy Analysis, 1992).

79A SurveyOf 107 wcxkplacel.iteracyp rograms mvt?tdtxithN ~ ptXtXnt invoked z Or WR?PI@HS. LanyMikUkclgf, “workplaCx3Literacyprograms: Organization and Incentives, “ in National Center for Adult Literacy, op. cit., footnote 74, p. 7.

so B~, op. cit., footnote 78, P. 52”


than any other type of adult education programs.81

The program’s success has been attributed to anumber of factors, including the close involve-ment of public and private partners, convenientworksite locations, work-related content, incen-tives such as work-release time, and supportive,nonstigmatizing environments.82 Many of thesefeatures are shared by privately sponsoredworkforce literacy programs.

Increasingly, unions are negotiating workplaceeducation into labor contracts. Unions encouragevoluntary programs with open-entry/open-exitapproaches to increase worker flexibility andchoice. Programs are rarely labeled ‘‘basicskills” because of the stigma attached; instead,most attempt to offer courses across a range oflevels so that training is seen as important to allemployees. Confidentiality is often tightly main-tained, as employees fear that if their educationaldeficiencies are made public, they may be usedagainst them by management. For example, inone program involving a coalition of local indus-tries and educational providers, a difficult issuearose when the coalition offered GED courses toemployees, many of whom, it was discovered,had lied on their original application forms abouthaving a high school diploma. Ordinarily, thiswould be grounds for dismissal, but to overcomethis dilemma, the employer offered an “am-nesty” to those who agreed to take the GED.83

Technology in Workplace Literacy ProgramsSeveral of the challenges faced by workplace

literacy programs are particularly amenable totechnological solutions. Computers are oftenselected for these programs because they offerself-pacing and confidential records of studentprogress. One employee need not be aware ofwhat another employee is studying on the com-puter. Furthermore, when computer laboratoriesare a central component, a teacher need not

Workplace literacy and training programs aregrowing in importance as workers at all levelsincreasingly must use technology, analyzeinformation, and work in teams.

always be present to enable an employee to study.During breaks or between shifts, students can“pick up where they left off,” especially whenintegrated learning systems with recordkeepingcapabilities allow easy entrance to the instruc-tional system. Finally, the very use of computersattracts many students. Many enter programs thatuse computers with the assumption that technol-ogy training will help them keep current jobs orenable them to find other employment if necessary.

Research suggests that the most successful wayof teaching adults literacy skills is to put thematerial into a meaningful context. Mostworkplace literacy programs conduct a job-siteanalysis to link literacy skills to actual on-the-jobtasks. Typically, a local community college orschool district conducts a learner and workplaceanalysis as a basis for the overall program.Curriculum materials incorporate worksite vo-

81 u-s, @_ent of ~uc-tioq workpl~e ~“teraq: Re~@ing the A~rican Workforce (Washington, ~: my 1992), p. 9.

82 Pelavin Associates, he., “A Review of the National Workplace Literacy Pro-” unpublished repo~ 1990, pp. 32-33.

83 (YIA site visi~ lblsa Training coditio~ Inc., ~ OK, July 23, 1992.

3 3 1 - 0 4 8 0 - 93 - 5 Q~. 3



cabulary, procedures, and context. While this can Another example of the shifting view ofbe accomplished with traditional training pro-grams, computer-based systems make it easier tocreate customized materials and individualizelearning plans that match basic skills content withworkplace context.

Family Literacy

The hand that rocks the cradle also tells the familystones, reads the books, asks “What did you doat school today?”84

literacy is the growth in family literacy programs.Research has shown that the education level of themother is the strongest variable affecting a child’sschool achievement;85 parents can increase chil-dren’s chances to succeed in school through suchmeans as reading to children or modeling goodreading habits .86 But if the parents themselves areunable to read, the children miss this extra boost.

Family literacy or intergenerational literacyrefers to the goal of reaching all members of a

84 ~ c. ~fi~, ~-~tening t. ~others’ voices:A Reporter’s G~”& @ Fam”ly b“ter~ (Washington, m: &hU%tiOn WriWX A.%SOChtiO~

1992), p. 1.85 some ~gge~t ~ - for ~om-tory ~u~tion for c~~n wo~d ~ ~~r ~nt if tiy directly focused on improving @ liklXy

of mothers instead. Ibid., p. 1. Also see, for example, Sandra Mm Fossen and Thom.as G. Sticht Teach the Mother andReach the Ch”ld: Resultsof the Intergenerational L.iteracyAction Project of Wtier Opportunities for Women (Washington DC: Wider Opportunities for Women+ July1991).

86 s=, for _le, TOG. sti~t ~d B~. Mc~~d, ~&”ng the Na~n s~~~: The Intergenerational Tkm.r&r of Cogru”tive Atn”lity (S~

Diego, CA: Applied Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Inc., 1989); and Ruth Nikase, Boston University, “The Noises of Liz AnOverview of Intergenerational and Family Literacy Programs,” prepared for the U.S. Department of Education Office of the Secretary, Mar.3, 1989.


family with literacy activities. program providerscan be private or public or a combination ofseveral sources. The major source of Federalsupport has been ED and HHS, which fund theEven Start Program, the Bilingual Family EnglishLiteracy Program, and the Head Start FamilyLiteracy Initiatives. Many States have establishedfamily literacy programs using their 10-percentAEA set-aside for innovative and coordinatedapproaches.

Family literacy programs run the gamut fromfamily story hours at the public library to compre-hensive programs that offer instruction to bothchildren and adults. One model-Parent andChild Education (PACE)-was developed inKentucky and replicated nationally as the KenanTrust Family Literacy Program. This program hasfour components: early childhood education;adult basic education and pre-vocational skills; asupport group for parents to discuss commonparenting issues and concerns; and an intergener-ational activity called PACT-parent and childtogether time.87 Over 50 sites nationwide havebeen trained in this model by the National Centerfor Family Literacy in Louisville, Kentucky.

Experiences with the Federal Even Start pro-gram suggest some of the challenges faced byfamily literacy programs.88 One challenge is highturnover 89: a family may move out of the servicearea or lose eligibility90 or may be dissatisfied anddrop out of the voluntary program. Additionally,some programs are structured for short-terminterventions in order to recruit more eligiblefamilies in subsequent years. Finally, familyliteracy programs face the difficult choice of

whether to focus resources on the ‘‘ready tolearn” family in which parents attend ABEclasses, children attend early childhood educationprograms, and parents learn about parenting; oron the families with the lowest skill levels andmost severe problems, who may need crisisintervention and several months of extensivesocial services until the family is indeed ‘‘readyto learn. ”91

Technology in Family Literacy ProgramsSome family literacy programs use the com-

puter as a vehicle to draw parents and childrentogether, attract participants, or make reluctantparents more comfortable in a school setting andmore likely to connect with their child’s educa-tion. For example, in programs supported under apartnership between Apple Computer and theNational Center for Family Literacy, the com-puter was a used as a “. . . literacy tool: a pencil,typewriter, paint brush, crayon, recorder, scissors,and eraser (thank goodness!) all rolled into oneeasy-to-use machine. ’ Parents and childrenwere encouraged to create materials to take homeand share, using word processing and printcapabilities to make posters, banners, greetingcards, and other items both children and parentscould take pride in. Stories written by parentswent home for reading aloud to children. Parentswere also encouraged to preview children’ssoftware. These activities sought to help removeparents’ fear of computers and help them considerways to help their children learn. A telecommuni-cations system linked the seven projects, enabling

ST Reti K@ Using Computers in F’m”/y Literacy Progranu (L@stiUe, KY: National Cmter for Family Lit-, 1992).88 Row G. St. Herre, “Early Findings From the National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy hgnmL” paper presented at b

First National Conference on Family Literacy, University of North Carom Chapel m NC, Apr. 12-14, 1992, p. 2.89 A~st 74 ~rmnt of ~ f~ies tit p~cipated ~ Eva s~ during 1989-90 did not Contiue in the second year of the project. Ibid.,

p. 6.90 T. & eligible, a f~y mmt ~ve ~ ad~t ~ need of ad~t basic * _ and eligible for adult basic educdOn programs, haVe a

child less tban 8 years of age, and must live in a Chapter 1 elementmy school attendance area. Ibid., p. 1.

91 Ibid,, p. 9.~ ~, op. cit., footnote *7, P. 2.


Family literacy programs encourage parents to read with their children. CD-ROM technology brings animation,music, and talking characters to the onscreen pages of this ‘‘living book,’ with Spanish and Japanese translationsin the same program.

them to share lessons, products, and ideas withone another.93

Programs for Incarcerated AdultsOn any given day, over 1.2 million Americans

are behind bars. Their literacy problems aresevere. Four out of five do not have a high schooldiploma, and more than 75 percent lack basicreading and mathematics skills.% Other estimatessuggest that 85 percent of juveniles who comebefore the courts are functionally illiterate and 60percent of incarcerated juveniles read below the5th-grade level.95 Overall, the literacy problems

of the criminal offender population are threetimes as severe as those of the general popula-tion. 96

Although educational programs have long beenoffered in jails and prisons, these programs arebecoming more important with new Federal andState directives mandating participation and withadditional funding targeted specifically on liter-acy for prisoners. The literacy policy for Federalprisoners mandates minimum participation andprovides economic incentives to continue beyondthe minimum level. The Federal Bureau ofPrisons now requires all inmates, regardless of

93 Ibid., p. 3.

W U.S. Department of IMucatioq op. cit., footnote 31, p. 1.

% ~bel powe~ Ne~ et al., ‘‘Prison Literacy: A Survey of the Literature, ’ Final Report Year 1, Volume IV: Working Papers, ~ationd

Center on Adult Literacy at the University of Pennsylvania (cd.) (Philadelphia PA: November 1991), p. 158.

M Ibid., p. 158.


their educational attainment, to be tested whenthey enter a Federal facility; with a few specificexemptions (e.g., reportable aliens), all who testbelow 8th-grade equivalency on any of the sixsubtests must enroll in adult education for 120days or until a GED is achieved. Those withlimited English skills must attend an ESL pro-gram until they function at the 8th-grade level ofcompetency skills on the Comprehensive AdultStudent Assessment System (CASAS) test. Al-though inmates may opt out of the ABE programafter the minimum mandatory period, if they donot continue to the specified level they cannot bepromoted in prison industries above the entry joblevel.

Mandated participation for inmates has re-quired increased financial commitment to liter-acy. With implementation of mandated GED andESL standards, the Federal Bureau of Prison’sbudget for literacy services jumped from 25percent of its total budget in fiscal year 1988 to 40percent in fiscal year 1991.97 Teachers in Federalprisons are generally full-time civil service edu-cators; they have either teaching degrees orcollege degrees plus teaching experience, or havepassed the National Teachers Exam.98

These Federal policies directly affect only 5percent of the inmate population.99 Almost three-quarters of all incarcerated offenders-750,000-are in long-term prisons and reformatories run byStates; another 424,000 are in jails run by cities,counties, and local law enforcement agencies.l00

In 1990, 944 (78 percent) State correctional

facilities operated onsite ABE programs forinmates. Even more (962) operated secondary

101 Many of these are man-academic programs.dated literacy programs: in 1992, 17 States andthe District of Columbia required literacy pro-grams in their prisons.l02 Most of the remainingStates have nonmandatory literacy programs. ofthe States reporting mandatory literacy programs,the level of literacy ranged from a low of the 4thgrade to a high of 9th grade in all subjects. Staffin State and local facilities are generally part-timeteachers from the K-12 sector, but some facilitieshire their own full-time teaching staff.103 Manyinmate literacy programs use the services ofvolunteer groups like LVA and LLA.

Most State and local correctional educationactivities are supported predominantly by Stateand local tiding. However, literacy programs innonfederal facilities are also supported throughtwo new Federal grant programs under the 1991National Literacy Act. Although authorized at$10 million, appropriations were $5 million forfiscal year 1992. The legislation authorized com-petitive grants to State or local correctionalagencies for either programs in functional literacyor programs to develop and improve prisoners’life skills to reduce recidivism.

While prisons provide a “captive” audiencefor literacy programs, they create unique chal-lenges. The overcrowding found in many prisonsreduces availability of classroom space. Classesare often overbooked, library resources are lim-ited, and hours and space available to inmates for

~ Nancy Kok, “hcfilcs of Major Federal Literacy Programs,” O’IA contractor xT@ J~Y lm.

9S sylv~ ~CollW F- B-u of ~~, U.S. Dep~ent of Justice, personal communicatio~ February 1993,

99 ~ 19gl, ~ ~~~ 823,414 ~ ~ wom~ w= ~er the -ction of s~~ or Fede~ ~~tio~ authoriti~. U.S. DW~t

of Justice, “Prisoners in 1991,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulle@ May 1992, p. 2.100 ~d.

Iol U. S._mtof Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census ofSta!eandFederal ConectionalFacilities, 1990 (Washin@orqDC: U.S.Government Print@ CM&e, December 1992).

1~ Heidi ~Va, s~~ of ~a~~oq h-terq Programs in State Prison Systems @*O~ VA V- DeP~~ of c~ “Onal&k@iOQ March 1992).

103 F~qle, as~y of -tion~ c~o~ ~~@ fo~d ~t96 -t of ~~ s.reparttirne. B- S- “B~lk Study:

Bducation in County Jails,” report to the California State Depamnent of Bducatioq March 1990, p. 25.


study or tutoring in private are restricted. Prisonroutines and work time often conflict with classtime. Students may be moved from one institutionto another without regard for their academicprograms and with few mechanisms for transfer-ring educational records, credits, or maintainingcontinuity with teachers or tutors in new facilities.Disciplinary actions can remove a prisoner froman academic program and those housed in maxi-mum security settings are often unable to partici-pate in classes or tutoring. When crises occur,“lock downs” can mean the indefinite cancella-tion of classes for all inmates, with little or nonotice to teachers.

The transient nature of jail populations createsspecial problems; most jail inmates are moved outwithin 2 weeks, and almost all within 6months, l04 making education programs difficultto structure. However, many consider jails acritical time to reach offenders and start them onalternate paths before they become hardenedcriminals.

Technology in Literacy Programs for InmatesEarly applications of technology in prisons

were disappointing. In the 1970s, mainframecomputers were linked by telephone lines to“dumb” termin als onsite in several Federalcorrectional institutions, but the cost of leases andmonthly telephone charges, the inflexibility of thesystem, and limited courseware all led to dissatis-faction.105 However, more powerful, flexible, andengaging technologies have led to renewed inter-est in technology.

New mandates for literacy in prisons havemade correctional institutions an appealing tech-nology market for several reasons, including thecollective purchasing power of large correctionalsystems and the opportunities they provide for

.,“(

A series of interactive satellite teleconferences jointlyproduced by PBS, correctional educators, and literacyvolunteer organizations provided information onliteracy programs for incarcerated adults.

linking software across servers. In 1990, theFederal prison system initiated a competitivebidding process for an audio-based integratedlearnin g system (ILS). The ILS that was se-lected 106 has been placed in 24 Federal facilities,with an average of 12 terminals at each site.Students typically spend approximately one-halfhour of their 6-hour instructional day working ontheir own on the system. Teachers have found therange of software gives them an efficient way tomanage and individualize instruction, since theytypically have no two students working on thesame subject at the same level at the same time.l07

A number of State prison systems also havepurchased various ILSs on a statewide basis to geta competitive price and to assure that teachersthroughout the prison system will benefit from thetechnology training provided by the vendors.

104 A -ey of ~ma ~om~ j~ in C~O~ feud tit appr~~~l~ on~~the ti~ me re]ed with.irI 3 &yS fitXbOOkill& 57

pereent within 1 week 63 pereent within 2 weeks, and 96 percent within 6 months. Ibid., p. 23.10S sylv~ M&oll~ “COtI@tXS cm ‘elp! “ Federal Probation, vol. 49, September 1985, p. 35.

HX m p~to systa, manufactured by The Roach COT.

lm McCOllurq op. cit., footnote 98, 1993.


Texas recently purchased a different lLS108 for Several other States have made or are consideringcorrectional facilities throughout the State; 36prisons now have computer laboratories equippedwith 20 workstations each. Included in the overallpurchase price is a training package that supportsseveral days of intensive instruction at a centraltraining facility for two or three instructors; whenthey return they are “local experts” and trainother prison instructors in technology use. l09

similar systemwide technology purchases forthese reasons.

Other technology configurations have alsobeen adopted. For example, the computer trainingfacility in the Los Angeles County jails uses anopen architecture in a closed environment (seebox 4-F). The 12 jail sites housing some 25,000inmates contain about 180 computers, mainly


Apple Macintoshes, a result of the educational educational backgrounds and ranges of literacycoordinator’s personal collaboration with Applein developing program materials. Much of thesoftware used at the jails has been developed bythe teachers themselves, including literacy ma-terials incorporating vocabulary and idioms fre-quently used at the jail.

Many of the features that make interactivetechnology viable for adult learners are especiallyuseful for inmates. Allowing material to beindividualized and paced at the learner’s speed isimportant for prison populations with variable

needs. Working on a computer offers privacy forlearning and a sense of control-features gener-ally missing in prison life and therefore highlyvalued. Furthermore, group interaction with someapplications develops important social skills thatmany inmates lack. Technology is seen as a toolfor the future and using computers improvesprisoners’ sense of self-worth.

Prison walls can be scaled via the technology—telephone/computer links can connect inmateswith teachers or tutors outside the walls of the


prison, while prison libraries, often woefullyunderstocked, can be upgraded through links withlibraries on the outside, databases, and otherinformation resources. In youth correctional facil-ities, incarcerated juveniles can finish high schoolprograms and participate in classes throughlinkups with local high schools, communitycolleges, or technical institutes. For the inmatewho must be isolated, education can still takeplace even though he or she cannot “attend”class-via personal lessons on a computer, watch-ing a televised class or tapes, or participating in adistance learning class via audiographics, satel-lite, cable, or other available technology. Sinceteachers and tutors in prison are available on apart-time basis and are often affected by securityrestrictions, technology can be a personal “se-cure’ tutor.

POLICY IMPLICATIONSIt is not surprising that this patchwork of

programs and providers has been unable to meetthe challenges of providing comprehensive, in-tensive, long-term adult literacy service to thegrowing numbers of adults in need. With their

limited resources and capabilities, predominantlypart-time or unpaid staff, unstable funding, andlack of coordination, America’s adult literacyprograms serve at best less than 10 percent of thetarget population each year with low-intensityservices of quality ranging from excellent to poor.High-quality adult literacy programs, of whichthere are many, are all the more impressive for thelimitations under which they must operate, andthe difficulties of the multiple demands andpressures adult leaners face.

Despite the diversity of programs and services,a number of common issues appear, including:the need to enhance the professional status ofadult literacy staff; the problems of providingcomprehensive services; concerns with accounta-bility and assessment of progress; the need for aresearch base on effective practices; the potentialfor encouraging partnerships and vehicles forcoordination; and the promise of technology as atool for more intensive individualized instructionas well as for better teacher training, recordkeep-ing, and information sharing. These issues aredescribed in chapter 6.

The FederalRole in Adult

LiteracyEducation 5

s ince the mid- 1960s, the Federal Government has playeda critical role in providing education services to adultswith inadequate literacy skills.1 Unlike elementary andsecondary education, where a mature State and local

infrastructure existed before the Federal Government entered thefield, public adult education is in many ways a Federal creation.

The main engines of the Federal role in adult education are thecategorical grant programs-chief among them the AdultEducation Act (AEA)-that support adult literacy and basicskills education. The Federal role is more than the sum of its grantprograms, however. The Federal Government influences adultliteracy services in other important ways-through executivebranch initiatives and regulations, Federal leadership and publicawareness activities, census counts and studies documenting anddefining illiteracy, research and development, and congressionaland departmental budget decisions. This chapter traces theevolution of the Federal role in adult literacy over time, analyzescurrent Federal efforts, and considers Federal policy on technol-ogy in adult literacy.

FINDINGS■ The Federal response to the problem of adult illiteracy consists

of many categorical programs-at least 29, perhaps many

1 Federal programs use a variety of terms to describe educational sexvices below thecollege level for adults who are not proficient in basic skills or the English language.CcAdult education ” “basic skills, ” “lite=y Ws, ” “~glish fiter~y,” ~d “~~-We h~tion” all appear in Federal law, sometimes undefined. k discussions ofspedlc programs, this chapter employs the terms used in the relevant legislationOtherwise, this chapter uses the term “adult literacy education” or ‘‘b=ic smeducation” when referring to the broader OTA definition set forth in chapter 2 of thisreport.

127


more, depending on the definition used-thatin some way aid adult literacy and basic skillseducation. Although the individual programshave solid records of accomplishment, togetherthey create a Federal role that is complicated,fragmented, and insufficient, and which, by itsvery nature, works against development of acoordinated Federal adult literacy policy.

■ Legislation enacted since 1986 has increasedappropriations, created new programs, attemptedto build capacity and coordination amongexisting programs, and assigned new literacy-related missions to programs with broadergoals, such as welfare reform, immigrationreform, job training, and prisoner rehabilita-tion. Whether adult education providers willhave adequate tools and resources to carry outtheir new jobs will depend on how well the newlaws are implemented and funded.

■ Total Federal spending for adult literacy is hardto calculate because specific expenditures forliteracy education are not available for the JobTraining Partnership Act (JTPA), Job Opportu-nities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), EvenStart, and other key programs. However, theFederal Government currently spends at least$362 million for adult literacy and basic skillseducation, more than double the amount of 5years ago. Although Federal literacy dollars area critical source of sustenance for State andlocal programs, these dollars are small incomparison with other major Federal educationexpenditures and meager in terms of the totalpopulation in need.

■ Though the U.S. Department of Education(ED) remains the primary Federal player in theadult literacy field, new legislation has ex-panded the influence of the Department ofHealth and Human Services (HHS) and theDepartment of Labor (DOL) at the Federallevel, and their counterpart agencies at the Statelevel. These shifts in agency responsibilitiesportend changes in who is served, what servicesthey receive, and what outcomes are expectedof them.

New Federal initiatives are increasing theemphasis on workplace literacy, family liter-acy, and literacy for adults with special needs,such as the homeless, the incarcerated, welfaremothers, and certain refugees. By channelingmore funding toward special groups, however,the Federal Government may be inadvertentlylimiting opportunities for millions of adultlearners, including many limited-English-proficient (LEP) adults, who do not meet thesecriteria but have the potential to quickly be-come functionally literate, self-supporting citi-zens.

Different and sometimes incompatible Federalfunding streams, eligibility restrictions, andaccountability requirements are a considerablesource of frustration for State and local literacypractitioners and drive State and local deliverysystems in ways that may not always reflectadult learner needs or promote efficient man-agement practices.

■ Congress has sought to improve the quality andeffectiveness of federally funded adult educa-tion programs by instituting outcome-basedevaluation, and by strengthening teacher train-ing, research, dissemination, and other compo-nents of the adult literacy infrastructure. Fur-ther work is needed to improve the knowledgebase about adult learning, and to ensure thatevaluation standards and quality indicators areappropriate, measurable, and consistent withlong-term program goals.

■ By sending mixed and sporadic messages aboutthe use of technology in adult literacy pro-grams, the Federal Government has failed toexert the leadership necessary to overcome acautious attitude toward technology amongsome adult literacy practitioners and to realizethe potential of technology to improve instruc-tion and program management.

■ Congress has enacted several requirements andincentives aimed at fostering coordination acrossFederal, State, and local literacy programs. Inaddition, States and local service providers areundertaking their own coordination initiatives.

Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 129

Although promising, these efforts can onlyaccomplish so much without further changes inlaw and departmental policy to make programsand requirements more consistent and comple-mentary.

GROWTH OF THE FEDERAL ROLE INADULT LITERACY

Since the founding of the republic, the literacyof adult Americans has been an abiding Federalconcern. Although the nature of Federal involve-ment in adult education has changed considerablyover two centuries, the rationale has remainedmuch the same. Our democratic system pre-sumes an educated citizenry. Literacy affectsour economic prosperity, social welfare, nationalsecurity, and the future of our children. And thepersistence of illiteracy drains the public till.

Historical PerspectiveThrough most of our history (see box 5-A), the

Federal Government demonstrated its concernabout adult literacy in very limited ways.2 Fromthe 19th through the early 20th century, generalliteracy instruction, like the rest of education, wasnot considered a Federal responsibility. Adulteducation programs were conducted by religiousgroups, settlement houses, charitable organiza-tions, public schools, and other private and publicinstitutions.3 The FederaI role was limited mostlyto documenting literacy and illiteracy ratesthrough the decennial censuses and providingsome adult education for selected civil servants.

In the first half of the 20th century-as wavesof immigrants reached American shores, as massArmy testing revealed serious basic skills defi-ciencies among World War I recruits, and asFederal surveys and special commissions calledattention to the plight of educationally disadvan-

World War I mass testing found that 25 percent ofarmy recruits were illiterate and lacking basic skills.It was not until World War II that literacy materialswere developed and distributed to military personnelin response to test results and public pressure.

taged adults-pressures for Federal action mounted.In response, the Federal Government took severalsteps that might be considered early uses of adulteducation as a social policy tool. Among thesewere the enactment of education programs forimmigrants in 1918 and for adult Native Ameri-cans in 1921, the initiation of a literacy campaignunder the Works Progress Administration in1936, and the development of literacy materialsfor military personnel at the end of World War II.

The Modern Federal Role Takes ShapeIn the early 1960s, as the Federal Government

became more active in education, Congress pavedthe way for a stronger interventionist role in adulteducation. In 1963, Congress amended the Man-power Demonstration and Training Act to pro-vide basic skills education for unemployed adults;then in 1964 it created a State adult educationprogram under the Economic Opportunity Act, a

2 The following historical discussion was drawn from an OTA analysis of Federal legislation and from National Advisoxy Council on AdultEducatioq A History of the AduZt Education Act (Washingto~ DC: 1980); Marie Cos@ AduZt Liferacy/Illiteracy in ffie United States (SantaBarbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1988); and U.S. Ilepartmmt of Educatioq History of the Adzdt Education Act: An Overview (Washington+ DC:1991).

3 Carmen St. John Hunter with David Harman, Adult Illiteracy in the United States (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1979), p. 13.


191419171918

192a1929

1933

194519551%3

1964

1966

19691970

19721974

1975

1978

1983

Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education

War on Poverty program overseen by a newOffice of Economic Opportunity (OEO).

The modern Federal role really took shapein 1966 with passage of the Adult EducationAct, still the cornerstone of the Federal roletoday. Prior to 1966, few States had invested inadult basic education on their own.4 The AEAtransferred administrative responsibility for theState grant program from OEO to the U.S. 0fficeof Education in the Department of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare, and broadened the program toencompass basic education, English as a secondlanguage (ESL), and citizenship education. Statesreceived funds based on their numbers of adultswithout a high school diploma, and demand forservices soon exceeded expectations. In subse-quent years, the act was amended several times toencourage secondary-school completion programs,place more emphasis on special populations,build teacher training capacity, and broaden thebase of service providers.

Beginning in the mid-1960s and continuingthrough the 1980s, Congress also enacted severalother laws with implications for literacy policy:e.g., the Vocational Education Act, the LibraryServices and Construction Act (LSCA), the JTPA,the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)literacy program, and the Indian Education Act.

Public Awareness, “Bully Pulpit,” andNational Leadership

President Herbert Hoover’s 1929 advisorycommittee on national illiteracy was an earlyeffort to publicize illiteracy problems and rallypublic, private, and volunteer support-the bullypulpit approach. The Right to Read initiative,begun in 1969 under President Richard Nixon,was another such campaign; 6 years later theeffort was downgraded in the bureaucracy, itsgoal of eradicating illiteracy by 1980 far from

131

——..

BOOKSMany approaches have been used to gain publicsupport and stimulate action to improve literacy. This1938 poster by Rockwell Kent was part of the FederalGovernment’s effort to stress the importance ofreading.

being achieved. In the 1980s, the Adult LiteracyInitiative under the Reagan Administration onceagain sought to raise public awareness, promotevolunteerism, and coordinate literacy activitiesacross the Federal Government.5

The Federal Government also helped shapeliteracy policy through efforts to document anddefine adult competencies. The 1975 Adult Per-formance Level survey and the 1986 literacysurvey of young adults conducted by the National

4 James T. Parker, “Modeling a Future Basic l!lducatiom” Afuh Leurning, vol. 1, No. 4, January 1990, p. 16.

S A persistent criticism of these kinds of public awareness campaigns was that they offered the ‘‘illusion of genuine commitment” withoutmean@@l new funding or consistent programma tiC SUppOIt, and as such would OIdy “. . . sedate some people with the notion that ‘somethingimportant’ was now going to be done. ” Jonathan Kozol 11/iterate America (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986), p. 51,


Assessment of Educational Progress helped callattention to the continuing problem of illiteracyand spur national efforts to rethink literacy infunctional terms.

Congress “Discovers” Adult Literacy:1986 to the Present

In the late 1980s, “Congress discovered adultliteracy.’ ‘6 Passage of the 1986 ImmigrationReform and Control Act, which authorized theState Legalization Impact Assistance Grants(SLIAG) program supporting English literacyinstruction, set off a wave of legislative activitythat continued into 19917 (see box 5-B). The waveof legislative activity crested in 1988, the year inwhich the AEA and other major education pro-grams came up for reauthorization and also anelection year.

The laws enacted since 1986 expanded existingliteracy programs, created new programs, andattached new literacy mandates to programs withbroader purposes. Many gave public adult literacyprograms “new jobs to do”: integrating immi-grants into the mainstream through the Immigra-tion Reform and Control Act; moving people offwelfare through the Family Support Act; breakingthe generational cycle of illiteracy through theEven Start Act; reducing recidivism among ex-offenders through the Crime Control Act; andincreasing employability through the OmnibusTrade and Competitiveness Act, the Carl D.Perkins Vocational and Applied TechnologyEducation Act, and amendments to the JTPA.8

The executive branch also launched new liter-acy initiatives. President George Bush’s 1989Education Summit with the Governors producedsix ambitious education goals for the year 2000,including Goal #5:

Every adult American will be literate and willpossess the knowledge and skills necessary tocompete in a global economy and exercise therights and responsibilities of citizenship.9

HHS provided seed money to all Head Startgrantees for family literacy activities. The Bureauof Prisons raised the compulsory education par-ticipation requirements for Federal prisoners to ahigh school diploma equivalency level. DOLchanneled discretionary funding into workforceliteracy projects.

These past 6 years of activity have transformedthe Federal role in adult education. In one sense,Congress has “. . . tied the fortunes of the federalhuman service agenda to the effectiveness of theliteracy system in performing the new jobsassigned to it. ’ ‘10

To improve existing literacy programs andprovide resources to fulfill these heightenedexpectations, Congress in 1991 passed the Na-tional Literacy Act (NLA) (see box 5-C). TheNLA set forth a capacity-building agenda aimedat providing more resources, more professionalstaff, better coordination, higher program quality,and a stronger research base. It also amended theAEA, created the National Institute for Literacy

6 Porrest P. Chisman et al., Leadershipfor Literacy: The Agen& for the 1990s (San Prancisw, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1990), p. 221.7 Many factors helped fuel this legislative vigor. Attention from the reed@ scholars, writers, and business people W the issues of

illiteracy and declining American competitiveness and kept them in the public eye. The elementary and secondary school reform movementhelped highlight weaknesses at other levels of education. Public, private, and volunteer literacy organizations began forming coalitions andidentifying common goals. Perhaps most importan~ the political climate of the fmt term of the Reagan Administration-characterized bydomestic budget cuts and few new social progmm—had begun to ~ and it could be argued that the Democratumtrolled Congress wasanxious to take advantage of a legislative window of opportunity.

s “Chwrnan et al., op. cit., foofnote 6, pp. 223-226.

g U.S. Department of Educatio~ America 2000: An E&cation Strategy (V@Mngtoq DC: 1991), p. 9.10 ~sman et al., op. cit., footnote 6, pp. 22S-226.

Chapter &The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 133

Box 5-B-Key Legislation and Executive Actions: 1986 to 19911986 Immigration Reform and Control Act: amnesty to undocumented aliens living in the united states;

State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG) cover public assistance, health and educationservices for newly legalized aliens.

Job Training partnership Act (JTPA) Amendments: remedial education in Title II-B program.

Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) Literacy Corps: more VISTA volunteers assigned toliteracy effort.

1987 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act: literacy programs for homeless adults.

1988 Hawkins-Stafford School Improvement Amendments: Adult Education Act revised to improveplanning and evaluation and better seine special populations. New programs: workplace literacypartnerships, English Literacy grants, Even Start program for educationally disadvantaged parents andpreschool children, and bilingual family literacy program for limited-English-proficient families.

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act: basic skills education for dislocated workers under JTPATitle III and a Student Literacy Corps of undergraduate volunteer tutors.

Family Support Act: overhaul of Federal welfare system; mandates literacy education for welfarerecipients through new Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) training program.

1989 Education Summit: President George Bush and Government produce six National Education Goals,including goal that all adult Americans will be literate by year 2000.

1990 Crime Control Act of 1990: mandatory literacy (including English as a second language) for Federal.inmates below 8th-grade literacy level.

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Amendments: greater emphasison basic academic skills as part of vocational training.

National and Community Service Act: Commission to spur volunteerism in literacy and other areas.

1991 National Literacy Act of 1991: improve Federal research, program quality, and coordination;authorizes several new programs.

Higher Education Act Technical Amendments: program to help commercial drivers pass mandatedliteracy test.

Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations: compulsory education requuirements for Federal prisonersraised to high school diploma equivalency level.

Head Start Family Literacy Initiative: Department of Health and Human Services encourages allHead Start grantees to incorporate family literacy into their regular activities.

SOURCE: Offii of ‘r&bnOlogy Asses- 1993.

and several new programs, established a statutory CURRENT FEDERAL ROLEdefinition of literacy. Whether the NLA will What is the result of 25 years of direct Federalprovide literacy programs with the additional attention to the literacy problem? Few wouldfunding and tools they need to fulfill the new deny that Federal seed money, especially thedemands remains to be seen. The Federal role is AEA, has encouraged the growth of public, State,at a critical juncture. and local programs and has benefited millions of


adults who otherwise would have remained un- orities, target populations, services, and instruc-served.11 Yet all together, some observers con-tend, “. . . the Federal initiative in adult literacyhas been minimal, inefficient, and ineffective. ’ ’12

The Federal Government also has been apervasive and powerful influence-arguably themost powerful influence-on the provision ofadult education services at the State and locallevel. Federal programs and policies affect Stateand local funding, administrative structures, pri-

tional approaches.13 Nevertheless, a picture emergesof a Federal partner whose influence can be bothbeneficial and counterproductive (with the differ-ence not always readily apparent); a partnershipwith as yet untapped potential to improve thecoordination and delivery of adult educationservices.

Some cautions are in order. The State andFederal roles in adult education have matured

11 us. congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, House Report 100-95 (WashingtorL DC: U.S. Government Prindng Off@,1987), pp. 87-88.

12 W~~F.~, “AR~-Ro~~~tfim: ~~~po~c@ ~_,dpIwc&R&’ ‘ bWk~Undplipfffm thCh@

on Adult Literaey, Southport Institute, 1988, p. 1.13 some of ~ ~o~tion in this chapter is based on OIA site visits tO two Stlltt% Massaehusetta and lkxas, inhnuary 1992. The site visits

included interviews with State agency staff for edueation, welfare employment and tmining, libraries, technology, and a Memey council; andwith local educational agencies, community colleges, city agencies, and community-based mgani@ions.


somewhat contemporaneously, so it can be hardsorting out where Federal influence ends andState influence begins. Moreover, States takevery different approaches to the same set of laws,programs, and guidance coming out of Washing-ton, with States often adding interpretations andrequirements on top of Federal ones. Thesedifferences among States are attributable not onlyto such factors as size, demographics, wealth,history, and political climate, but also to Stateleadership and philosophy. Some States havecharted their own courses in adult education,independent of Federal policy, and serve asbeacons for the Nation.

To assess the Federal role in greater depth, theOffice of Technology Assessment (OTA) hasanalyzed major Federal laws and regulations andfound several significant themes and trends thatcut across programs and agencies.

The Number of Federal Literacy ProgramsAs recent studies have shown, determining

how many Federal programs support adult liter-14 Only a handful ‘f

acy is a difficult proposition.Federal laws have adult literacy or basic skillseducation as their primary purpose. Others au-thorize literacy education as a means towardanother end. Some Federal programs give State orlocal entities discretion over how much to spendon literacy activities. Should all of these becounted as Federal literacy programs? Whatabout programs, such as those run by the militaryand the Bureau of Indian Affairs, that are not

specifically authorized by law but have beenestablished by the executive branch under generallegislative authorities for education? And whatabout programs that seek to prevent illiteracy?Taken to the extreme, the entire gamut ofelementary and secondary education programscould be considered illiteracy prevention.15

Regardless of the definitions and categoriza-tions used, it is clear that the Federal role inadult literacy is composed of many separateprograms in several different agencies. Themost recent study, which took a very broad view,found 77 programs in 11 Federal agencies thatprovided some degree of support for adult literacyeducation in fiscal year 1989; 23 of these werewhat the study called ‘‘primary” programs, inwhich ‘‘adult education is explicitly stated as aprimary objective in the program’s authorizinglegislation." 16 Any analysis of the Federal rolemust at some point draw distinctions that could beviewed as arbitrary, and therefore any count ofFederal adult literacy programs should be viewedas just a broad indicator.

OTA’s analysis of the Federal role relies on asomewhat smaller core group of programs thattogether comprise the bulk of the Federal effort inadult literacy and basic skills education (seeappendix B). These programs include those withliteracy as a primary, explicit mission, as well asa few others-like the JTPA, JOBS and refugee/

—that have the potential forimmigrant programssignificantly influencing adult literacy and basicskills education.

14 SW @ E. - ~“teracy~a~gewnt]~o~tion Project Report (WA@tOU XW: W-n COnstiting Group, ~C., 1986); us.Congress, Home Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Elemmtary, Secondary, and Vocational Edueatioq An Assessmentof the Federal Initiative in the Area of Adult Literacy (Washingto% DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987); and Judith A. Alampreseand Donna M. Hughes, Study of Federal Funding Sources and Servicesfor Adult Education (Washingto% DC: Cosmos Corp., 1990). Theproblems associated with defii the Federal literacy effort were illustrated by controversy sumounding publication of the LiteracyManagement ]q%nation Project Report (LMIPR), which concluded that there were 79 literacy-related programs in 14 Federal agencies. ‘heHouse Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education accused the report of promoting ‘‘miatio~on” and ml-its own repom concluding that 48 percent of the pmgrarns mentioned in the LMIPR were not conducting adult litemey activities at al~ and32 percent did not have literacy as a major function.

15 pad M. ~ Con~essioARe~ch Service, Edueationaod Public Welfare Divisioq 4 ‘MuM Literacy Issues, pro-, and @tiOnS,’ ‘CRS Issue Brief IB85167, Apr. 5, 1991, p. 2.

16 A~prese ~d Hughes, Op. d, fOO@lOte 14, p. 9.


OTA’s analysis suggests three important find-ings about the number of Federal programs:

■

■

Even a rather narrow approach to countingprograms turns up 29 literacy-related programsin 7 Federal agencies-bolstering the conten-tion that Federal literacy programs are frag-mented and mismatched.17

The separate categorical program remains thepreferred congressional approach to addressingthe national illiteracy problem, and the numberof programs has increased in recent years.Most of the programs are relatively small (inFederal terms). Of the 19 programs withidentifiable adult education tiding, only AEAbasic grants have appropriations over $100million; while 16 programs have appropria-tions under $10 million.

How did the Federal role come to be character-ized by multiple categorical programs spreadacross several agencies? This may reflect themultiple dimensions of the illiteracy problem—economic, occupational, social, cultural, andeducational-that call for different responses.Federal legislation also tends to be “reactive,”attacking urgent problems with narrow, self-contained responses. Furthermore, categoricalprograms are easier to track, audit, and evaluatevirtues in a climate with increasing demands for‘‘accountability. Another reason may be thejurisdictional organization of Congress and theexecutive branch, which tends to discouragecrosscutting legislation or broad, systematic pol-icy development. A final set of factors is political.

Sponsoring a separate bill under one’s own nameis often a more attractive option for a member ofCongress than offering an amendment to someoneelse’s bill or refashioning an existing program.

Are there too many Federal programs? ManyState administrators and local service providersfeel that “. . . the proliferation of programs hastoo often resulted in a fragmented deliverysystem” 18 or in “. . . multiple delivery systems,none of which provide the comprehensive, long-term services needed to meet the challenge ofimproving the basic skills of millions of adults. 19

The problem, they say, is not so much with dupli-cation of services-with such great need, addi-tional funding sources are always welcome. Rather,the problem lies with duplicative administrativetasks, different funding streams, incompatibleservice criteria, and an abundance of paperwork.20

State and local administrators reserve particu-lar complaints for the small categorical programs,which some view as ‘‘short-term, unstable, frag-mented’ funding sources .21 Some Federal discre-tionary grants must be recompleted annually,which makes budgeting and staffing of localprograms difficult and unstable. Under thoseFederal programs that seek to demonstrate new orinnovative approaches, funding often ceases oncethe new approach is tested, which discouragessome grantees from applying at all.

Agency RolesAlthough program assignments to Federal

agencies roughly follow jurisdictional lines,22

17 pi~e, op. Cit., fOOtnOte 12, PP. ‘-26.

18 mid,

19 Ibid., p. 18.

m Ibid., pp. 15-16.21 me u~vemi~ of tie Swe of New York S@te ~u~tion ~~en~ -t Literaq: The Key to L~elong Learning (Alb~y, ~:

February 1992), p. 15.22 me p~ment of ht~cy prom- within F~~ agencies ~ ~~ts & Visibility ~ focus of tie effort. For ins-e, h ~ iS

administered by an ED division two levels below the Secretary, under an assistant secretary who also has responsibility for vocationaleducatio~a placement that some have characterized as being “. . . buried among higher priority progr8ms within the Department ofEducation.” Similarly, in some States, the primary adult education coordinator or director reports directly to the Chief State School Offkr,while in others the office is two or three levels deep within the bureaucracy. See Pierce, op. cit., footnote 12, p. 18.

Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education 137

there is overlap. Both ED and the Department ofthe Interior administer literacy programs forNative American adults. Basic skills training forthe workforce is addressed by ED and DOL.Programs for incarcerated adults exist in ED andthe Department of Justice. Programs fosteringvolunteerism for literacy can be found in ED, theACTION agency, and the new Commission onNational and Community Service.

New Federal programs have enhanced the rolesof DOL and HHS in the delivery of adult literacyservices, although ED remains the major Federaladministering agency. The growing influence ofother Federal agencies has brought a new set ofState entities into the literacy mix alongside Stateeducation agencies (SEAS), most notably agen-cies for welfare and employment training, but alsoagencies for libraries, refugee services, correc-tions, and higher education, as well as theGovernors’ offices. This shift has increased thecomplexity and, some say, the fragmentation ofadministrative structures. Each Federal or Stateagency has its own mission, constituency, andrules and regulations-which may or may not becompatible-and each tends to address literacyeducation ‘‘. . . from the vantage point of [its]own legislative mandate. ’ ’23 Many of these enti-ties also have their own funding streams. Asfigure 5-1 illustrates, complex relationships canarise from the interweaving of multiple Federaland State agencies, funding streams, and serviceproviders.

Some literacy administrators, usually thoserepresenting traditional adult education provid-ers, see the involvement of new agencies as anegative trend. Because education is not theprimary mission of welfare, employment, andtraining agencies, they note, these agencies arenot usually staffed by education professionals andmay not be attuned to the structures and ap-proaches of adult education organizations and

institutions. Others see these new players asbringing a fresh perspective to service deliveryand a whole new set of funding partners into theliteracy mix.

In addition, a whole separate Federal-to-localfunding stream exists, composed of programs inwhich the Federal Government makes directgrants to the local projects, bypassing the State.Whether these programs are duplicative fundingsources, ‘‘. . . unlikely to leverage State financialorganizational and administrative resources,"24

or whether they cut out a layer of bureaucracydepends largely on one’s vantage point.

Federal DollarsAt least $362 million was appropriated in fiscal

year 1992 for adult literacy from the FederalGovernment (see table 5-l). This is more thandouble the $179 million appropriated in fiscalyear 1988 for roughly the same group of programs(see figure 5-2). Closer examination of Federalfunding reveals some interesting findings. Com-pensating for inflation, funding for literacy pro-grams has grown 175 percent for the programsincluded in the $362 million. This growth has notbeen uniform: appropriations for the AEA morethan doubled after a period of stagnant funding;other programs, such as AEA English literacygrants, were cut; and some current programsincluded did not exist in 1988.25 It could beargued that much of the increase in spendingmerely restored purchasing power lost earlier inthe 1980s, as a result of budget cuts and freezes.Nevertheless, the increase is significant be-cause it occurred during a period of limitedgrowth in domestic programs and becauseeven modest new dollars can bring meaningfulbenefits to the field.

Total Federal literacy funding is likely muchhigher than $362 million. As the following

~ Kahn, Op. Ck, fOObOt12 1A, p. 1P.

24 pJatio~ Afi~= of BW~~~, S@ing To~~o~’X Wor~or~e:A ~~ership Age&for the 90’s (Wmo~ DC: 1988), p. Viii.

~ Nancy Kolxx, “Profdes of Major Federal Literacy programs,” OTA contractor report+ July 1992.


Figure 51—Programs, Agencies, and Funding Streams: The Massachusetts Example

State participation in multiple Federal basic skills, workforce training, and related programs often produces complexinteragency relationships and funding streams at the State and local levels, especially when the State funds its own programswith similar goals. The range of workforce development and basic skills programs in the State of Massachusetts, though farfrom the most complex State example, suggests the complex webs that arise from the interplay of different funding streams.

FEDERAL AGENCYI

MASSACHUSETTS STATE AGENCY AND PROGRAMI

LOCAL PROVIDER

rDEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES

E

KEYAEA = Adult Education Act CBO = Community-based organizationSLIAG = State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants LEA = local education agenciesABE = Adult Basic Education SDA = service delivery areaJOBS = Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Rehab. = rehabilitationJTPA = Job Training Partnership Act

/

SOURCE: Offke of Technology Assessment, 1993, based on information devebped by the Massachusetts Jobs Coundl.

Chapter &The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 139

Table 5-l—Appropriations for Major Federal Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Programs

Fiscal year Fiscal year1992 funding 1992 funding(in millions) (in millions)

Department of EducationAdult Education Act (AEA) Basic Grants .............$ 235.8AEA State Literacy Resource Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0AEA Workplace Literacy Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3AEA English Literacy Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0AEA National Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0Literacy for State and Local Prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0Commercial Drivers Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5Adult Education for the Homeless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8Special Programs for Indian Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Even Start Family Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (;2)Bilingual Family English Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA)

Title Vl, Library Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LSCA Title 1, Public Library Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 8 % )Student Literacy Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4Migrant High School Equivalency (HAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3

Department of Health and Human ServicesJob Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) ...$ (1,000.0a)State Legalization impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG) . . (1,122.9ab)Refugee Resettlement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.0a

Head Start Familv Literacv initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,0C

Department of LaborJob Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Title ii-A,

Training for Disadvantaged Youth and Adults . . . . . .$(l,773.5a)JTPA Title ii-B, Summer Youth Employment

and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (495.2a)JTPA TItle Ill, Dislocated Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (577.0a)JTPATkIe IV-B, Job Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (846.5a)National Workforce Literacy Collaborative . . . . . . . . . . . . oDepartment Of DefenseArmy Basic Skills Education Programs (BSEP):

BSEP I & II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 6.5d

Navy Skills Enhancement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1d

Department of the InteriorBureau of Indian Affairs Adult Education . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 3.4

Department Of JusticeBureau of Prisons Literacy Program .................$ 16.1d

ACTIONVolunteers in Service to America (VISTA) Literacy

C o r p s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4 . 8

Total FY 1992 funding ............................$ 362.4. .NOTE: Amounts in parentheses are not included in Total FY 92 funding.a Amounts are for entire program; specific expenditures for adult literacy are IIOt available.b Deferred.c Minimum.d Estimate.

SOURCE: Nancy Kober, “Profiles of Major Federal Literacy Programs,” OTA contractor report, July 1992.

evidence suggests, even small percentages ofexpenditures for adult basic skills under suchlarge programs as JTPA, JOBS, and SLIAG canbe significant:

■ A 1990 DOL report estimated that in 19868percent of JTPA Title II-A enrollees and in1984 6 percent of JTPA Title III enrolleesreceived basic skills training.26 If even 1percent of the $2.35 billion currently appropri-ated for these two programs were used for basicskills, it would constitute in excess of $20million.

Under the Job Corps program (Title IV ofJTPA), $40.8 million--or 7.2 percent of theappropriation for Job Corps center operations—was spent on basic education in program year1990.27The 8-percent “Governors’ set-aside” underJTPA totals $142 million nationwide; nearly allStates offer some adult literacy programs withthis money.28

Under the JOBS program, States report spend-ing a total of $14.5 million in combined Federaland State funding for adult basic and generalequivalency diploma (GED) education, with

26 U.S. Department of Labor, ‘‘Major Federal programs Supporting Adult Literaey Efforts in the U.S. Department of Labor, ’ unpublishedrepo~ 1990.

27 G~ Fi~ Wwtor, Division of Plannin g, Po~cy, md Legisktioq U.S. Departmat of Labor, personal cornmunicatioq N@ 15, 1992.28 ROM (j. -Ofi et ~., The J’TPA E&atiO~.COOr&~tion set-ASide: states’ l@e~nfutiOn Of the program ~dlill@O~ ~:

National Commis sion for Employment Policy, 1991), p. 8.


Figure 5-2-identifiable Federal Funding forAdult Literacy and Basic Skills Education,

Fiscal Years 1988-92

400 $ millions

300-

200-

100i

c)~1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

---- Constant $ — Current $

NOTE: Constant dollars have been calculated using the ImpliatDeflator for State and Local Government Purchases of Serviees.Separate computations were made for the forward-funded programsauthorized by the AEA by applying the price index for the succeedingfiscal year in which funds are appropriated.


the amount from Federal sources alone unavail-able.29 Expenditures of JOBS money for educa-tion through the high school level vary widelyby State; one study found a range from $0 toover $4.8 million in fiscal year 1991.30

JOBS expenditures on basic skills would behigher if States would “draw down” their fullJOBS entitlements.31

The SLIAG program injected significant newmoney into the adult literacy stream. However,the fiscal year 1992 appropriations were de-ferred and the authorization is slated to expire.

Despite recent growth in Federal funding,the question remains as to whether the FederalGovernment is doing "enough" about theproblem of adult illiteracy. Placing the Federalcommitment in different contexts sheds somelight on the issue. Although AEA funding hasgrown to $270 million, it still constitutes just 1percent of the total ED budget. Compared withother multibillion-dollar programs-vocationaleducation, special education, Chapter 1, or stu-dent aid-the AEA remains modest (see figure5-3). And compared with the total Federal fund-ing commitment to other multifaceted domesticproblems-building the Interstate Highway Sys-tem, providing Food Stamps, or preventing andtreating drug abuse, to cite just a few—the $362million in identifiable Federal expenditures forliteracy appears disproportionately small (seefigure 5-4).

Another way of looking at spending is in thecontext of need for services. From 1990 to 1991,the Federal AEA programs served 3.6 million32—between 5 and 10 percent of the illiterate popula-tion, depending on which definitions and esti-mates are used.33 This is far less, for instance, thanthe percentage of eligible Chapter 1 children (60

29 Wilbu Waler and 13ennis Poe, Division of Program Evaluation OffIce of Family Assistance, U.S. Department of Health ~d HUmSIIServiws, personal communication May 1, 1992. This figure does not include self-initiated edueatiom or the $300 million HHS pmvidcs inchildcare for JOBS participants.

30 JSnL. ~g~~d~eLfie,]~p~e~n~ng JOBS: InitiaZState Choices (Albany, NY: The Nelson A. RockefellerInstitute of GOv-lm41992).

31 GAO es~t~ that in fiecid year 1992 about 38 pereent of the Federal appropriation-or nearly $372 fni.lliox+xxMy have gone unspentbecause States were not meeting matching requirements. See U.S. Genend Accounting Office, We~are to Work: States Begin JOBS, But FiscaZand Other Problems May hnpede Their Progress (WashingtoxL DC: U.S. Govanment Print@ Oflicq 1991), p. 44. According to fiscal year1993 HHS budget documents, $832 million of the $1 billion available for fiscal year 1992 was spent leaving $168 millioq or 17 percen~unspent firm that year’s budget authority.

32 JOSII S~O~ ~tor, Division of Adult Education and Literaey, U.S. Dqamnent of Edueatio@ pasonal eommunieatiom Apr. 1,1992.AEA participation counts are based on numbers of persons receiving 12 hours of wrviees or more, and therefore include adults who arc in thepm- fOr a relatively short time or who receive serviees of lesser ti~ity.

33 U.S. &partment of E&eation, A SummarY Report: National Forums on the Adult Education Delivery System (Washir@q DC: U.S.Government Riming ~lce, 1991), p. 27.

—

Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education 141

to 70 percent) or Head Start children (30 to 60percent, depending on the age group used)estimated to be served.34 As the pool of adults inneed of services increases by an estimated 1million annually due to legal and illegal immigra-tion,35 and perhaps another 1 million due toschool dropouts, it must be asked whether Federalfunding is running to stay in the same place.

A reliance on funding from multiple Federalsources may exacerbate the touch-and-go fundingsituation of many local literacy providers. Federaldiscretionary grants or contract letters sometimesdo not arrive until well after the project period hasbegun, a particularly troublesome problem incompetitive grant programs and in reimbursement-based programs such as JOBS and SLIAG. AEA,JOBS, and JTPA also pass through dollars ondifferent timetables.

Figure 5-3-Funding for Select Department ofEducation Programs, Fiscal Year 1992

* $ billions

C7 6.9

II

I

J.AEZl

u. [

1.2

m

2.9

Adult Vocational Special Chapter 1 StudentEducation education education aid

Act


Figure 5-4-Funding for Select Federal DomesticPriorities, Fiscal Year 1992

25 $ bi!lions

1 22

20 1I 17

15

10

5

0Adult Substance Highway Food

literacy abuse aid stamps


The situation is further complicated becausesome Federal programs are forward-funded (grant-ees know the amount of their awards before thebeginnin g of the year in which the funds areobligated); some are current-year funded (fundsarrive during the fiscal year); and some operate ona reimbursement basis (agencies receive reim-bursements for funds they have already spent).State programs may operate on a different fiscalyear than the Federal fiscal year, confusing thesituation still more.36

Finally, Federal programs have different provi-sions for carrying over unobligated funds. AEAfunds can be carried over for 27 months and JTPAfunds for an additional 2 years. JOBS does notallow funds to be carried over but permitsobligated funds to be liquidated during the 12months following the end of the fiscal year.

~ Jeffrey McFarland, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Elementary, SeCOndaIY, and V~tiO~Educatioq personal communicatio~ Dec. 5, 1991; and ‘Rmy Deshler, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor,Subcommittee on Human Resources, personal cmununicatio~ Dec. 5, 1991.

35 (,megd ~=tiom~~ CQ Researchm, vol. 2, No. 16, Apr. 24, 1~, PP. 363, 3fi”

36 some s~tc~, ~ch ~ mm, have put w the~ Pmgm on the -e p- cycle, reg~dl~s Of Whm the state gets the do~.


New EmphasesThe past 6 years of legislative activity have

produced marked changes in emphasis in Federalliteracy programs. In general, the new emphasesrecognize that there are diverse types of “litera-cies’ and that improved literacy can have amultiplier effect, in terms of better jobs, improvedparenting, reduced welfare dependence, and lesscriminal recidivism.

One new emphasis is workplace literacy. Since1988, several new Federal programs have focusedon improving workers’ basic skills, including theworkplace literacy partnership program, nationalworkplace literacy strategies, and a commercialdrivers program37-all in ED; and a nationalworkforce literacy collaborative in DOL.38 Inaddition, workforce development efforts targetthose on the margins of the labor market. Newamendments to the JTPA and Federal vocationaleducation legislation emphasize basic skills in-struction as a component of job preparation forunemployed adults, displaced workers, displacedhomemakers, single parents, and disadvantagedyouth. Federal workplace literacy efforts amountedto about $21 million in fiscal year 1992. Itremains to be seen whether these efforts aresufficient to meet the educational needs ofworking adults with basic skills deficiencies-a

group some have called “. . . the most seriouslyneglected national priority in this [literacy] field.’ ’39

Family literacy is a second new emphasis in theFederal framework. The Even Start program,40

the Head Start family literacy initiative,41 theBilingual Family English Literacy program,42 andcertain provisions of the Library Literacy pro-gram43 give an intergenerational focus to theFederal role that was largely absent before 1988.The JOBS program, too, might be said to considerintergenerational issues by targeting Aid forDependent Children (AFDC) parents of youngchildren. In comparison to need, however, thetotal Federal family literacy effort is still in thebudding stage.44

A third new emphasis is mandatory partic-ipation—a marked departure from the traditionaladult basic education (ABE) approach, in whichparticipants enroll voluntarily and set their owngoals. The most far-reaching mandates are in theJOBS program, which directs States to requirecertain welfare recipients-primarily young cus-todial parents with inadequate basic skills-toparticipate in educational programs, if childcareis provided and to the extent that State resourcespermit. The frill effect of this mandate has notbeen felt yet due to limited State funding and theability of States to fulfill Federal participationrequirements with volunteers.45 A similar but

37 ~ Mo@r v~ck s~e~ Act of 1986 r~ti commercial drivers to pti.SS a fitt~ d Od kilOWkdgc kSt ~ risk losing ~~ ~~~.The deadline for compliance was April 1992.

qs ~ ~owmtion ~~ o~r agencies, ML is developing a new initiative to provide technical 8ssisti= to sfi ~d mdium-s~businesses to help them cope with a variety of work restructuring issues; this initiative will encompass the functions of the National WorkforceCollaborative and several other related functions. Gem Fk@ director, Division of Planning, Policy, and Legislation U.S. Department of Labor,pecsonal Commum“catiok Apr. 30, 1992.

39 Fonest p. ~= J- ~~~: The F@r~ Role in ~t~”~era~ (Southpoz ~: The SOU@ofi hstitu&, 1989), pp. iV-V.

40 The Even s~pm~~er~~r 1 of & Elementary and i%XXXky Edll@tiOn ACt Wgets ~ucatio~y@Xtdv~@gCd P~nts d

their children ages O to 7 who live in low-income Chapter 1 school attendance areas.41 H’H$J now reqires all Head Start ~tCCS to ~te f-y fit=y into ~~ msu~ ~viti=.42 Tide ~ of the El~_ ~ s~on~ Educwon &t ~tho~s this p~~ for limit~-EIlgliSh-pl13fiCiUlt pm~ts ~ ~~.43 Lib s~i~ and Construction Ac4 Titles I W Vf.

4.4 ~q for ~pme toM~$85 fion ~ a yw 1992, of which $70 million wu for Ev~ SW w ~fic ~~t of Eva

Start money spent on adult literacy education (as opposed to children’s educatio~ parcming educati~ and other authorized activities) is notavailable, but it is unlikely to be ~ since regulations encourage projects to use existing literacy resources in the community.

45 -en and Lurie, op. cit., footnote 30, pp. 15-16.


In many States, AFDC clients are being placed in education programs to improve their literacy skills. The NewChances Multi Resource Center in Minneapolis provides GED and life-skills instruction to teenage mothers withFederal funding from the JOBS programs.

smaller program in the Department of Agricul-ture, the Food Stamp Employment and Trainingprogram, also mandates education and trainingfor certain Food Stamp recipients. As noted inchapter 4, mandatory participation is becoming atrend in programs for incarcerated adults, as well.

A fourth new emphasis is improving the qual-ity, effectiveness, and infrastructure of adultliteracy programs. Over the years, Federal adulteducation programs have been criticized fordevoting relatively little attention to teachertraining, research, and data collection. The 1988AEA amendments and the 1991 NLA set forth anew knowledge-acquiring, capacity-building, and

program improvement agenda for the FederalGovernment and the States. The 1991 act, inparticular, authorizes a National Institute forLiteracy, State resource centers, a National AdultLiteracy Survey, and a national workplace strate-gies demonstration program, and requires indica-tors of program quality in AEA programs.

Many people in the field consider the newcapacity-building provisions-particularly the Na-tional Institute and the State resource centers—tobe the most significant provisions of the 1991law.46 Several new research and implementationissues have arisen as a result of legislationenacted since 1986 and could form the core of a

46 Fome~t PO ~q pr~ident, sou~fi Institute f o r Policy AXldySiS, w_tlfd cO~timtiOU J~. 8* 1992; Rictid ‘. ~ng~Washington representative, International Reading Association personal COmrnunicatioq Jan. 9, 1992; and Joan Y. Seamoq director, Divisionof Adult Education and Literacy, U.S. Department of EducatioxL personal communication, Dec. 10, 1991.


.research agenda for the National Institute andState resource centers. Areas for study include theeffects of mandated participation, differences inlearning styles among target groups, effectiveuses of technology for instruction and manage-ment, and the effects of competition for programslots when there are waiting lists.47 Thus, thesuccess of many of the new Federal programshinges in part on how well and how expeditiouslythis ambitious new knowledge-acquiring andcapacity-building agenda is implemented.

Definitions of ServicesOTA finds that Federal literacy laws, collec-

tively speaking, take a haphazard approach todefining key services and activities. Differentterms are used to mean roughly the same thing,and many critical terms are not defined at all. Forexample, all the following terms are used todescribe allowable services in different Federallaws: adult basic education, adult secondaryeducation, literacy training, basic skills educa-tion, basic skills training) remedial education,English as a second language, English literacyinstruction, and English language instruction. Inmany cases, these terms are not defined in law orregulation; where they are, they are sometimesdefined differently across programs.48 Vaguenessis especially pronounced in the JTPA: the termsbasic education, remedial education, and literacytraining are used in ways that imply differentmeanings, yet none are defined.

This inconsistency and vagueness may beattributable to the pluralistic needs of the eligiblepopulation, to the different historical roots of thevarious Federal literacy efforts, or to ever-changing perceptions of what constitutes anadequate level of literacy. Nevertheless, with key

terms left up to guesswork, the possibilities formultiple interpretations and misinterpretationsabound, even as the chances of accurately assess-ing the extent of the problem diminish.

Section 3 of Public Law 102-73, the 1991NLA, seeks to improve this situation by institut-ing a statutory definition of literacy with afunctional orientation, one that ED intends toapply over the long term to all its programs:

An individuals’ ability to read, write, and speakin English, and compute and solve problems atlevels of proficiency necessary to function on thejob and in society, to achieve one’s goals, anddevelop one’s knowledge and potential.

Whether other agencies will follow suit and adoptthis as a consistent Federal standard remains to beseen.49

Target PopulationsUntil fairly recently, most Federal aid to adult

education was relatively untargeted. The bulk offunding was (and still is) distributed through AEAbasic grants, open to any adult with educationalneed, regardless of income, country of origin, orother restrictions. Programs in other agenciesdealt with a handful of special target groups, suchas military personnel.

New Federal laws have increased the amountof Federal funding with restricted eligibility,shifting the Federal emphasis somewhat toward:

■ Low-income adults, through the JOBS andJTPA programs;

■ Parents of young children, through the familyliteracy and JOBS programs;

■ Groups with special needs (i.e., State and localprisoners and the homeless); and

47 me N~~~ cmt~ for ~~t Literq, one of tie ~=nt of ~u~t.ion’s f~~y funded reswch centers, ~ *O Contribute tO

the base of knowledge about program effectiveness, adult learnin g and motivatio~ and use of technology.

48 For example, ‘literacy’ is defined in functional terms in the new National Literacy Act definitio~ whereas the JOBS regulations defiiliteracy as a grade+equivalent level of 8.9. Similarly, “limited English proficient“is clef- in three slightly different ways in the AEA, family

bilingual educatiom and JOBS regulations..W s-on, op. cit., fOOtiOte ~.


Highly defined subcategories of newcomers(eligible legalized aliens, refugees, and Cubanand Haitian entrants).

The general intent seems to be to drive moreresources toward groups that Congress feels mayhave been neglected or undeserved by traditionalprograms. 50

Targeted Federal programs seem to be accom-plishing their intended effect of channeling morefunds toward adults with special needs andencouraging States and local providers to reachout to groups, such as the homeless and welfaremothers, whose access to general ABE programshas been limited.51 As a result of the J O B SProgram, for example, more welfare clients arebeing referred to adult education programs andalmost one-half of the States report shifting theemphasis of their welfare-to-work efforts awayfrom immediate job placement toward basic skillsand long-term education or training.52

An analysis of targeting provisions raisesseveral issues, however. First, a question arises asto whether the growth of targeted programsmeans a diminished emphasis on other adults whomay not fit into Federal ‘‘boxes’ ‘—workingadults, certain LEP adults, educationally disad-vantaged adults above the poverty line, adultswith learning disabilities, and high school gradu-ates who have not mastered basic skills. All ofthese groups must compete for spaces in AEA-funded programs, other public programs, orprivate/volunteer programs. Given current fund-ing levels, it is unrealistic to imagine that they

will all be served. Yet the Federal laws appear toexpect that literacy programs will be able to serveall of the new target populations without dimin-ishing services to the groups traditionally en-rolled in ABE. Some State and local practitionersfeel that targeted programs require them to bemore responsive to Federal guidelines than to thecommunity needs.53

This inadequacy in the Federal framework isparticularly pronounced regarding the LEP popu-lation, the fastest growing group in adult educa-tion. Here the Federal role is a “. . . combinationof generosity and neglect. ”54 Those eligibleunder SLIAG and the Refugee Resettlementprogram benefited from significant Federal fund-ing. The rest of the LEP population-includingmost immigrants, undocumented aliens, and native-born Americans-must seek help through theAEA or nonfederal programs, unless they arefortunate enough to live in a community that hasreceived a Federal LEP discretionary grant or abilingual family literacy grant. Although ESLenrollments in Federal AEA programs now com-prised 35 percent of the total,55 services still fallfar short of need. According to one local ESLdirector in Massachusetts, the number of slotsavailable for working LEP adults-the majorityof their waiting list-has decreased as the propor-tion of their budget coming from special Federalprograms has gone up. Adults eligible for SLIAG,refugee programs, JOBS, and needs-based pro-grams can ‘jump’ the wait list, but this lengthens

~ ~s @nd must not be overstated. The majority of idemifiible Federal literacy funding, provided through AEA kic !W@s, is s~lrelatively unrestricted, as are such programs as library literacy and VISTA. And the new emphasis on workplace literacy for employed adultsmight be considered a frend in a very different directiom toward serving the least economically disadvantaged who are aIready in the Job market,

51 It Shodd not & forgo~m tit some new F~e~ id-, ~ch M wo@~ce lit-y and welfare refo~ were ac@y piO13C4Xd by ~

States.

52 U.S. h~d hounting OffIce, op. cit., footnote 31, p. 4.

53 me ufiversi~ of the State of New Yoriq op. cit., footnote *1, p. 15.

54 CMsman et al., op. cit., footnote 6, p. 13.55 U.S. Dep@ent of ~uc~on, T=chi~g ~~f~ With Li~”t~ English s~”zzs (Wqoq ~: U.S. Gove~ent M- WIW, 1991),

p. 1.


the wait for those left behind and discouragesthem from seeking help.56

Recent legislation has not clearly resolvedwhether limited Federal resources should focuson those adults with the most severe educationalneeds, who incur the greatest social costs, or onthose closest to functional literacy, with thegreatest promise of becoming productive workersin the shortest time. The current mix of Federalprograms leans somewhat in the direction of theformer, but with enough departures in favor of thelatter to suggest that the Federal Government istrying to be all things to all people. As manyprogram people note, when the nun-her of ‘prior-ity’ groups proliferates to a certain point, thewhole concept of priority loses its meaning, andit becomes hard to distinguish the true priorities.

Are Federal JOBS requirements really expand-ing the total pool of resources for adult literacyeducation or merely changing the composition ofadult classes by displacing “slots” available fornonwelfare adults? Many States, in compliancewith HHS regulations57 are placing JOBS clientsin education services paid for by sources otherthan JOBS funds. In one 1991 study, 26 Statesreported that 40 percent or more of JOBSparticipants were placed in activities paid for byother providers.58 Research also suggests thatmany States do not have enough program slots tofill the demand for JOBS services; over one-halfof the States cited or expected shortages inalternative, basic, and remedial programs forJOBS clients, particularly in rural areas.59

Finally, the Federal concept of compartmental-ization by target group is somewhat at odds withhow most local programs prefer to operate,

accepting all comers and grouping by type andlevel of instruction.

Administrative Entities andService Providers

The Federal Government has played an impor-tant role in the development of public infrastruc-ture to serve illiterate adults. Until recently, SEASand local education agencies (LEAs) dominatedthe scene. The creation of new programs, the riseof DOL and HHS as key players, and therevamping of AEA distribution requirements arebringing about changes in State roles, administra-tive structures, funding streams, and the mix ofservice providers.

The 1991 amendments to the AEA require arange of service providers to have “direct andequitable access’ to Federal funds. In effect thischange signals a shift away from LEAs andschool-based models toward community-basalorganizations (CBOs) and other diverse provid-ers.60 These amendments have potentially far--reaching implications for service delivery, asStates revise their allocation systems to complyand as previously unfunded organizations com-pete for direct grants. The Texas EducationAgency, for example, has drafted amendments toits AEA State plan that allow all eligible granteesto apply directly to the State for competitivegrants, but that also encourage eligible recipientsto participate in a consortium, with a single fiscalagent applying on behalf of several serviceproviders. Massachusetts, by contrast, is likely tomake very few changes in its competitive process.

Broadening the base of service providers asrequired by law may also give rise to a whole new

56 Betty Stone, ESL director, Somerville Center for AdUlt ~“ Experiences, Sornemdle, MA, personal communicatioxq Jan. 28, 1992.

57 w m~tions * StateS to “. . . identify existing resourceS . . . and assure that costs for these other services for which welfare

recipients have been eligible are not incumed by the JOBS program.” 45 CFR 250.12.

58 U.S. ~~ -o- offi@, op. cit., fw~te 31, p. 23. WO ~ ~gen ~d Lurie, op. ci~, footnote 30, p. 8.

59 u.S. *4 *oX Offke, op. cit., foofnote 31, p. 31.60- ~-m, ~ we~ x ~0 dvoc*6, qp that school-based adult education programs, h- of their ou~h m~~~

institutional settings, locations, and teaching approaches, are less likely to serve the most disadvantaged adults than CBOS and other privatenonprofit providers.


set of service delivery issues: how to guaranteequality control throughout a larger, more diversenetwork; how to establish economies of scale andefficient management practices; how to providetechnical assistance to local organizations thathave not worked with Federal requirementsbefore; and how to assure coordination and avoidduplication.

New legislation also increases the role of theprivate sector. The workplace literacy program,for example, makes businesses and labor unionsdirect grantees and primary partners in deliveringservices. Other programs give private-sectorgroups responsibility for planning, advising, co-ordinating, developing curriculum, providing tech-nology, and, in the case of JTPA, overseeingprograms.

Finally, the Federal role affords greater recog-nition to volunteer literacy efforts through suchprograms as the VISTA literacy corps, the libraryliteracy programs, the Student Literacy Corps,and the Commission on National and CommunityService, and through AEA amendments requiringStates to describe how they will use volunteers toexpand the delivery system.

Services and ActivitiesUntil recently the Federal Government has

been cautious about prescribing the types of adulteducation services or the quality and intensity ofthose services. Aside from limiting the amountfor adult secondary education and specifyingwhich support services are allowable, the AEAhas been relatively flexible. Critics have arguedthat the flexibility in the law regarding instruc-tional services-together with limited Federalfunding and an input-based evaluation system—has helped create an adult basic education modelthat provides low-intensity services for a shorttime to many people and that relies on part-timeteachers and volunteers.

In general, the Federal framework seems to beedging toward greater prescription regardingactivities and services. Under the refugee resettle-

ment program, for example, English languageinstruction must be related to ‘‘obtaining andretaining a job” and must be provided outsidenormal working hours to the extent possible. TheEven Start program requires each project to containcertain minimum elements—such as screening,support services, and home-based programs. In atleast some cases, this type of Federal prescriptionseems aimed at ensuring quality control.

These more prescriptive service requirementsseem to be having an effect at the State and locallevel. Many local providers have responded toJOBS minimum 20-hour requirements by mount-ing a high-intensity program for JOBS and otherclients who have time to devote to these pro-grams. As implementation progresses, this pro-gram will provide a good case study of the effectsof participation mandates and of a more intenselevel of services.

A related trend is toward specifying minimumlevels of participation and a minimum intensity ofservices. For example, in the JOBS program,reimbursements are based on average numbers ofclients who receive a minimum of 20 hours ofservice weekly, and individuals are deemed to beparticipating satisfactorily if they attend 75 per-cent of scheduled JOBS activities. The Bureau ofPrisons also mandates a minimum of 120 hours ofliteracy instruction for inmates below the GEDlevel. Although the AEA remains relativelynonprescriptive, the newly mandated indicatorsof program quality being developed by theSecretary of Education could also have an impacton modes of instruction and intensity of services.

Federal laws are also becoming somewhatmore open about funding support services, suchas childcare, transportation, outreach, and coun-seling. New Federal programs have also helpedmove services to nontraditional locations, such asjob sites and homeless shelters. Federal familyliteracy programs, which emphasize services forboth parents and children at a single site, are alsohelping to change traditional assumptions abouthow and where services are delivered.


Regulations have raised the compulsory educationrequirements for Federal prisoners to high schooldiploma equivalency level. At the Maryland StatePenitentiary, inmates use the library to expand theirskills and pursue personal interests.

Accountability RequirementsMost Federal adult literacy programs contain a

range of fiscal, reporting, and evaluation require-ments aimed at ensuring that programs serve theintended clients and use sound financial andmanagement practices. The most common fiscalrequirements call for State and local matching,limit administrative costs, require maintenance ofeffort, and prohibit supplanting of State and local

funds. Of particular significance are matchingrequirements. These vary considerably acrossprograms. JTPA, for example, is 100 percentfederally funded; other programs are 50 percent orless. This means that the Federal Government has" . . . a differing locus of leverage. . .“ for eachprogram-’ ’[o]bviously an agency can push harderwhen it kicks in the lion’s share of the money. ’ ’61

Most programs also have annual reportingand recordkeeping requirements, each of whichmay seem sensible in context, but whichcumulatively may produce a substantial bur-den for participating agencies. State and localproviders often find multiple Federal accountabil-ity requirements “. . . cumbersome, confusing,and costly . . .“62 and a considerable source offrustration. Several State and local administratorsreport that because accountability is so differentfrom one funding source to another, a programthat gets three or four different discretionarygrants must have as many accountability systems.One formal evaluation concluded that when localprograms obtain funds from multiple sources,they pay an information burden price, since theyoften must collect the same information inslightly different forms to satisfy different report-ing requirements. Further frustration occurs whenFederal requirements change in midstream, evenafter a law is well in place.63

Needs-based programs and reimbursement-based programs, such as JOBS, SLIAG, andJTPA, seem to generate the most criticisms fromlocal providers,64 and programs admini stered byHHS and DOL seem to breed more complaintsabout requirements and paperwork than EDprograms. Some of this maybe attributable to thesheer size of the HHS and DOL formula grantprograms. Another likely reason is that Congress,

61 ~top~r Kin& “CO mmonalities Among Educatiou Training and Human Service Programs,” h4ah”ng the Connection: Coor&”natingEducation and Trainingfor a Skilled W’orkforce (WashingtoxL DC: U.S. Department of Educatiou 1991), p. 13.

@ S~leyDo~, Streamliru”ng andIntegrating Human Resource Developtnent Services forAdults (Washington DC: National Governors’Association 1991), p. 19.

63 U.S. ~~mt of 13ducatio~ op. cit., footnote 33, p. 16.

~ Ibid.


responding to public concerns about fraud andabuse, has made a concerted effort to tighteneligibility and related requirements in Federalwelfare, job training, and social service programs.The result is an accountability approach thatclosely tracks individual clients, whereas educa-tion programs tend to use aggregate accountabil-ity and sampling.

Some local programs resolve the incompatibil-ity of various Federal requirements by establish-ing self-contained classes of all SLIAG-eligibleadults, for example, or all JOBS participants,65 inorder to leave a clear accountability trail (whetheror not it is sound educational practice). Othersforgo participation in certain programs, feelingthat the added paperwork is not worth theburden. @ Some States, such as Texas, have triedto standardize fiscal and accountability require-ments for all adult literacy programs or develop asingle eligibility process for needs-based pro-grams, to the extent possible within the parame-ters of Federal laws.

Several points need to be considered whenweighing criticisms of Federal accountabilityrequirements. First, local people are not alwaysclear about which requirements are federallyimposed and which are State-imposed. Second,States interpret the same Federal requirements invery different ways and with different amounts ofpaperwork required. Third, those who complain,with legitimacy, about Federal paperwork andregulations still acknowledge the need for ac-countability for taxpayers’ dollars.

Evaluation RequirementsEvaluation requirements are a particularly

important type of accountability mechanism andthey, too, differ from program to program, rang-ing from the very loose (such as a requirement for

self-evaluation) to the very prescriptive (such asthe JTPA performance standards or the bilingualfamily literacy technical evaluation standards).Most Federal literacy programs come downsomewhere in the middle, with a broad require-ment for grantees to conduct an evaluation usingobjective and quantifiable measures.

In keeping with a national trend toward standard-setting in education and stricter accountability inhuman resource programs, Congress has strength-ened evaluation and program improvement re-quirements for a number of literacy-related pro-grams.67 Specific mechanisms differ by program.The JTPA, for example, places relatively fewconditions on grantees before they receive fundsbut is specific about results (performance stand-ards).68 The JOBS program specifies inputs andoutcomes, with individual needs assessments,employability plans, and participation require-ments up front and standards of satisfactoryprogress later.

Performance or outcome standards, as pio-neered by the JTPA, are becoming more commonin a range of programs. The JTPA itself hasbecome more performance-driven since 1983,with financial incentives and sanctions for failureto meet standards. In the JOBS program, HHSmust develop performance standards by 1993.Other new amendments charge the NationalInstitute for Literacy and the State resourcecenters with advising and providing technicalassistance on evaluation and require States toevaluate 20 percent of their AEA-funded pro-grams each year. In addition, the National Liter-acy Act of 1991 requires that:

. . . the Secretary, in consultation with appropriateexperts, educators and administrators, shall de-velop indicators of program quality that may beused by State and local programs receiving

fjS Hw~n ad L~e, op. Cit., fOO~Ote 30> p- 1O.66 ~ A. Ku~~ et ~., A&ft E&catiOn p~~~r~~ ad se~ice$: A view ~rom ~ine program (w&Mb@Oq m: PehVh k30Ch&eS,

1990), p. 50.67 Ibid., p. 15.~ Ibid., p. 13.

331-048 0 - 93 - 6 QL. 3


assistance under this title as models by which tojudge the success of such programs, includingsuccess in recruitment and retention of studentsand improvement in the literacy skills of students.Such indicators shall take into account differentconditions under which programs operate andshall be modified as better means of assessingprogram quality are developed.@

With all the evaluation data being generated byFederal requirements, there are still some gaps inthe area of adult literacy. Much of the informationproduced by federally mandated evaluations fo-cuses on specific Federal program issues, ratherthan on the best instructional practices and adultlearning models. In addition, good mechanismsdo not always exist for managing and analyzingevaluation data and disseminating it to practition-ers.

State and local reactions to Federal evaluationrequirements raise some important issues thatmerit consideration as Federal agencies imple-ment new provisions to strengthen evaluation. Atthe local level, it is not uncommon for a JTPAparticipant and an AEA participant to sit besideeach other in class, work with the same teacherand instructional materials, and yet be judged bydifferent evaluation or performance criteria. Fromthe local perspective, some of these differencesmay seem unnecessary and at times unfair,especially if some of the funding is tied tooutcomes.

While State and local adult literacy profession-als would like a higher degree of compatibility,they do not, as a rule, believe that all programsshould be measured the same way. Criteria forjudging a workplace literacy program, for exam-ple, are likely to differ from those used to evaluatea family literacy program.70 In addition, there

appears to be continued support at the State andlocal level for accountability systems flexibleenough to be “. . . driven by the individuallearner’s goals,’ with measures that evaluate howwell those goals are being met.71

A second issue is whether evaluation standardsare consistent with long-range program goals. Forinstance, JTPA performance standards are some-times criticized for overemphasizing job place-ment, earnings, and corrective action (a criticismaddressed in the new reauthorization of theJTPA). Some practitioners say this discouragesprograms from providing longer term basic skillsservices to the most educationally disadvantaged,especially if the education services are not likelyto lead directly to employment. State and localpractitioners also express concern that overambi-tious standards in a variety of programs can leadto “creaming’ of those most likely to succeed orto overenrolling clients in hopes that a sufficientnumber will meet the standards by the end of theprogram.

ENCOURAGING TECHNOLOGY USEThe Federal framework sends mixed and spo-

radic messages about the role of technology inadult literacy programs, and States and localservice providers have responded to these signalsin different ways.

Federal Provisions for TechnologySeveral provisions of law and regulation ac-

knowledge, allow, or encourage the use of tech-nologies for delivering literacy services or man-aging programs (see box 5-D). Some of these arelongstanding in Federal law: the JTPA explicitlyallows funds to be used for advanced learning

69 fibliC ~w 102.73, S~tiOn 301, ~hiCh ~~ S=tion Ml of ~ ~~t ~u~tion ~+

70 ~ ~~~tts, for example, a workplaec literacy program in a manufacturing company judged effectiveness in part by reductions inscrap met& while an English literacy program in a hospital interw“ewed patients about the quality of their eommunkations with participatinghospital staff. Bob Bozarjiq Massachusetts Department of Edueatioxq personal commum“C$3tiO~ Jan. 27, 1992.

71 Us. @*ent of Edueatioq op. ci~, footnote 33, p. 19.


Box 5-D-Key Technology Provisions in FederalLiteracy Laws and Regulations

AEA State Resource Centers Centers may improve and promote diffusion and adoption of technologies.May provide training and technical assistance on effective use of technolo-gies. No more than 10 percent of grant for hardware and software.

National Institute for Literacy Institute will conduct R&D on best methods, including technology. Willstudy use of technology to increase literacy knowledge base.

AEA Workplace Literacy Competitive priority to projects in retooling industries“ . Projects may updateworker basic skills to meet technological demands. Secretary may considerwhether applicants have “interactive video curriculum” in making nationalstrategy grants. National strategy grant recipients may use funds to establish“technology-based learning environments,” but Secretary may limitexpenditures for hardware and software.

AEA English Literacy Secretary considers use of new instructional technologies in making nationaldemonstration grants.

AEA National programs Secretary may evaluate educational technology and software for adults.

Literacy for State and Local Literacy programs must use advanced technologies impossible.Prisoners

Bilingual Family Literacy May use funds for technology-based instruction

DOL Workforce Collaborative Collaborative will inform businesses and unions about use of technology mworkplace literacy and produce video materials.

Job Training Partnership Act Funds may be used for advanced learning(JTPA) Title II-A

technology for education. Fundsmay be used for commercial ● technology training packages if broughtcompetively and include performance criteria.

No special technology provisions AEABasic Grants commercial Drivers ProgramMcKinney Homeless ED Program for Indian AdultsEven start - -student Literacy corps JTPA Title IIJTPATitle III Job corpsSLIAG VISTA LiteracyCorpsJOBS (Welfare Reform) Refugee Resettlement~Head Start Family Literacy

-: ~~=&= ~-t ~ ~~ JO-* ~ dBasic Skill& AsshtmmAtO

SOURCB: Nancy Kobar, “Pmflka of Mq@rIWezal Litemcy Ffo#am& “ [email protected]* 1992.

technologies, and the Department of Defense is a State resource centers are encouraged to conductleading user of adult learning technologies. 72 research and provide technical assistance onOther provisions affecting technology are more technology. The relatively new workplace liter-recent. The National Institute for Literacy and acy partnership program also recognizes the

72 ~Old H. p~~, Cc~~@ ~ ~~ wo~o~: ~ ROle Of mblogy in hnpmvhg ~t U- _ h? 1990s,”

backgrouml paper for the Pr@ct on Adult Literacy, Southport Imtitute, 1988, p. 39. See also U.S. Congress, Office of T&hnology AW%amn4

Work?r Truining: Competing in the New Economy, OTA-ITE457 (Washingto% DC: U.S. Government FYhthg Offic% 1990), pp. 263-267.

- — -. - —


This videodisc program incorporates text and picturesto help adult literacy students improve reading skillsat Temple University’s Center for Learning and AdultLiteracy Development.

relationship between basic skills and workplacetechnology demands.

By and large, however, Federal adult liter-acy legislation has not kept pace with thereality or promise of technology. The AEAbasic grant program contains no provisions ex-plicitly authorizing use of technology, neither doEven Start, SLIAG, refugee resettlement, andhomeless education. JOBS regulations mentionfunding for automated management systems butdo not mention use of technology in servicedelivery. No programs contain capital budgets forequipment purchase or explicit funding for teachertraining in technology.

Further, most statutory and regulatory provi-sions that do recognize technology are options,not mandates. In several programs, Federaladministering agencies may consider the use oftechnology when making competitive grants. Inother cases, State and local agencies may useFederal funds for technology. The mandates thatdo exist-such as those relating to the NationalInstitute for Literacy and the DOL NationalWorkforce Literacy Collaborative-generally af-

fat decisions at the Federal level, not the Stateand local level. The only quasi-mandate at thegrantee level is in the ED fictional literacyprogram for State and local prisoners, whichrequires the use of advanced technologies “ifpossible.’

Federal intent regarding technology is furtherobscured by mixed messages. Some laws thatexplicitly mention technology as an allowableactivity also place a cap on the amount that maybe spent for hardware or soilware. (Examples arethe State resource centers and the workplaceliteracy program.)

Moreover, the references to different technolo-gies in laws and regulations are somewhat arbi-trary and ill-defined. Various Federal laws men-tion all the following types of technology withoutdefining them: state-of-the-art technologies, in-teractive video curriculum, technology-basedlearning environments, new instructional technolo-gies, technology-based instruction, advancedlearning technologies, and commercial technol-ogy training packages.

Other Federal requirements not directly relatedto technology may subtly discourage its use. Forexample, performance standards may dissuadeservice providers from making long-term equip-ment investments or trying out new technology-based instructional approaches, for fear these willnot lead to immediate increases in student learn-ing or employment.73 Eligibility requirementsmay in effect prohibit federally funded hardwareand software from being used by noneligiblelearners after hours. The absence of multiyearcontracts in programs such as JTPA may discour-age long-term investment in technology .74

Some Federal agencies are undertaking theirown efforts to encourage wider and better use oftechnologies. DOL and ED have supported literacy-related technology demonstrations with discre-tionary money. States have used AEA section 353

73 mker, op. cit., footnote 72, p. 55.

74 mid.


experimental funds to promote use of technol-ogy?75

Why has the Federal Government taken acautious approach to technology? First, the Fed-eral Government traditionally has tended to besuspicious about capital expenditures in educa-tion, especially for expensive equipment that maybecome obsolete or sit untouched because peopleare not properly trained. Second, because adulteducation funding is so limited compared to need,many policymakers see the technology issue as atradeoff between ‘‘live’ teachers or computers.Third, the pressure for greater Federal leadershipis not there, because the adult education field isstill in its adolescence regarding technology.Finally, many Federal agencies lack the technicalexpertise to develop a thoughtful technologypolicy .76

Federal leadership could do a great deal to helpthe field mature technologically, in terms ofresearch, training, evaluation, dissemination, andadoption. The Office of Educational Research andImprovement National Center for Adult Literacy,the National Institute, and the State centers offerpromising starting points, but these efforts are inthe early stages.77

A final issue for Federal consideration is theuse of technology for program management. Thegrowth of Federal literacy-related programs withstrict eligibility and documentation requirementshas created new data collection and reportingburdens that could be greatly eased throughtechnology-based management systems. Tech-nology also holds promise for better coordinationacross programs and agencies. A related questionis whether Federal policy should encourage broadintegration and sharing of instructional and man-

agement technology across programs, or whethertechnology issues should be addressed independ-ently by each program.

State and Local Reaction to FederalTechnology Policy

States and local service providers appear torespond in different ways to mixed Federalsignals about technology. Some States and localsites are making increasing use of technology intheir federally funded adult education programs .78In the JTPA program, the majority of servicedelivery areas use computers for instruction ormanagement. 79 (Often this equipment was pur-chased with private contributions, Governors’8-percent money, or national demonstration dol-lars rather than regular JTPA funds.80) Yet despitethe existence of successful and sophisticatedmodels, the use of technology is not particularlywidespread in federally funded adult literacyprograms.

Why is this so? First, many State administra-tors and local service providers are reluctant tospend limited Federal dollars on equipment andsoftware, believing that they are ‘too expensive’or would drain funds away from direct services.81

When tight budgets force a choice betweenbuying equipment and paying a salary, an invest-ment in upfront equipment may seem out of thequestion.

Second, the absence of explicit authorization inmany Federal programs for hardware and soft-ware or for technology-based instruction seems tohave a chilling effect. Although only a fewprograms actually limit the use of funds forequipment, some State and local program people

7S Semen, Op. cit., footnote 32.

76 packer, op. cit., footnote 72, p. 55.

77 F~a ~ong we effo~ at he s~te ~d lo~ level, such as c~ifomia’s Oumach ~d ~mcal Assistance Network (0’DUN).

78 1‘mchnolo~ iII Adult Education: New Opportunities, New Cmenges, ” A.L.L. Points Bulletin, vol. 3, No. 2, April 1991, p. 1.

79 packer, op. Cit., fOOmOte 72. p. 17.

80 Ibid., p. 38.‘1 Ibid., p. 56.


believe such expenditures are discouraged by theFederal Government or interpret Federal silenceas lukewarm support. Some State and localprogram people also seem to perceive, correctlyor incorrectly, that Federal a administrators arewary of equipment and software purchases, andthat if programs make these purchases, they do soat risk of being closely monitored down the road.

Third, the nature of small, highly targeted, orcompetitive grant programs may present obsta-cles. In general, expenditures under targetedprograms may be used only for services to eligiblepopulations; unless the local target group is large,it maybe hard to justify a technology expenditure.Moreover, as noted above, competitive grants areoften a short-term and unreliable funding source,and a small one at that. A decision to purchaseequipment and software might eat up the entiregrant amount, leaving nothing for training, acces-sories, or instructional services and producing nomeasurable student outcomes when evaluationscome due.

Fourth, some State and local program peoplefeel that there is not yet enough research docu-menting the effects of technology-based instruc-tion for adult learners, and that technology maynot be appropriate for some types of learners.These beliefs seem to be reinforced when Stateand local people have had prior negative experi-ences with inappropriately used technology, infe-rior learning packages, or lack of training. Thisfinding indicates a need for both better researchand improved dissemination of existing research,as well as a willingness to experiment, makemistakes, and learn from them.

Fifth, State leadership also seems to be animportant influence on the use of technology infederally funded programs. A lack of Stateencouragement can have a dampening effect at

the local level, while a more aggressive Statepolicy can help overcome initial local reluctance.In Texas, for example, where the State hasencouraged the use of technology, the majority ofthe adult education cooperatives reported havingaccess to computers for instructional purposesand administrative purposes; almost one-thirdhad access to integrated learning systems; andsome had more than one system, with a widevariety of software being used.82 Feedback andevaluations from technology-based programs havebeen quite positive, and Texas officials wouldlike to expand their use. The major obstacle is alack of funding for capital expenditures.83

COORDINATION AMONG ADULTLITERACY PROGRAMS

Recent analyses of the Federal effort in adultliteracy have concluded that it is fragmented,poorly coordinated, spread thinly across manyagencies, and insufficient in some major ways.84

Recognizing these problems, Congress has addeda range of provisions affecting Federal, State, andlocal coordination to many literacy-related stat-utes, most recently the National Literacy Act (seeappendix C).

Federal RequirementsThe largest programs-AEA, JOBS, and JTPA—

have many coordination mandates. Among themost typical are requirements for consultationwith other agencies and programs, joint planreview, consultation with broad-based advisorycouncils, and State plan descriptions of coordina-tion methods. Many programs also include direc-tives to coordinate or collaborate with relevantagencies or service providers at the Federal, State,and local levels. These requirements tend to bespecific about the programs with which agencies

82 ~XM ~~tion Agaq, “survey of Computer Usage in Adult Education in ‘IkXM,” tit mm 1992.

83 Evelyn ~~ ~u@on S-G ‘fkxas Education Ag~, PA CO-utlkXtiOQ Jm ~. 19Z.

S4s= Ro~ A. silv~ TOW~d Integrated&t ~~”ng system: T)M Jj@us ofs@fe k“teracy E#orts (wt@d13@3Q ~: Fktiod

Governors’ Associadou 1991); David HarnmL 7hrning I1literacyAround:An Agenda for Naa”onalAction (New Yok NY: Business Coumilfor Effective Literacy, 1985); and Pi% op. cit., footnote 12.


must coordinate or consult; most frequentlymentioned are JTPA, vocational education, ele-mentary and secondary education, vocationalrehabilitation, special education, and employ-ment and training programs.

Some statutes give Federal agencies, and to alesser degree States, joint tasks to carry out. ED,DOL, and HHS are jointly charged with imple-menting the National Institute for Literacy andproviding technical assistance for the JOBSprogram. Building on this base, the three agencieshave undertaken additional shared efforts on theirown: sponsoring joint regional planning meet-ings, initiating relationships at the regional officelevel, and sitting in on each other’s informationalmeetings. 85 The National Institute for Literacyand the State literacy resource centers have alsobeen given a range of coordination tasks.

The Federal framework also contains somefunding incentives for coordination. The Gover-nors’ 8-percent education-coordination set-asideunder the JTPA is one strong motivator. Otherprograms, such as workplace literacy, Even Start,and library literacy, attempt to build coordinationfrom the ground up by requiring or urging localprograms to be run as partnerships involvingmore than one agency. In several competitivegrant programs, grantees that can demonstratecollaboration or coordination receive priority inselection. Several programs also contain provi-sions discouraging duplication of services.

Nevertheless, the Federal framework does notgo as far as it might to foster coordination. Manyof the smaller literacy-related programs do notrequire or suggest any interagency coordina-tion. 86 In addition, the coordination provisionsthat exist do not usually specify the nature ordegree of coordination expected. As past experi-

ence with coordination mandates demonstrates, itis relatively easy to prove that a plan has beenreviewed, or an interagency meeting convened. Itis harder for the Federal Government to assess

whether meaningful coordination is occurring, letalone take enforcement action if it is not. Finally,there is a subtle contradiction in the Federalframework: the same Federal laws that mandatecoordination have also created an assortment ofprograms that, by sheer numbers, make thecoordination process more difficult and compli-cated.

Forging strong collaborative relationships is a

time-consuming process and results may notshow up immediately. Because of these difficul-ties, State and local agencies are in effect theirown overseers, and the will to achieve resultsbecomes a deciding factor.

State and Local ImpactIt is difficult to assess the real effect of Federal

coordination requirements on State and localpractice. Many successful models of coordinationpredate or were developed independently ofFederal mandates. In addition, grant recipientscan comply on paper without really changingtheir behavior. Nevertheless, coordination re-quirements in Federal law seem to be havingsome effect on State and local practice. Coordina-tion requirements in the JTPA, for exampleamong the earliest mandates-have helped pro-duce a wide range of models and strategies,87 andmany relationships forged under these effortshave carried over into other areas. More recently,the JOBS program coordination requirementshave compelled States to make interagency deci-sions about administration and service delivery .88

85 (_J~ F* dir~t~r, DiviSi~n Of pwg, poli~ ~d ~gislation, U.S. ~p~cnt of hkr, ptTSOXXd CO mmunicatiou Jan. 9, 1992; and

SeamoU op. cit., foomote 46.86 A~re~ and Hughes, op. cit., footnote 1A, p. 21.

87 SW U.S. Dep~ent of ~~r, An A~~~~-~t of the ~PA Role in sr~re and ~Cal coordination ktivities (wWhill@OQ ~: U.S.

Government Printing OfiIce, 1991).

88 H%en and Lurie, op. cit., footnote 30, pp. 9-10.


In many communities the library is an important partner in family, workplace, and adult literacy efforts.

Flexible Federal dollars have also helpedgrease the wheels of coordination. The JTPA8-percent education-coordination grants seemparticularly important. In 1990, five States hadspecifically earmarked a portion of this set-asideto support an entity within the Governor’s officeto coordinate statewide literacy efforts.89 LSCATitle I funds provide another example: in Kalama-zoo, Michigan, for instance, these funds helpsupport a literacy coordinator, maintain a literacynetwork, and provide a literacy clearinghouse.90

There appears to be widespread agreement thatFederal mandates alone cannot make coordina-tion happen; individual will and personalities arecritical. 91 On the reverse side, no matter how

strong the will to coordinate, State and localinitiatives can only go so far until they run upagainst a wall of Federal requirements that cannotbe changed without legislative or regulatoryaction.

What changes do State and local practitionersrecommend to eradicate these obstacles? Al-though some State and local administrators advo-cate program consolidation or Federal agencyreorganization as solutions, these are by no meansuniversal recommendations. A more commonrecommendation is for Congress and the execu-tive branch to take steps to put the Federal housein order by standardizing requirements, eliminat-ing unnecessary complexity, and charging Fed-

tW silv~ op. cit., footnote 84, p. 9.

w J@rh A. tiprese et al., Patterns @Promise: State and heal Strategies for Improw”ng Coordination in AdIdt mtin PWYW(washhl!@om DC: cosmos Corp., 1992), p. 93.

91 u-s, ~~~ of ~~tio~ op. ci~, footnote 33, p. 14.


eral agencies to undertake joint ventures andforge collaborative relationships. Support forcompatible reporting requirements seems particu-larly strong, with recommendations that Federalagencies decide on standard protocols for evalua-tions, performance outcomes, eligibility, andreporting timetables. Similarly, the recommenda-tion to move toward compatible applicationcycles, carryover procedures, and finding cycles(including multiyear grants) is a popular one.Many people also feel that additional, flexiblefunding specifically for coordination would help.

FEDERAL POLICY ISSUESPrograms and Dollars

Several factors have shaped the Federal role inadult literacy education, but perhaps none morethan funding limitations. In essence, the FederalGovernment has attempted to solve a large,multifaceted problem in a piecemeal fashion. Thecurrent array of modest to small programs pro-vides something for almost every type of literacyneed and not very much for any, with inefficien-cies for all.

Since funding exerts some control over policy,it may make sense for Congress to frost faceup tothe issue of whether adult literacy is a highenough national priority to warrant greatly in-creased outlays. If the answer is yes, this pointstoward one set of policy options, which mayinclude a new wide-scale program, with highervisibility in the Federal bureaucracy, that ex-pands, subsumes, or replaces existing efforts. Ifthe answer is no, then policy discussions ought tocenter on how to use the dollars available moreeffectively.

One such option is to focus Federal leadershipon a few, clear priorities, including any of thefollowing:

Building capacity and/or improving qualityacross the whole literacy system;Serving a few high-priority target groups, withthe aim of reducing costs for other socialprograms down the road;

Raising the literacy level, and with it thecompetitiveness, of the American workforce;andReducing illiteracy in future generationsthrough family literacy.

Any of these choices would suggest a reductionin the number of Federal programs, and perhapsa dramatic refashioning of the Federal role. Somecaution might be advisable before a ‘‘blockgrant” approach is taken, however; funding thatis too flexible could easily become diffusedacross the vast pool of literacy needs, anddiffusion is already a problem.

In sharpening the focus of the Federal role,Congress might also consider whether the prac-tice of attaching literacy mandates to programswith other goals has expanded funding, participa-tion, and delivery mechanisms for adult literacy,or whether it is has shifted the composition andadded to the waiting lists of existing programs.

A final issue is how the Federal Governmentcan make more of its leveraging potential, forexample by catalyzing additional private dollarsfor workplace literacy or providing incentivegrants for States to develop cost-effective modelsof service delivery.

Services, Quality, and Capacity BuildingIf Congress decides that this is an area where

more aggressive Federal leadership could make adifference across the system, then several optionsseem feasible.

Building on the missions of the NationalInstitute for Literacy, the National Center forAdult Literacy, and the State resource centers,Congress could expand the funding and scopefor research, evaluation, and dissemination ofthe best instructional practices, curriculum,technology, and training methods. This type ofcapacity-building agenda could serve as ahomework for the entire Federal role.Professionalization of the literacy field couldbegin with a significant Federal staff develop-


ment and preservice training effort for instruc-tors and leaders, as has been done in themathematics/science education and medicalfields. Such approaches as extending grants orloans to talented undergraduates, sponsoringsummer institutes, strengthening universityprograms, and providing high-quality trainingopportunities could help draw new people tothe field and upgrade the skills of existingpractitioners, including volunteers. Attentionwould have to be paid, however, to the substan-dard pay and working conditions associatedwith adult education programs.In programs as diverse as Chapter 1 andvocational education, the Federal Governmenthas enacted new “program improvement”provisions to identify the weakest local pro-grams and prod them to change their practices.A similar approach could be considered foradult education, although first some consensuswould have to be reached about what consti-tutes success and how to measure it. Theforthcoming AEA indicators of program qual-ity could serve as a starting point for a newassessment approach that looks at deliverysystems, instructional approaches, and serviceintensity, in addition to learner outcomes.The Federal Government could do more toencourage policies supporting alternative de-livery systems for adult literacy services, suchas programs in the workplace, the home, o rother nontraditional sites. This would requirenew approaches to crediting student time ontask for mandated programs where participa-tion is counted by hours of attendance in aclassroom setting, but would offer greaterflexibility to the learners.

Target GroupsTo date the Federal Government has avoided

making hard choices about who should receivehighest priority for Federal funds. As States striveto meet mandatory participation levels in theJOBS program, without fully reimbursing local

providers for the costs of JOBS services, it ispossible that local programs may be forced tomake the hard choices themselves, which couldlead to polarization among different groups and abacklash against Federal mandates.

Congress could confront the issue directly bydeciding on some clear priority groups. A keyissue is whether to concentrate on adults who areclosest to achieving functional competency andeconomic self-sufficiency, or on adults who havethe most severe disadvantages.

TechnologyFederal leadership in adult literacy technology

holds promise for improving instruction, coordi-nation, and management. Stronger leadershipcould be exerted in several ways:

Stimulating capital investment, through suchapproaches as a revolving loan fired, incentivesfor private-sector donations, and technologypools that serve several Federal programs;Removing disincentives in Federal law to useof technology;Supporting research, development, and dissem-ination and encouraging private-sector soft-ware development;Building on the Federal Star Schools programand other distance learning efforts to reachunderserved populations of and to expandtraining and staff development for adult educa-tion teachers and volunteers; andPiloting use of technology to help managecomplex recordkeeping and accountability re-quirements for multiple Federal programs.

CoordinationFragmentation at the Federal level undercuts

Federal mandates for coordination at the State andlocal level. Federal leadership is urgently needed.A logical first step would be to develop a commonframework to guide Federal accountability, re-porting, and eligibility requirements; definitions;and funding cycles. The Federal Governmentcould back up the requirements that already exist


in Federal law by providing some incentives, or“glue money,’ for States and local providers to

develop, extend, and improve good models ofcoordination and effective use of technology.

A stickier issue is whether agency responsibili-ties should be reorganized to cut down onfragmentation. To some extent the answer woulddepend on which literacy priorities Congresschooses to emphasize. A Federal role structuredaround upgrading the workforce, for example,would suggest a different configuration of agencyresponsibilities, with a stronger role for DOL,than one centered on educational capacity-building and teacher professionalization.

CONCLUSIONIn assessing the overall impact of the Federal

Government on adult literacy, one must notbecome so caught up in the criticisms of theFederal role as to forget the positive contributionsit has made to the field. The fact that States andlocal agencies continue to participate in Federalliteracy programs year after year, with all theaccompanying administrative challenges, sug-gests that the benefits of participation mustoutweigh the drawbacks.

The main benefit is not hard to find. Federaldollars continue to be critical to an underfundedfield, and States and local service providerscontinue to do what they must to receive them.

The choice between turning people away anddealing with regulatory complexity is not adifficult one for most literacy providers. In fact,the lengths to which some programs will go tokeep their doors open is often remarkable.

Still, it seems fair to ask whether the totalFederal literacy effort—given its limited funding,its variable quality and intensity, its scant cover-age of the eligible population, and its lack of acohesive, overarching policy-is really making adent in the problem of illiteracy. The answerseems to be it is making a real difference in thelives of millions of people, an accomplishmentthat should not be underestimated. With increasedfunding, better coordination, greater leadership inthe areas of technology and instructional quality,and a richer base of research knowledge, Federalprograms could make a difference for millionsmore.

A final observation: it is beyond the scope ofthis chapter to analyze the effects of other Federallegislation-such as housing, health, nutrition,tax, and elementary and secondary educationpolicies-on the functional literacy of adultAmericans. Suffice it to say, any policy choicethat widens or reduces the gap between the havesand have-nets, in this generation or the next,ultimately influences the status of adult literacy inthe United States.

Improving theSystem:

PromisingRoles for

Technology 6

A dult literacy programs, regardless of funding source orsponsor, share many of the same difficult problems andcritical needs. These include issues of recruitment,retention, and mandated attendance; instructional issues

regarding curriculum, staff development, and assessment; issues

related to the integration of literacy and social services; a n dadministrative issues concerning funding and coordination.Technology offers promise for dealing with many aspects ofthese common concerns.

FINDINGS■

■

■

Recruiting adult learners and retaining them in programs longenough to make significant changes in their literacy levels arepersistent concerns for literacy programs of all types. Technol-ogy has been used successfully to draw learners into programs,hold their interest, and adapt instruction to their needs andlevels.Mandated literacy for special populations is affecting literacyprograms in a number of ways. The target groups that must beserved differ substantially from those who enter programsvoluntarily-in terms of education level, motivation, need forsupport services, and higher incidence of personal problemsaffecting their literacy quest. Programs must adapt consider-ably to serve these groups effectively, and these adaptationswill likely affect all those served by the programs.

A.

One of the major challenges for programs is finding curricularmaterials appropriate for adults, flexible enough for theirmultiple learning styles and relevant to learners’ goals andneeds. Survival skills, getting and keeping a job, workplacecontent, and family needs all provide context for literacy

161

162 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for

instruction that is meaningful to adult learners.Technology-based media that use sound, video,graphics, and text and can be adapted easily forthe individual learner offer great promise astools for creating pertinent and engaging curric-ulum.Program evaluation and assessment is stymiedby a reliance on school-based models o feffectiveness, such as gains in grade-levelequivalents on standardized tests. Multiplemeasures of effectiveness are needed, includingperforman cc-based assessments. An effectiveprogram must take into account the reality thata learner’s personal literacy goals may bedifferent from the outcomes measured forevaluating a program’s overall success.Maintaining up-to-date student records andprogram accounting data is costly, time-

consuming, and difficult for most programs.Computer-based solutions such as databasescont aining information on student progressmake it possible for programs to streamlineoperations as well as keep better track ofstudents and their educational needs. Anothersolution has been the use of personal studentdata cards; these minimize repeated placementtesting and expensive intake procedures, bene-fiting both programs and learners.Professional development of adult educators isunlikely to be achieved without changes inState credentialing requirements, developmentof master’s level programs in adult learning andliteracy, and creation of career ladders for thosein the field. Better communication is neededbetween programs and colleges and universi-ties that could provide preservice and inservicetraining to staff and volunteers. Technologyoffers a promising resource (via computernetworks, distance learning systems, software,and video materials) for training staff andvolunteers, sharing information about promis-ing practices, and reducing the isolation ofmany programs.

a Lifetime

Limited, unstable and short-term funding frommultiple sources affects many decisions aboutstaffing, services, and instructional methods,making it difficult to plan, purchase materials,or serve more than a small percentage of thosein need. Tight budgets and limited planningcapabilities especially affect the ability to maketechnology a central part of instruction orprogram management.

Different and sometimes incompatible Federalfunding streams, eligibility restrictions, andaccountability requirements are sources offrustration for State and local literacy practi-tioners and drive these programs in ways thatmay not always reflect local learner needs orpromote efficient management practices. Tech-

nology offers resources for improving coordi-nation and consolidating service to improveefficiency, while still allowing local flexibilityand control.

RECRUITING, RETAINING, ANDSERVING LEARNERS

Bringing learners into literacy programs andkeeping them long enough to meet their goals arecontinuing concerns for programs of all types.Recruitment and retention go hand in handbecause the same problems that keep learnersfrom entering programs in the frost place resurfaceas factors contributing to the inability to stay witha literacy program. Indeed, many who enterliteracy programs drop out and are then targets forrenewed recruitment drives.

Recruitment Issues and StrategiesMany factors make adults reluctant to enter

literacy programs. Most common among these arethe stigma of admitting one’s problems, conflict-ing demands from family and work that make

time commitments difficult, and past negative

Chapter 6-Improving the System: Promising Roles for Technology I 163

experiences with schooling. l Some adults areoverwhelmed by how much time would berequired to meet their goals. Remembering thatthey were unable to succeed as youngsters whenattending school all day, every day, they wonderhow much progress can be made attending only afew hours a week.2 For many, the memory ofschool and their past academic failure makes theidea of returning to school—the scene of so muchprior humiliation-a frightening or undesirableprospect.

Public information campaigns have sought toencourage those with literacy needs to comeforward. A string of Federal initiatives-from the1969 “Right to Read Initiative,” the 1980 AdultLiteracy Initiative, and Barbara Bush’s advocacyof literacy for all Americans, as well as the privatesector’s Project Literacy US (PLUS) and count-less State and local efforts-have presentedliteracy as a problem that can be solved if those inneed sign up and others volunteer time andassistance. The message has been deliveredthrough public service announcements on radioand television, on posters, and in newspapers andmagazines. However, as discussed in chapter 3,many of those needing help have coped ade-quately in the past, or cannot be convinced thatclasses will really help them. Often, as oneeducator noted: ‘‘A person with low literacy skillswho has a job which does not demand higherskills will not appreciate the need for instructionuntil he or she loses that job, the job is eliminated,or the job’s demands begin to escalate because ofglobal competition.’

With this in mind, some workplace programshave used video as low-pressure but effectiverecruitment tools to encourage employees to entertheir voluntary literacy and training programs.For example, the United Auto Workers andGeneral Motors, with a grant from the U.S.Department of Labor, developed an interactivevideodisc to illustrate how quickly the skillsneeded to succeed in the auto industry arechanging. 4 Workers touch the screen to interactwith the material and test their knowledge invarious skill areas. In one plant, the program wasset up in the cafeteria so that employees couldwork on it for as long as they wanted; manyreturned over and over, or kept at it for severalhours on their own time, trying various self-assessments to see how close they were to havingthe skills needed for working in the year 2000.5 Inanother recruiting approach, the United AutoWorkers-Ford video “The Breakfast Club” sug-gests that there’s no stigma attached to improvingone’s academic skills at all levels.6 Participationin Ford’s Skills Enhancement program is encour-aged by showing a variety of employees includinga young engineer working on his master’s degree,a worker with many years of seniority pursuinghis high school diploma, and a Rumanian immi-grant studying English. The message is clear:everyone can pursue higher educational goalswith the help of the Skills Enhancement Program.

Literacy programs have discovered that com-puters can be powerful vehicles for attractinglearners and drawing them into programs. Forexample, the Harlem Community Computing

1 Hal Beder, “Reasons for Nonparticipation in Adult Basic Educatioq” Ad@ Education Quarterly, vol. 40, No. 4, Sumxner 1990, pp.207-218.

Z In one study, adults in literacy programs in New York City made the most gain in the fmt year, and then improved more slowly. By theend of the third year, improvement seems to have leveled off for those with literacy levels below the 7.S-grade level. Thorruu Sticht, “HowFast Do Adults Acquire Literacy Skills?” h40saic: Research Notes on Literacy, vol. 2, No. 2, July 1992, p. 2.

s Garrett W. Murphy, director, Division of Continuing Educatiou The State Education Department New York pexsonal commuuicatioqSeptember 1992.

4 UAW-GM Human Resource Center and the U.S. Department of Labor, “Skills 2000,” brochure, n.d.

S OTA site visit, United Auto Workers program, Delco Chassis Plang Liven@ MI, March 1992.

G J.D. Eveland et al., Claremont Graduate School, ‘‘Case Studies of lkchnology in Adult Literacy Programs, ” OTA contractor repor4 June1992.


Center’s popular “Playing to Win” program,now in its 10th year, attracts more than 500 peoplea week. The center’s president explained thedrawing power of technology:

Why might a learner respond so willing when acomputer is mentioned? Because he or she is nodope, because people who can’t read, write,calculate or communicate as well as society couldwish are not totally unaware. They know that thisis a technologically-based world . . . that acquir-ing comfort and skill with technology is just asimportant from their point of view as learning toread, write and calculate more successfully.7

Many adult learners associate technology withtomorrow’s skills, not yesterday’s failures. Theyfind that using computers legitimizes literacystudies; they are proud to be “learning comput-ers’ when in fact they are also learning withcomputers. It can be like starting fresh for thosewho have associated traditional classrooms ortextbooks with their past school failures.8 Otherswho were frustrated and embarrassed by theirslow progress in prior literacy classes or tutorialssavor the privacy offered by computers andheadphones so that “. . . the guy next to youdoesn’t have to know what you’re working on.”They also appreciate the infinite patience ofcomputers. “They will read something over 100

times without (the computer)that word; I just told you that

saying ‘You knowword. ’ “g

Retaining Learners Long Enough toMeet Goals: The Problem of Attrition

Once learners have come forward and secureda place in an adult literacy program, the next bigissue is keeping them involved long enough tomeet their goals.l0 Student attrition is a centraland vexing issue. The statistics are bleak:

Between 15 and 20 percent of all clients who gothrough the intake process never actually re-ceive any instruction.11

In the first 5 weeks, from one-quarter to almostone-half of all adult learners stop going toclass .12After 40 weeks, only about 12.5 percent ofthose who began classes are still active13

overall, attrition rates are in excess of 60percent in many adult basic education (ABE) andgeneral equivalency diploma (GED) courses andover 70 percent in some State literacy programs .14(See figure 6-l.)

Many overlapping factors conspire againstcompleting a program. A longitudinal study ofstudents enrolled in adult literacy programs inNew York City in 1988 found that less than 1 in10 (8.3 percent) said they left because they had

7 Antonia Stone, “’lbols for Adult Learners,” paper pmented at the International Urban Literacy Conference sponsored by the UnitedNations, August 1992.

6 See Evelaad et al., op. cit., footnote 6.

g William M. Bulkeley, ‘‘Illiterates Fti Computexs Are Patient Mentors,” The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 16, 1992, p. B1.

10 me high rate of student attrition was placed at the top of the list of program concerns of adult WC edudon (ABE) ~ g-equivalency diploma (GED) dmiXlis~OrS at the 1992 Joint ABI@!D Armud Natiorud Admuus“ “ trators Conference and of statewide literacyand ABE adrmms“ “ trators in Pennsylvania and Georgia at their 1991 and 1992 professional development conferences. B. Allen Quigley, “l%eDisappearing Student: The Attrition Problem in Adult Basic Educatiom” AdidtLearm”ng, vol. 4, No. 1, Septernber/Gctober 1992, p. 25.

11 ~ W%- WOCMC director for Data Processing and Analysis, National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs, Developmem

Associates, Inc., personal communication February 1993. Data takem from a nationally representative sample of about 21,000 new intakes toAdult Education Act-funded programs. Data based on Development Associates, Inc., “Second InteAm Reporu profile of Clientcharacteristics,” draft repq 1993.

12 Lauren Seiler and Peter Nwakeze, “Attrition in Adult Education: Causes and Recommendations,” Literacy Harvest: The Journal of theLiteracy Assistance Center, vol. 2, No. 1, winter 1993, p. 26.

:3 Mo~ op. Cit., footite 1l? p“ 2“

14 Q@lq, Op. Ci~, f~~ote 10”


Walk inthe door

startclasses

Figure 6-l-The Pattern of Attritionin Literacy Programs

-. .-—-4—- . .

. . —

I

‘–:-EIT

.@...

I

Of all learnerswho walk in thedoor and gothrough theretake process...

80-85°/0 actually

start classes.

After the first 5weeks only half tothree-quarters ofthis group remain.

After 40 weeks,only about 12.5%of those whobegan classes arestill active.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993, based on datafrom Development Asadates, Inc., “Second Interim Report: Profile ofClient Characteristi~,” draft report, 1993; and Lauren Seilerand PeterNwakeze, “Attrition in Adult Education: Causes and Recommenda-tions,” Literacy Harvest: The Jouma/of the LiteraeyAssistance Center,vol. 2, No. 1, winter 1993, p. 26.

learned enough.l5 The vast majority left withoutcompleting their educational goals. The reasonsfor leaving were categorized as follows:

Situational deterrents (64 percent): work,health, childcare, family, transportation, orother external problems;Institutional deterrents (11 percent): uninterest-ing or inappropriate programs;Dispositional deterrents (3.6 percent): tired ofschool or were not accomplishing goals; andCombination of situational, dispositional, andinstitutional deterrents (7 percent). l6

is uncommon to have information on whystudents drop out, for most who leave literacyprograms just stop coming and the factors creat-ing the dissatisfaction leading them to ‘‘vote withtheir feet’ are never known or addressed. Further-more, because many learners leave programs andthen return at a later date, there is reluctance torecord a learner as ‘‘terminated. ’

Many programs have begun to develop record-keeping systems to help them analyze patterns ofattrition. For example, volunteer organizationshave developed software packages to help localprograms maintain computerized databases onlearners and tutors, allowing for more systematicanalysis of retention factors.

17 These systems are

part of a general effort to improve retention byproviding “better matches” between tutors andlearners, but there is little data to confirm that thismakes learners stay in programs longer.l8

Even mandatory programs find retention aproblem. Education programs for welfare recipi-ents also report that their biggest problem is poor

15 sei,l~ and Nwakeze, op. cit., footnote 12, p. 27.

16 ~id.

17 me ve~ 1.0 &~ q~ent ~ste~ dmelo~ by Lite~y vol~~rs Of Ameri= &.A), ~~ &~ for Vo]UIlt&r pm-,

and helps track mailing information demographics, tutor-learner matches, hours, and other data on volunteers, tutors, and learners.18 ~ ev~~tion ~~dy of 953 I_ers at .s~ Li&~y volun~rs of ~rica sites ~O@Out tie unit~ s~tes Showd a Shght p&ltim Of

correlation between tutor and learner similarity and learner achievement. However, the researchers suggest that the data on which the analysisis made is limited. V.K. Lawson et al., Literacy Volunteers of Americ& Syracuse, NY, “Evaluation Study of Program Effectiveness,”unpublished repo~ January 1990, p. 24.


Distance learningprojects bringinstruction tostudents in remotelocations. Thisclass is being sentfrom KirkwoodCommunity Collegeto centers spreadacross a 4300-mileservice area.

attendance. l9 Only when basic needs are satisfac-torily cared for can one concentrate on thedifficult task of learning. For those whose finan-cial, emotional, and health situations keep themon the edge, the recurring problems and crises ofday-to-day life take precedence over long-termlearning goals. Most programs try to deal with thesituational, institutional, and dispositional factorsthat drive students from programs, but it is a hugejob.

Community-based organizations are especiallysensitive to the need for providing the compre-hensive services that remove some situationalbarriers. Often their literacy activities are part ofa broader program that seeks to help clients dealwith the myriad issues of housing, employment,childcare, health, and personal relationships. Coun-seling and social services are as central to theirmission as literacy classes. Offering service in

storefronts, libraries, community centers, or hous-ing projects can bring programs to people inplaces where they feel most comfortable, whilealleviating some transportation problems.20

In some rural areas, where distance and lack ofpublic transportation are significant problems,distance learning projects have brought programscloser to participants; e.g., adult high schoolcompletion programs offered by Kirkwood Com-munity College’s telecommunications networks(see box 6-A).

Scheduling programs to accommodate thelearners’ needs helps boost retention. For exam-ple, many programs try to schedule classes in themorning for women whose children are in school;daytime classes also attract women whose safetyconcerns make them unwilling to attend nightclasses. However, since many adult literacyteachers work full time in other jobs (most often

19 ~w~ p~y et ~., ~’&”ng welfare a~~UCatiOn:A St@ OfNew Progrm in Five states (New York NY: Manpower Demonstration

Researeh Corp., March 1992), p. 14.m Some pm- provide bus or subway tokens to helP 1 earners get to classes.

Chapter 6-Improving the System: Promising Roles for Technology | 167

Box 6-A—Extending Educational Opportunities ThroughTelecommunications: Kirkwood Community College

For more than a decade, Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has sought ways to extend itsreach to all learners, especially those most cut off from educational services in the past. While the college offersa full range of traditional classroom-based college courses on campus, this is just one method of reaching students.For example, the college is in its 12th year of providing residents of eastern Iowa with live interactive collegecredit courses over its microwave telecommunications network. Today no resident of Kirkwood’s seven-county,4,300 square-mile service area is more than a 20-minute drive from a distance learning classroom setup in highschools, community centers, and businesses.

Students in these distance learning classes are typically older adults who cannot easily come to the Cedar Rapidscampus or are uncomfortable with the idea of attending classes on campus with students much younger than theyare. Many build up their confidence once they see that they can compete successfully with ‘‘regular’ collegestudents. A student can earn an associate’s degree exclusively through Kirkwood’s distance learning program,without ever coming to the main campus.

At Kirkwood, distance learning has been a success-both in terms of numbers of students served (almost 1,500students each semester) and by the quality of the instruction. Evaluations of student performance consistentlyindicate that the distance learning students perform at least as well, if not better, than traditional on-campusstudents. Some distance learning courses are also offered in conjunction with area high schools, allowingadvanced students to earn college credits while still in high school.

Kirkwood also offers alternative programs for students who have dropped out of high school, throughsecondary-level courses available at learning centers throughout their service area, High school credit courseshave been developed using a self-paced format of instruction. These 40 courses complement the traditionalcourses and individual tutorials. Nearly 400 students took alternative high school classes in the 1992-93 academicyear, Kirkwood actually had the largest high school graduating class in the Seven-county service area.

Taken together, these experiences have taught Kirkwood adminis trators important lessons about alternativeapproaches to delivering instruction. Past assumptions have been proven false, challenging conventional wisdomabout who can benefit from alternative educational approaches:

Older students perform as well as younger students; high school level curriculum is as successful as college levelcurriculum. It is no longer valid to assume that older adults would have an innate fear of technology, or that ABEor GED students would be overly challenged by newer instructional technologies. l

Building on what has been learned through these nontraditional self-paced high school credit programs and thetelecommunications-based college credit programs, Kirkwood plans to take the next step and offer adults withouthigh school degrees expanded educational opportunities via live interactive telecommunications. In the 1993-94academic year, the college will work with high school dropouts in off-campus sites, offering distance learningcourses that include career development, technical mathematics, and environmental science. The collegeenvisions adding other technologies, including computer-assisted instruction and multimedia courses to augmemtthis program. They also hope to extend similar strategies to adult basic education programs in the near future. TheDean of Telecommunications sums up Kirkwood’s attitude and hopes for the future this way: “Telecommunica-tions technology and related instructional technologies certainly hold the promise of extending greateropportunities to those residents who have thus far benefited the least from our educational system.’2

1 w-q &au of Mecommunicadamls,~ Community (%- @htr~ids, Iowa, _ ~tiOQ

Febnuy 1993.2~


teaching K-12), daytime classes can be difficult toschedule. 21 Workplace programs, held on sitebetween shifts, make it easier for employees toattend. Finally, for some learners, classes can besupplemented with or substituted by study athome, through the use of televised literacyprograms such as those offered by KentuckyEducational Television or other public broadcast-ing stations. These offer the ultimate in conven-ience, safety, and privacy for learners.

Maintaining regular contact with learners in-creases likelihood of improving student retention.This may mean serving fewer students in order todo a better job of providing necessary supportservices such as case management.22 This in-volves greater use of counselors or social workerswho can provide regular visits to schools or tostudents’ homes to see how students are doing andwhy they may be missing classes. Teachers orvolunteer tutors are often reluctant or unable totake on this role.

Serving Learners: Balancing Supplyand Demand

While recruitment and retention are important,the problem goes beyond that. The larger issue isserving all those in need.23 Although there isvariation among local and statewide efforts, onaverage, most estimates indicate that fewer than

10 percent of those in need are being served.24

Furthermore, mandated programs are changingthe concept of recruitment, often forcing pro-grams to serve one group of learners-thoserequired to attend—at the expense of others whocome voluntarily.25 English as a second language(ESL) programs are often oversubscribed, andmany agencies are forced to put a cap on theseservices so as not to overwhelm and consumetheir total adult literacy program.26 A surveytaken in New York City in 1988 suggested therewere 10,000 people on a waiting list for ESLclasses, with indications that the numbers havegrown since then.27

Technology is extending the range of services.Ironically, as technology makes it possible toreach more people, through hotlines, referralservices, and programs brought close to home viadistance learning activities, demand is likely toincrease. Some communities are finding ways toexpand services by involving community re-sources that can provide technology assistance,often by enlisting the aid of local businesses.Others are tapping into existing public programslike Head Start or public welfare agencies andworking with them to offer instruction in thesesettings (e.g., setting up computer-assisted learn-ing laboratories in daycare centers or in thewelfare office-see chapter 4, box 4-E) orthrough local public broadcasting stations to

21 fiovi~g c~ldc~e or offering programs where parents and children attend classes at the same site improves student retention mtm, butrequires more money, staff, and spam-three features many programs lack.

22 _chWt@ rec~tiy took this approach. Murphy, op. cit., footrmte 3.23A ~cent ev~ution of ad~t ~u~tion prom fo~ waiting lists in 19 -nt of IOC~ pro~s. Ntio~ ~VdUti(Xl Of AdIlh

Education Programs, Bulletin No, 2, January 1991.24 ~ Dep~ent of ~ucation ~~tes tit on ave~ge 6 ~~nt of ~se in ~ ~ being sm~. Ron Pugsley, U.S. DeptU&ll@ of

Educatiom Division of Adult Education and Literaey, Oftlee of Vocational and Adult EducatioP unpublished &@ October 1992. For example,the Massachusetts Department of Education reports serving about 3 pereent of those eligible. O’IM site visi~ January 1992. See also RobertA. Silvti Toward Integrated Adult Learning Systems: The Status of State h“teracy E#orts (Wash@torL DC: Natiorud Governors’Association 1991).

M For fIM&X analysis of this issue, see chapter 5 fOr a discussion of weted POpdatiOnS.

26 Some lm~ pro- ~P~ long w~~ lists ~ng limited.~~h-pmficient adul~ not eligible for special pm- ~ch tts State

I-q@izationImpact Assistance Grants (SLIAG). The Community Learmn“ gCenter in Cambridge, Iv@ reports an ESLwaiting listof400, andat the Somerville Center for Adult Learning, the average wait for regular ESL is 18 months. OTA site visit, January 1992.

27 Avi DO= “me Workplace in the ESL Class: Unintegrated Approach to Job Readiness,’ Literacy Harvest: The Journal of the LiteracyAssistance Center, vol. 2, No. 1, winter 1993, p. 6.


provide televised literacy instruction learners canwatch at home. These models to ‘‘transform theservice delivery system via technology” areencouraging, but still limited; most programsfacing increasing demand still continue to try todo more of the same, using existing approachesthat are already overburdened and limited in theirsuccess.

INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUESAt the heart of every adult literacy program are

three central issues: what is taught, who teachesit, and how progress is measured. Concerns witheach of these are shared across programs of alltypes.

Curriculum: What Works?Although the instructional goals for ESL, ABE,

GED, and high school completion programs aresimilar across programs, adult literacy programsuse a variety of instructional approaches andmaterials. Some espouse structured phonetics-based approaches while others prefer wholelanguage materials for beginning readers. Manycreate materials relevant for their own learners,attempting to ‘‘use whatever seems to work, ’ butthen find that what works for some students maynot work for others.28 Many programs have thedesirable goal of creating individualized instruc-tional plans for each student; however, these mustbe developed around the philosophy of theprogram, the time and talents of staff, timeavailable for instruction, and resources (e.g.,books, hardware, and software) at hand. Com-pounding this difficulty is the fact that the studentclientele keeps changing. And, while many of theteacher-developed curriculum materials are goodand could be shared or replicated, there have notbeen, until recently, any formal mechanisms toshare, evaluate, or disseminate locally developedmaterials.

Effective instruction is built around a learner’sinterests. These ESL students celebrate Cinco de Mayoin their Hispanic heritage project.

Furthermore, while there is considerable evi-dence of what works, the information is notsystematically made available to practitioners asa basis for effective practice. Even large curricu-lum development projects have no system forbroad distribution. For example, over a decadeago a California adult literacy curriculum supportproject led to the development of the Comprehen-sive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS).It was designed to provide accurate placement ofstudents in education programs from beginningthrough advanced levels of ABE, ESL, andpreemployment training, and to establish a uni-form method for reporting progress, while provid-ing linkages to competency-based instructionalmaterials and instruction. Since 1983, CASAShas been validated by the U.S. Department ofEducation as an exemplary program for nationaldissemination through the National DiffusionNetwork, and agencies implementing CASASreport significant gains in student retention. It hasbeen used effectively in a range of agencies—community colleges, school programs, correc-tional institutions, and Job Training Partnership

~ Rem S. ~x4 Effective Muft Lito~ progr~: A Practitioner’s Gui& (New York NY: Cambridge Book CO., 1985), p. 101.


Act (JTPA) programs-throughout Californiaand several other States.29 However, because ofthe diversity of programs and lack of systematicinformation-sharing, CASAS and other effectiveprograms are not known by practitioners apartfrom those directly involved with them.30

The problem is repeated as adult literacyprograms seek information on effective ways ofteaching with technology. The most commonsoftware information resource is word-of-mouth,particularly recommendations from other tech-nology-using teachers .31 While sources for evalu-ation do exist,32 more than 60 percent of organiza-tions contacted in a recent survey never consultthese sources; most did not even know that thesesources were available.33 If a State or region hasan agency that provides information on technol-ogy for adult literacy, most computer-usingprovider organizations in the area will takeadvantage of its services.34 However, these Stateand regional resources are limited.

A promising resource is California’s Outreachand Technical Assistance Network (OTAN) (seefigure 6-2). OTAN combines a computerizedcommunications system with regional resourcelibraries that disseminate commercial and teacher-made materials, including training packets withaccompanying videotapes, resource documents,and public domain software. OTAN is both anelectronic archive and a distribution source formaterials, reports, and studies. Several Stateshave signed on to OTAN, hoping to tap into its

base of materials and expertise; however, sincemuch of the material is geared to the Californiacurricula, its use is limited in programs that takea different, less structured approach. Neverthe-less, OTAN is seen by some as a model for otherState information and dissemination systems, andas a resource for teacher trainin g, the areadiscussed below.

Helping Teachers, Administrators, andVolunteers Do Their Jobs

It is difficult to define adult education as aprofession when most teachers and instructors arepart time, certification is rarely required, and nocareer ladder exists for moving ahead in the field.Furthermore, university programs for specializ-ing in adult literacy are limited, with littleagreement or research base specifying what kindof training is needed.

There is a critical need for professional devel-opment, both for teachers and for volunteers inadult literacy programs. Teaching adults demandsa different set of skills and sensitivities than thoserequired for teaching children. These take timeand training to develop, but the transition is oftenassumed to be automatic. Furthermore, eventhose with experience teaching adults in commu-nity colleges or workplace training programs maynot be familiar with the special challenges ofteaching adults with low literacy skills. Staffdevelopment for ESL instructors appears to be aneven greater problem, since many may not be

29 For example, Maryland undertook a review of curricula used in adult literacy programs throughout the State and found content variedenormously, with instruc tion and materials based on what was available in a center and the background of the instructors. The State directordescribed the situation as a “hodgepodge.” Maryland used CASAS as a model for a cmnpetency-based curriculum but localized content forh4a@nd: questions deal with Maryland geography, industries, and other locally relevant topics. Chuck lhlber$ director of Adult andCommunity Education BranciL Maryland Department of E!ducatiou personal communication September 1992.

m ~~ m, COnsdan$ pond commurdcatioq A@ 1992.

31 Jay Sivin-Kachala and Ellen Bialo, Intemctive Educational Systems DesigxL Inc., “Software for Adult Literacy,” OT.A contractor repor4June 1992, p. 66.

32 Sof= ~d~ ~lude: Gw”& m Reco~~d~”ler~ ~ofiare (Addt Lix ~ ‘I&huoIogy Mject); W Oregon/Washl”ngro?l

AduhBasic Skiti Technology Consortium So@are Buyers Guz”&, Educational Sojhvare Selector (EPIE Institute), and manufachuers guidesand catalogms, as well as online services. Ibid., p. 68.

33 Ibid., p. 68.

~ Ibid., p. 71.

Chapter 6-Improving

trained in the complexities of second languageacquisition and may lack the ability to work withculturally diverse groups and their special needs .35Even when programs strive to provide training fortheir staff and volunteers, they are constrained by

number of factors:

Minimal State and local policies and certifica-tion requirements;Limited inservice training requirements;

The part-time nature of adult education teach-ers and volunteer instructors;The high rate of staff turnover;

The lack of a unified research base on bestpractices; andLimited financial resources for training. 36

Most States do not require special certificationin adult education for those who teach in literacyprograms.37 Some require an elementary or sec-

ondary teaching degree only, some require a fewhours of additional coursework or experience, andalmost one-half of all States have no certificationrequirements for adult educators (see figure 6-3).While it is true that some districts and localprograms may impose more stringent require-ments on teaching staff, it must be said thatstatewide teaching requirements for adult literacyinstructors are less stringent than requirementsfor K-12 educators. It is ironic that those with theleast professional background are asked tohelp those who need the most help-those for

the System: Promising Roles for Technology I 171

whom our past education efforts were not suc-cessful.

Although inservice training and staff develop-ment programs might provide satisfactory alter-natives to ABE certification, only 12 Statesrequire some type of inservice training.38 Therange of training required is enormous: from 4hours of preservice and 4 hours of inservicetraining, to 50 hours of staff development annu-ally. 39 Many local ABE and ESL programs havemore stringent staff development requirementsthan the States, however.

ABE and ESL teachers tend to be part-timeemployees of adult education programs; 90 per-cent are paid on an hourly basis and do not receivebenefits.40 Volunteers account for between 25 and75 percent of total adult education staff membersin each State, and these numbers exclude volun-teers working in noninstructional activities.41

This dependence on volunteers and noncertified,part-time instructors keeps program costs downand reduces incentives to increase funding levels.It may also be responsible for the comparativelylow salary levels and status of adult educators.

Since so many adult education staff are schoolteachers during the day and adult educationinstructors after hours, they have very little timefor training, unless weekends or summer vaca-tions are sacrificed. There is little incentive toparticipate in training, especially since most ofthe inservice training and staff developmentactivities are undertaken on the instructors’ own

35 pe~vin ASSW~t=, rn~+ et & “Study of ABE/ESL Instructor Training Approaches: Phase I Technical ReporL” prepared for the U.S.Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult EducatioL February 1992, p. 12.

36 Ibid., pp. 11-12.37 Pehvin Associates, Inc. et d., “Study of ABE/ESL Instructor Training Approaches: State Profdes RepoZ” prepared for the U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Educatiow Februaxy 1991.38 pe~v~ ~miat~, ~c. et ~., “Study of ABE/ESL Instructor Training Approaches: The Delivery and Content of Training for Adult

Education lkachers and Volunteer Instructors,’ prepared for the U.S. Department of Educatio% Office of Vocational and Adult Educatio~July 1991, pp. 8-9.

39 Ibid., p. 8.40 For emp]e, ~ a 1988 repfi on NE in Nofi ~o~ 65 percent of progr~ s~ey~ r~ort~ ~v@ no M-the teachers 011 their

staff; Hawaii funded its fmt full-time ABE staff position in 1989. Ibid., p. 5.41 U.S. Dep~~t of ~umtiom ~lce of v~tio~ ad Addt ~uc~on, Exe~/a~ ~~~t Education Services.’ Highlights Of the

Secreta@s Award Program Finalists (Washington+ DC: 1988).

. -


Figure 6-2-Outreach and Technical Assistance Network (OTAN)

OTAN provides training, technical assistance, information, and communication links for adult literacy staff. The range ofservices on the OTAN forum is shown in the menu below. In its first year of operation, the OTAN forum received more than11,000 queries.

MENUAbout the OTAN Forum has a generalexplanation of the OTAN project and a ~detailed description of the electronic com-munication system.

Lesson Plans area IS under construction.You will find sample lesson plans which youcan adapt to fit the needs of your students.

The Master Calendar will display thelatest information on what events arehappening in Adult Education.

~@ Who’s who is a directory containing@ ● people information: subscribers, 321•~~ agencies, adult school directors, and U.S.

state directors of adult education.

CDE Info IS reformation from the CaliforniaDepartment of Education.

Hfl~$” Public Domain Software IS free to be down-

0 loaded and used at your agency.

ElFllI$’ Demo Software maintains a library ofdemonstration software from commercialsources. Again, you may download anduse at your agency.

Legislative Information offers up-to-date legisla-tive information as it relates to adult education.

Reference Materials contains bibliographies

B

OTAN Resource Centers are locatedof reference information, research reports, lists oflibrary materials to borrow, and actual documents

throughout California and provide inservice of “hot topics.” A full adult education library at● activities and have resource libraries. your fingertips.

n.-. .~. Current Articles contain unpublished articles;=

H

Educational Grants contains information- - -7= of current interest to Adult Education.:--ax about funding opportunities available to adult

service providers and educators.

~

Course Outlines represent the ten adulteducation funded areas of adult school instruc-

A

Want Ad users can post/review ads relatedtion. They include: goals, purpose, objectives, to job opportunities in education.instructional strategies, times of instruction, eval-uation, and repetition components.

Hi! The Round Table is the online discussion area.Users can post or respond to others.

a

Curricula Resources list various instructionalmaterials in print, video, or software format. Freeinstructional materials are also posted.

eUWM Upload Area is where users can place filesthat they want to share online.


Using the OTAN Forum: One Example-Here a teacher chooses “lesson plans” from the Forum, then selects aparticular example from the file. The teacher can preview and print the entire lesson plan, which contains objectives,materials, preparation time, exercises, and assessment suggestions.

6 File Edit Setup Mail Window I n f o r m a t i o n

~~ OTAN Forum S gg

~::~&’ pJAbout the OTAN Forum who’s who OTAN Resource Centers

~

M

.Ma

Lesson Plans o D@mo Software

Curricula Resources Public Domain Software

A e

uPlmo

Rrfwenc@ M~twtils .

R

=Vmt Ads ~= Upload Area

Eduoation~l &ants Ro= Tabh

OTRN ForumE~ Table of Contents - “Lms$on Plansm

b Ho- to use Lesson Plans LLUEST 2K Dec 6 90

13 ESL Lesson PI ans J a n 31 92

CI Metropol I tan ESL LP0 ESL 01 t$j Iia-e LP/ltllEP FIRCH! UERSST

~ ESL 0 2 Hou30 Rds LP/ll13EP RRCH IUERSST

L b ESL 03 Hy 10 LP/ftREP~ ESL 0+ Phone Book LP/flREP flRCH I UERSST

CI ESL 05 ng school Lp/n~EP RRCHIUERSST 10K Jon 31 92

~ ESL 0 6 Direct lone LP/ltflEP RRCHIUERSST 9K Jan 31 92

● ********* 7 House Proble~e LP/llREP

ESL LESSON PUN #68 Go TO DOC LP/ll13EP9 Chock I ng LP/llllEP RRCH IUEllSST

TOPIC: Giving/Asking for Directions O GrophCoapare LP/flflEP PT1 RRCH I UEtlSST● ********* O GraphComparo LP/MREP PT2 RRCHI UERSST OK Jon 31 92

● ● ● ● ● ** ● * ●

LIFE SKILL OBJECTIVES:

Students will be able to: <1. generate verbal directions, utilizinq simpledirectional vocabulary.

- ./

2. respond physically (movingto directions given them in a

!3. increase their verbal Contrl

LI

● ☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛

WARM-UP/REVIEW

Step 1:Teacher reviews community flashcards of drawings of : hospital, grocery store, post office,police station, pharmacy, bank, school, restaurant, library, hardware, laundromat, and movietheater. (see drawings Attachment #1) Teacher asks for the name of the place along withassociated vocabulary. Teacher writes the name on the board and calls for specific namesof it and writes them under the general name.The board is as follows:

GROCERY STORE / HOSPITALLucky / O’Connor HospitalFrys / San Jose Medical CenterFood Villa / Valley MedicalSafeway / Good Samaritan

SOURCE: Outreach and Technical Assistance Network, City of Industry, CA, 1992.


Figure 6-3-State Certification Requirements for Adult Basic Education TeachersD

1

w . ,.c1 No State certification requirements

,0 Qe .

~9 m Teaching certificate (elementary/secondary)

o HI Teaching certificate and experience*8*

“, -O* MA in ABE or 6A in ABE or teachinge certificate in AE

-u

KEY: ABE - adult bask education; AE. adult education; BA - Bachelor of Arte; MA. Master of Arts.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993, based on Pelavin Associates, Inc. et al., “Study of ABEESL Instructors Training Approaches:

State Profiles Report,” prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, February 1991.

time and personal expense.42 The contrast with wide, comprehensive data on staff turnover is not

K-12 or community college staff development— available, but the experience of one State is

where teachers are given release time, travel indicative of more general problems. The Adult

funds, and substitute teachers—is striking. Education Unit of the California Department of

The high rate of staff turnover also makes Education estimates that it experiences a one-

training a continuing burden to programs. Nation- third annual turnover43 among its adult education

42 s~~~. FOSter, c’up@ing tie sti~ of fi@lXY~Oft XSjOMIS,’ &xadershipforLiteracy: The Agenda for the 1990s, Forrest P. Chisman

and Associates (eds.) (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1990), p. 75.43 me saw of _ ~~ iS s~ering. In 1988-89, appro ximately 10,000 or more staff needed basic-lewel inserviee tmining. Cuba

Miller, California Department of Educatiom “Program and St@ Development Support: Working Paper on Strategic Recommendation 9,”

advisory review draft, Aug. 22, 1990, p. 66.


instructors. When turnover is high, programs areencumbered with the need to provide introductorystaff training almost continually.

While there is a clear need for training adulteducators in the theory and practice of adultlearning, the research base is limited.44 Theintellectual underpinnings for adult learning the-ory are diverse and multifaceted.45 Woven withinthe theoretical base are many strands: theories ofcognition, which are themselves far from consist-ent; understandings derived from developmentaland educational psychology; theories of secondlanguage learning; and a social science focus thatsuggests adult learners can only be understood inthe socioeconomic and cultural context of theirlives and experience. In addition, there areconflicting views as to the appropriate way toteach reading. Finally, there are also diverseviews and approaches to instructional manage-ment—including conflicting views regarding groupinstruction versus one-on-one instruction, socialinteraction versus private time spent alone at acomputer terminal, networking across distancesvia technology versus social contact in a schoolsetting. Perhaps most significant is the concernthat, as one practitioner noted:

Research has shown that some of the mostsuccessful teaching has occurred among thosewho are willing to abandon traditional teachingmethods and to adopt methods and materials thatare relevant to the learners. Yet we persist inassuming for a major part of our adult literacysystem that adequate preparation for adult literacyinstructors or facilitators consists of traditionalteacher training.46

Because there are few State and local policies andguidelines regarding certification, it is difficultfor programs to know what adult literacy teachers

Good teaching is both art and science. In a televisedlesson, this teacher uses real life applications to makemath exciting for his students watching all around thecountry.

should be expected to know, and to developappropriate training programs.

Finally, very limited funding is available fortraining adult education personnel. The majorFederal source of support for adult literacy staffdevelopment is Section 353 of the Adult Educa-tion Act (AEA), which authorizes States to setaside at least 10 percent of their basic grants fortraining teachers, volunteers, and administrators,or for special projects. In fiscal year 1990, Statesspent a total of $15.8 million under Section 353.The National Literacy Act increased the set-aside


Training adult literacy staff is a major problem.Technology offers a resource for sharing promisingpractices.

for special projects to 15 percent and specifiedthat at least two-thirds of the set-aside must bedevoted to staff development. Even with thisincrease, the amount spent for adult educationtraining will still be limited; it is estimated thatless than $3 million per State will be devoted totraining adult literacy personnel.47

Technology offers both short- and long-termsolutions to the problem of training adult literacyteachers and volunteers. Several media suggestthemselves. As video cameras and VCRs becomemore common, training videos can be taken homefor viewing and then discussed in group trainingsessions. Workshops can be taped for viewing byabsentees or new employees. Exemplary teachingmodels or sample lessons can be demonstrated in

videos or live over interactive telecommunica-tions networks. As a part of the selection of newteaching staff, applicants can be taped presentinga demonstration lesson. Current staff can submitvideos to demonstrate their competence as ameans of improving program evaluation.

Computer networks like OTAN (see above)can be used to help teachers, administrators, andvolunteers share information, techniques, andcurriculum. Some groups have used telecommu-nications for live interactive teleconferences ontopics of common interest to adult literacyteachers and volunteers across the country. Forexample, the American Correctional EducationAssociation, Literacy Volunteers of America, andthe Public Broadcasting System jointly sponsoreda series of teleconferences on the topic of literacyinstruction in jails and prisons. Because prisonsare often located in isolated settings, personnelwho teach in these settings are particularly cut offfrom traditional professional development oppor-tunities. In another example of distance learningapplications, the Los Angeles County EducationDepartment uses its satellite educational telecom-munications network (ETN) to reach adult educa-tors on a regular basis.48 “The Adult LearnersChannel” on ETN broadcasts programs of inter-est to adult learners, teachers, and administrators.California plans to use ETN to train all the ESLadult literacy teachers in the State through ESLTeacher Institute training modules. Recent pro-grams and series for the ESL staff developmentseries include the “ESL Tool Box” and “AdultLife Skills ESL Starter Kits” for teachers, pro-grams for vocational ESL instructors, a series forvolunteer ESL tutors, and activities for develop-

47 pe~vfi ~~W~~-, ~c, et & ~po ~it., fm~ote 35, p. Il. ~s fi~e -y ~ optimistic. NCW York state gets the second higkst A&f

gran~ approximately $17 rnillio% and 10 percent of that would be $1.7 million. Forty-eight States will have lesser amounts. Murphy, op. cit.,footnote 3.

48 Em is a FCC-lie- satelli~ bro~cm~ ne~ork O- ~d o~~ by b ~S Angeles COunty ~w of EdlldOn. COWWS fOr

teachers, students, adrmms“ “ trators, and parents are tranarm“Red to the 95 districts in the 4,083 square-mile area of Los Angeles County, but anysite in California or other States capable of receiving the Ku-band satellite system can participate in the live programs. Viewers can telephonestudio presenters for “nmnediate discussion and questioning, or telecasts may be interrupted by taping programs for later viewing, allowingparticipants to discuss ideas and issues among themselves. Los Angeles County Office of Educatiorq Downey, CA, Educational‘Iklecommunications Network brochures, 1992.


ing adult ESL mentor teachers. Other programsfor adult education administrators cover topicssuch as recruitment and retention strategies andnew statewide standards and frameworks.49

Evaluation and AssessmentState and local literacy practitioners seem far

from satisfied with current instruments for bothstudent assessment and program evaluation andare concerned about their being used inappropri-ately to judge people and programs.50 Assess-ments of student progress and evaluations ofprogram success are often used interchangeably,but they are not the same.

Most programs evaluate effectiveness by as-sessing academic progress (e.g., how many stu-dents move to higher levels or the grade-levelgains they make on test scores). Effectiveness isalso measured by how many acquire a high schooldiploma or pass the GED. Other indicators ofeffectiveness vary for specific programs. Forexample, workplace literacy programs may meas-ure success by reduced employee absenteeismand turnover, by higher productivity and safetyrecords, and by lower product defect and errorrates. Prison literacy programs consider long-term improvements in postrelease employment,parole, and recidivism as overall measures ofsuccess. Many programs also consider programeffectiveness in terms of significant changes inlifestyle, such as the number of students movingoff the welfare rolls and into jobs.

Federal program evaluation procedures arechanging as programs receiving Federal fundsmust set up systematic evaluation procedures

showing effectiveness. Counting numbers ofthose who come and go, or using school-basedmodels of grade-level gains, will no longersuffice. As the goals of programs change, themethods of evaluating success will also need tochange. Moving from a 3rd- to a 4th-gradereading level may not be as important to thelearner, or the sponsoring agency, as being able tofill out a driver’s license application or planninga week’s worth of balanced meals on a budget. Asone adminis“ trator noted: “It’s just as legitimate tohelp people meet short-term goals, such as fillingout a job application, as it is to enroll them in along-term program and measure success by whetherthey got a high school diploma or advanced somany grade levels. ”51

In compliance with the National Literacy Act,the Department of Education developed modelindicators of program quality that will influenceadult literacy programs of all types (see table 6-l).

Beyond the question of program evaluation isthe issue of individual student assessment. Stu-dents are tested when they first enter programs, asa basis for placement; they may or may not betested when leaving programs. For many, testingis a stressful event, reminding them of past schoolfailures; for others, it is enough to keep them outof programs in the first place. Yet those who enterand exit programs several times often have torepeat the same tests time and again. Somesystems have moved to credit-card sized “smart-cards,’ ‘ that store a student’s test results andeducational program information, enabling thelearner to pickup where he or she left off withoutrepeated testing when reentering literacy pro-grams.52

49 ~s ~eles Com~ CM&X of Educatiom ‘‘ETN Timcs,’ a monthly program directoxy, October 1992.

~ U.S. ~artment of IMucatiow A summa ry Report: National Forums on the Adult Education Delivery System (WashingtorL DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1991), p. 8.

51 ~fiP *, ~ot~ @ Bu~~ss cod for Eff~tive Lit~cy, “Talking Heads: ISSUeS & Chd.kXlgtX in ~~t fi~~.” ~ws~ett~~

No. 30, Janumy 1992, p. 1.52 ~ s~~ of Ctiornia ~ 2,000 “Edu*” for ~~t 1 earners. Data on student test scores, c~lcatiom and other materials are stored

on the cards, which cost $4 eac4 can store approximately two pages worth of typewritten informatio~ and are read by computers using a $100scanner. John Fleishman and Gerald Kilbem ‘‘Adult Education ‘I?dmology in the Golden State,” Adkh Learning, vol. 4, No. 3,January/February 1993, p. 15.

Table 6-l-Model Indicators of Program Quality for Adult Education Programs

Educational gains

Support services

Staff development

Students remain in the program long enough to meet their educationalneeds.

Program has curriculum and instruction geared to individual studentlearning styles and levels of student needs.

Program has an ongoing staff development process that considers the

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

mr- .a’- .3m

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Mode/ /n&z?tom of Program Qualify forAdu/f Education Programs (Washington, DC: July 1992).

Chapter 6-Improving

Testing has a positive side as well-it isimportant to learners to know they are makingprogress, even if the steps forward are small andslow. One of the appeals of computer-basedprograms is the reinforcement given when learn-ers succeed. For example, in most computer-based instructional programs, when a certainnumber of correct responses are given, the studentis automatically presented more challenging ma-terial. In this context, tests are not so muchanxiety-provoking events as ongoing checks onone’s understanding. Integrated learning systems(ILSs), with their comprehensive instructionaland management software packages, are attrac-tive to some literacy programs because of thiscapability to blend instruction with assessment ona regular basis, and maintain up-to-date records ofprogress and areas where more help is needed asguides to both instructors and learners. Thevolume of curricular materials stored in ILSprograms can accommodate learners at manylevels, allowing students to move ahead in asystematic fashion. Reports on student progresscan be accessed immediately and compiled easilyfor overall program evaluation purposes.53

There is some concern among practitionerswhether existing assessment tools—multiple-choice paper-and-pencil tests or their computer-based equivalents with their grade-level equiva-lency mindset—are adequate to meet thedemands of new outcome-based assessment sys-tems. Performance measures fit more appropri-ately with competency-based approaches to in-struction, as learners demonstrate learning in thecontext of such goals as interpreting documents,filling out forms, solving work-related problems,or preparing their own written or video reports .54Some programs are using performance assess-ments, such as portfolio collections of student

the System: Promising Roles for Technology | 179

work illustrating progress over time. As with allperformance assessments, concerns are raisedabout aggregating data and the reliability andvalidity of these measures. Nonetheless, educa-tors and learners alike are excited about theimpact new forms of testing have on teaching andlearning.

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUESPrograms of all types are coping with the

central issues of how to provide better service inlight of problems with funding, requirements forserving more learners through mandated pro-grams, and issues of coordination.

FundingLimited funding for literacy programs is in

some ways the most critical crosscutting issue,because it constrains everything else that happensin literacy programs-staff training, intensity ofservices, availability of technology, innovativeassessment, and other issues. Further, limitedfunding severely restricts the vision of all involved-administrators, policymakers, instructors, andstudents. Why recruit more adults if you cannotserve them? Why enroll in a program that putsyou on a long waiting list? Why advance teachers’training if you cannot pay them a competitivesalary when they finish? Why learn about tech-nology if your program cannot afford it? Whyenact a comprehensive Federal program if appro-priations will never be provided?

Public support for adult literacy has beenadversely affected by the downturn in the econ-omy, as fiscal belt-tightening continues at everylevel—Federal, State, and local. Support from theprivate sector-an important resource for manyprograms, especially community-based programs—is also soft. Literacy has to fight hard to win its

53 some of ~e~e ~y~tem ~ coml~~ Mb me two of the most common tests used for placement: tie Wst of Addt B~ic ~ucation WE)

and CASAS, sometimes making it unnecessary for a student to take the paper-and-pencil tests.54 us. Con==s, Offlce of ~~olo~~==~en~ Te~tzng in A~n”can schOOzs:Asking r& Right Questions, (l’IA-SE’I’-s 19 ~ashhgto~

DC: U.S. Government Printing Oflice, March 1992). Although this study deals p rimarily with testing issues in K-12 education, the alternativetesting approaches discussed in the report have particular relevance to adult literacy programs.


share of the corporate and philanthropic pie.Although corporations and businesses may sup-port local literacy efforts in the communitieswhere they are located, only a few large founda-tions provide significant funding for literacyefforts throughout the country .55 Furthermore,private sector support for adult literacy is uncer-tain as foundations and businesses change theirfunding priorities and targets of support from yearto year.

Ironically, although technology is expensive,some programs have used it as a magnet foradditional funding. In some cases it can be easierto get grants and special donations of technologythan support for overall program operation. How-ever, many programs will not spend their ownlimited resources on technology unless the Stateor some funding agency makes it a priority.56

Even those who are informed about technology’spotential for adult literacy and eager to use it as aresource for instruction and management arehobbled by the reality of the cost factors associ-ated with technology: the costs of purchasingenough updated hardware and software, theongoing expense associated with maintenance,and the time and resources necessary to trainteachers and volunteers to work with technologyas a teaching tool.

Mandated ProgramsRecent Federal and State legislation requires

certain groups of learners to attend literacyprograms-generally welfare recipients and in-mates meeting certain educational criteria. Thesemandated activities affect programs in a numberof ways. Since the learners who must attendprograms differ from those who enter voluntarily—they tend to have lower average academic achieve-ment on entering, greater need for support ser-

vices, a higher incidence of personal problems,and, by the nature of their required attendance, adifferent set of motivational factors-programsmust tailor their services to these learners. First,more intense service is required of the provider.Rather than 1 or 2 hours of literacy classes a week,participants attend daily classes of several hours.Services such as childcare and transportationmust usually be provided. More intensive pro-grams are more expensive, thus making lessfunding available to support those who come ona voluntary basis.

Programs often must engage in more compre-hensive counseling or case management forstudents entering from welfare programs. Theseadditional costs are sometimes covered byschools’ administrative overhead, sometimes bya share of increased revenues for serving welfarerecipients, and sometimes by reimbursementdirectly from welfare departments.57 Often theprograms are paid based on the number ofstudents and hours spent in a program, whichaffects recordkeeping and attendance polices.Monitoring attendance on a more rigorous basismeans that adult literacy programs are pressed toincrease the accuracy and verifiability of atten-dance data to meet the needs of the welfareprograms and to stand up to court challenges.58

The relationship between teacher and studentchanges, as does student motivation; rules forattendance and testing for progress are no longeroptional.

In Wisconsin, some of the larger school dis-tricts have developed computer-matching sys-tems to identify welfare recipients in the districts’data systems and track their attendance. Butmonitoring has, in general, become a burden formany programs, and teachers especially find itunpleasant to act as “cops” to adult students,


whose benefit checks may be reduced for poorattendance. Added to this is the difficulty andsensitivity of monitoring some, but not all partici-pants, when some students’ attendance is man-dated and others’ is voluntary .59 This has been aparticular problem in community colleges, nightschools and GED programs, and communityprograms, where students work on individualizedprograms and detailed attendance and recordkeep-ing may not be a normal practice. It makes it morelikely that welfare recipients will be directed toschool-based programs, with their more orderlytradition of attendance and recordkeeping, andless to community-based programs that have amore informal, open approach to attendance.

Other problems in the mandated welfare pro-grams have been created by having to deal withparticipants who have already initiated educationprograms on their own-yet now are forced intoprograms requiring attendance and different ar-rangements. An important issue for self-initiatedparticipants is their use of proprietary schools.State welfare agencies may be reluctant to acceptthese programs when they have higher tuitioncosts and less well-regulated educational offer-ings. 60 Also at issue is how to measure ‘ ‘satisfac-

tory progress,” which in turn affects testingpolicies that may impact all students in a program.

Lack of Central Focus andProblems of Coordination

The education of America’s children has aclearly defined tradition of control by the Stateeducation agencies and local school districts, withsome assistance from the Federal Government inclearly defined areas. In contrast, adult educationhas no comparable comprehensive administrativesystem for organizing thousands of public and

private programs in communities across theNation.

Is diversity an advantage or a problem? On theone hand, the cornucopia of adult literacy pro-grams and providers enriches the field with amultiplicity of resources, approaches, and tech-niques. On the other hand, this potentially richresource is squandered without a system thatmakes it possible to share what works and avoidwhat does not, that fills in gaps and avoidsduplication. A complicated web of service pro-viders makes it difficult for policymakers to seethe whole picture, define problems, and identifypressure points where long-term change can beinstituted. There are also considerable “turf”battles that can stand in the way of creatingeffective partnerships.

Furthermore, many literacy program sponsorshave other goals and responsibilities that oftenmake literacy service a secondary, rather thanprimary, goal. Literacy is a means to an end inmany of the programs that have the greatestpotential for serving learners: in jobs programs,prisons, Head Start programs, workplace pro-grams, and so on. When funding is tight, literacyefforts may be considered expendable. Literacylanguishes at the margins.

Federal coordination mandates and incentivesfor partnerships are producing some positiveresults, but they are still far from a comprehensivesolution. It is too soon to know if the NationalInstitute for Literacy will be able to take on therole of stimulating cooperation and fosteringpartnerships. 61 Many States and local service

providers have gone beyond what is required bylaw and developed their own approaches forimproving coordination of adult literacy pro-

59 Ibid.60 ~ ~Some JOBS ~~op opmtom~ views of propfie~ schoo~ my l-d them to di~pprove ~lf-titiat~ participation in those ~hoois’

programs. California Flori@ and Oklahoma are beginning to cleat with this issue, which promises to be a complex and conflict-ffled one.”Ibid., p. 24.

61 ~NatiO~~ti~~ foru~~~ had anaetingdirector since its creation in 199the search for a permanent direetor is now under way.

3 3 1 - 0 4 8 0 - 9 3 - 7 Q~. 3

. With the appointment of 9 of the IO board members,

-. . . . -. . . . . . — -


l!!

The State of California has supported the developmentof a multimedia ‘kiosk that provides information onpublic services (see left). Kiosks like the one above

grams with each other and with human serviceagencies and education and training programs.

State CoordinationAt the State level, coordination of human

service programs has been a front-burner issue forseveral years, producing a variety of models.62 Infact, most States have undertaken some sort ofinitiative to “. . . bring coherence to the frag-mented array of programs and providers thatmake up the current delivery system for adultliteracy and basic skills services.” Even so," . . . much work remains to be done. ”63

The nature, extent, and success of State literacycoordination efforts vary widely, with someStates already into their second generation of

“have been placed in shopping malls and libraries aspart of an experimental project.

initiatives. 64 Among the most common Statecoordination mechanisms are:

New State agencies with broad education andtraining or human service functions;Coordinating bodies and councils;Formal and informal interagency agreements orworking arrangements among relevant Stateagencies;Jointly funded programs or funding contingenton interagency involvement;Incentives, set-asides, or demonstration grantsfor local coordination, using State funding ordiscretionary Federal dollars;Common program definitions and assessmentprocedures;

62 sm judi~ K. ~POwe@ En~~@ ~’ce~~ for Jobs ~ pro~tivi~ @/h@o~ DC: The CO@l C)f Sme ~li~ @ _

Agencies, 1989); U.S. Department of E!ducatio~ Making the Connection: Coordinating Education and Trm”ning for a Sha”lled Wor~orce(W-O% DC: 1992); Judith A. Alampresc et al., Patterns of Promise: State and L.ocal Strategies for Improving Coordination in MdtE2iucation Programs (Washington DC: Cosmos Corp., 1992); and Silv@ op. cit., footnote 24.

s~ Silv- op. cit., footnote 24, p. viii.

64 A@~ A. Melavfie titi - J. B- What It Ths: Structuring Interagency Partnerships to Connect Chi@en and Fm”lies With

Comprehensive Services (Washington.L DC: Education and Human Serviees Consortiurq 1991), p. 19.

— —


Joint databases to exchange resources andinformation; andPrograms that provide technical assistance andtraining on coordination to State staff andsubstate entities.

Some of these State mechanisms affect only Stateagencies, while others seek to foster coordinationat the local level.

Perhaps the most prevalent mechanism is theState-level coordinating body. In 1990,40 Stateshad a coordinating body for adult literacy.65 Thesebodies differed significantly in terms of mem-bership, breadth and authority, funding sources,staffing structures, and relationships with localentities. A primary activity of these groups was toraise public awareness about literacy issues.Some groups had broader responsibilities, includ-ing directly funding literacy projects, helpingStates develop policy, providing training andtechnical assistance, or establishing new initia-tives to improve literacy services.66 Several Stateumbrella groups have a scope that extends beyondliteracy, addressing coordination of workforcedevelopment or human service programs.67

While having a State-level mechanism is animportant first step, it does not guarantee that acoordinated system will naturally evolve.68 Thesebodies must also be given the tools to do theirjob-the power to mandate interagency agree-ments and collaborative planning, the authority toforge meaningful relationships with local deliv-ery systems, and permission to manage fundsfrom several sources.69 (See box 6-B.)

Several coordinating groups have begun byidentifying all Federal and State resources or

programs relevant to the coordination process-asort of interagency matrix-then developing broadpolicy statements or strategic planning agendas,and creating interagency agreements to carry outspecific components of these agendas.

Some States have given teeth to their agree-ments and plans by enacting State legislation,providing “carrots” such as State incentivegrants for certain types of coordination or‘‘sticks’ such as State mandates for coordination.From 1986 to 1990, 30 States enacted some formof literacy -specific legislation, in most casesproviding State funds or authorizing new Stateagencies for adult literacy .70

As several recent experiences demonstrate,State coordination efforts are fragile creatures,sensitive to changes in political climate, funding,and key staff. Governors’ initiatives are amongthe most vulnerable. In at least three States—Massachusetts, Michigan, and Mississippi-amajor literacy council or initiative was discontin-ued or downgraded following a change of Gover-nors.71 Reductions in Federal or State funding canalso negatively affect coordination; staff are cutand forced to try to do more with less money,coordinating bodies lose funding or members,and State agencies guard the dollars they havemore carefully. There is concern that coordinatingbodies not become yet another State agency orservice provider, losing their special neutralcharacter and competing with other State or localentities in an already complex field.

Local CoordinationHow do local literacy providers respond to

multiple Federal, State, local, and private pro-

-. ..- —


o●

●

●

9

●


Services to Clients at the Duchess County ACCESS Center

i Recruitment and outreach 1

# I

1 DirectII

ReferralI I

Media! [

I

Orientation 1: pre-assessment

Orientation II: EDP meeting 1

It

1

1 GED/academic!L I 1

,

I Support services II I 1

Counselingkase managementI

Childcare/family literacyI

Transportation II I I

i Review/adjust EDP

Self-sufficiencyJ

I

KEY: EDP = employability development ptan; C3ED = general qulvalency diploma.

—


grams? Some respond by treating each program determine if the individual might be better suitedseparately. One study found that local adult to receive Adult Education Act-funded serv-education sites did not generally coordinate ices.’ ’72 According to this same study, FederalAEA-funded services with those supported by accountability and reporting requirements wereother adult education and training programs. “For largely responsible for these practices. “Localexample, a potential student entering . . . as a programs believed that they needed to operate theresult of a JTPA recruitment or referral receives programs separately in order to ensure that theyJTPA services. . . . No assessment is conducted to were complying fully with all Federal require-


Cambridge Community Learning Center, Fiscal Year 1992 Funding Sources

City of Cambridge $277,500 ABE, ASE, ESL, adult diploma Annual allotmentIooal public funds

. .— -


Coordination of literacy services requires leadershipat all levels. Houston’s Mayor Bob Lanier brought cityleaders together and told his Commission on Literacy:‘‘1 will do whatever I can to help. ’

ments’’ 73-even when this degree of separationwas not mandated by Federal law.

Other local providers use more creative ap-proaches, such as channeling funds through asingle fiscal agent who contracts with othercommunity agencies, or combining funding fromdifferent programs to support a single class oflearners (see box 6-C). However, coordinatingfunding from different sources does not necessar-ily reduce, and may actually increase, recordkeep-ing, management, and reporting burdens as localprograms struggle to leave a clear accountabilityand audit trail. Technology can reduce some ofthis burden if agreement can be reached ondeveloping common data elements, definitions,data collection procedures, and reporting formats.

Some Federal programs make local coordina-tion difficult because of their requirements con-cerning location of classes, student eligibility, orintensity of service. Examples include workplaceliteracy programs that must be conducted at thejob site, family literacy programs with stricteligibility as to the kinds of children and familiesthat can be served, or Job Opportunities and BasicSkills programs requiring 20 hours of instructionper week, an almost impossible schedule foradults working full time.

A FINAL NOTEAs the above issues illustrate, all policies-

whether at the Federal, State, or local level—havetwo interrelated goals: serving more learners withhighquality programs that meet their educationalgoals, and operating programs more efficientlyand effectively. The efforts of thousands ofdedicated adult literacy volunteers and staff areespecially impressive for their persistence in theface of severe constraints. But it is difficult tolook at a system that, at best, may serve less than10 percent of those in need and say it has come farenough. It is impossible to look at a system thathas, at best, met the full literacy needs of fewerthan one in 10 of these learners and say it issuccessful. The system as it stands cannot beexpected to meet the current problems, much lessever increasing demands as the horizons ofliteracy continue to push forward. New ap-proaches and solutions are required. Technologyis increasingly being considered an engine forchanging the ways adult learners can be served.This is discussed in greater detail in the nextchapters.

Today:Practice vs.

Promise 7

A dvances in technology have “upped the ante” for adultliteracy by redefining the skills people need to functionsuccessfully at work and in everyday life. At the sametime, technology offers new tools with enormous poten-

tial for improving adult literacy-provided that learners andeducation programs can obtain and use them effectively.

Computer and video technologies, telecommunications, andconsumer electronics all have features well-suited to adulteducation. Within each type of technology, an array of hardware,software, and learning materials is available. Hardware forliteracy ranges from interstate satellite networks to pocket-sizedlanguage translators; from dazzling multimedia systems integrat-ing words, pictures, sound, and touch, to the familiar telephone.Software ranges from basic drill programs that permit learners topractice a skill repeatedly, to sophisticated simulations that allowadults to interact with realistic reproductions of work or socialsituations.

As earlier chapters have suggested, technology has thepotential to attract and motivate adults with limited literacyskills, give them greater privacy and control over their learning,adjust instruction to different paces and learning styles, transporteducation to new locations, reach more students at lower cost,train teachers, and improve program management and coordina-tion. But is this potential being met? To answer that question, thischapter explores several questions:

How much real access do literacy programs and learnerscurrently have to hardware and software?How do literacy programs use technology now, and how couldthey use it more effectively?What are the barriers to broader access and more effective useof technology?

189


Computers are the most widely used technol-ogy in literacy programs, but even the use ofthis technology is limited. It is estimated thatnot more than 15 percent of literacy providersuse computers regularly for instruction. Stillrarer in literacy programs is the use of newer,computer-related technologies—digitizedspeech, videodisc players, and CD-ROM (com-pact disc-read only memory)-that offer prom-ising multimedia applications.As literacy educators gain more experience, theuses of computers move far beyond traditionaldrill and practice. However, even experiencedprograms generally use technology as a supple-ment to traditional classroom-based instruc-tion, rather than as a fundamental tool forlearning.Video technology is surprisingly underusedgiven its familiarity and availability. Lowerend, inexpensive technologies-such as audiorecorders, closed-caption decoders, and hand-held electronic devices-are largely ignored.Available computer software does not ade-quately meet the demands of literacy programs.Courseware for video and other technologies iseven more limited.A significant amount of hardware and softwarein businesses, homes, schools, colleges, andlibraries is underutilized for literacy education.The promise of technologies to enable adults tolearn anywhere, any time, is still largelyunexplored. Technology is rarely used to reachlearners outside of classrooms or to provideflexibility for learners.Significant barriers that inhibit widespreadaccess and effective use of technologies includethe cost and funding of technology, a highlyfragmented marketplace, the lack of informa-

tion about technology applications,institutional challenges faced by aliteracy field.

ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGIESFOR LITERACY

and thediverse

Recent advances have made technology moreadaptable than ever before for adults with limitedliteracy skills. Computers with speech synthesiz-ers can transform written text into spoken words,which is especially helpful to limited Englishproficient (LEP) adults and those with minimalreading skills. Touch screens, pointing devices,and icons have made computers less intimidatingand easier to operate. Hand-held electronic de-vices make it possible for adults to learn on thebus, at home, on a coffee break, or in a waitingroom. Distance learning technologies can extendopportunities for education and peer interaction toadults in remote locations. And the diversity oftechnologies means that something is availablefor almost every type of learning style or programneed (see box 7-A).

In order to take advantage of these features,however, adult learners and literacy programsmust have access to hardware and equipment andto software and other learning materials. Deter-mining the extent to which literacy programs haveaccess to technology is difficult because data areso limited, especially for some of the newertechnologies. To supplement the limited existingresearch, the Office of Technology Assessment(OTA) initiated several studies and made staffvisits to technology-using literacy sites.1

Access to Computer HardwareHaving access to hardware is the first, most

obvious gateway to using technology. Literacy

1 JD. Eveland et al., Claremont Graduate Schoo~ “Case Studies of lbchnology Use in Adult Literacy Program,” O’IA contractor rqo~June 1992; Jay P. Sivin-Kachala and Ellen R. Bialo, Interactive Educational Systems Desi~ Inc., “Software for Adult Literacy: SCOpe,Suitability, Available Sources of Information and Implications for Federal Policy,” OTA contractor repo@ June 1S92; Christine Hollan~ SLProductions, “Observations: lkchnologies for Litemcy in Mississippi and New York City,” OTA cmtnwtorreport and video footage, April1992; and Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. and Wujcik and Associates, “The EdwXtiOllld Soihvare h+farke@ace and Adult LiteracyNiches,” O’IA contmctor repo~ April 1S92. See appendix H for information on obtaining these reports.

Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 191

Box 7-A—Technologies for Literacy

Computer-Based Technologies● Computer and peripheral hardware (monitors, keyboards, printers, drives, mice, modems).

. Computer input devices (scanners, touch screens, pens, microphones).● Local- or wide-area networks (computers and terminals linked over short or long distances), electronic mail,

electronic bulletin boards.● Multimedia systems that combine text, graphics, sound, animation, and video (computers connected with

devices such as video monitors, laserdisc or videodisc players, CD-ROM players, speech synthesize,speech boards, audio speakers).

Some applications: Computer laboratories for instruction and self-tutoring; audio for help with pronunciation andvocabulary (especially useful with beginning readers and English as a second language students); presentationof information through multiple media (e.g., text, graphics, moving pictures, sound) to reach learners withdifferent learning styles; information networks for teachers and administrators.

Telecommunications Technologies● Broadcast, radio cable, and satellite networks.● Television sets, VCRs, video players, camcorders, closed-caption decoders, and videocassettes.● Telephone networks, telephones, touch tone, voice mail (see also local- or wide-area networks above).

. Facsimile (fax) machines.

Some applications: Two-way interactive distance learning; video conferencing for learners and teachers;television, videocassette, and radio courses to facilitate learning at home; informing public about literacyprograms; sharing of courseware and effective practices; large installed base in order to reach many prospectivelearners who cannot or will not come to programs.

Consumer Electronic Devices● Portable electronic devices (calculator, language translator, hand-held dictionary and encyclopedia digital

books).● Home videogame machines.. Audio equipment (stereo, compact disc player, tape player, cassettes, books on tape).

Some applications: Learning “on the go” or at home, renting coursewareforVCRs or game machines, translatingbetween English and another language, hearing correctpronunciation of unfamiliar words, reading books on tapeor electronic books.

SOURCE: Ofnce Of’lkebnology &WXmne@ 1993.

programs with computers are most often found in Correctional facilities are another group ofpublic schools, community colleges, and largecorporations--institutions that have funds forhardware purchases, a prior commitment to learn-ing technologies, and opportunities for buying inquantity at reduced prices. Although literacyprograms benefit from being located in suchinstitutions, it is rarely the literacy program alonethat drives hardware acquisition.

literacy providers likely to have access to comput-ers. Federal prisons, for example, were early usersof computer-based training in basic and voca-tional skills. Although comprehensive statisticsare not available regarding technology access incorrectional institutions, 35 of 65 Federal prisonsuse computers in their educational programs, asdo the correctional systems in such States as


Texas, New York, Michigan, and Minnesota andsuch large cities as Los Angeles.*

Reliable estimates of access to computersamong community-based organizations (CBOs)are particularly difficult to obtain, because theseproviders are so diverse. An OTA survey of 33technology-using programs found that community-based literacy programs had fewer computersthan programs in public schools, businesses, andcommunity colleges.3 Even so, many community-based and volunteer literacy programs do acquirehardware. A 1991 survey conducted by LiteracyVolunteers of America (LVA) reported that 72percent of LVA programs were using computersin some capacity (though not necessarily forinstruction). 4 In addition, the Job Training Part-nership Act (JTPA), which funds many CBOs,encourages computer-based instruction and al-lows Federal funds to be used for hardware andsoftware (see chapter 5). Similarly, the FederalJob Corps program for severely disadvantagedyouth has promoted the use of computers foreducation and training in its centers.5

Furthermore, most literacy programs with com-puters do not appear to have access to newer morepowerful, computer-related technologies-suchas scanners, speech boards, CD-ROM, videodiscplayers, modems, and touch screens-that makethe technology more accessible and open uppromising multimedia applications for adult learn-ers. Typically, the 33 technology-using programssurveyed by OTA had stand-alone computerswith color monitors and mouses. About one-half

of the programs surveyed had some hardwarewith speech capabilities. Scanners, which allowteachers and students to customize software bycopying photos, drawings, and text into theircomputer applications, appeared in only one-thirdof the sites. Videodisc players, CD-ROM, mo-dems, and touch screens were even less avail-able.6 Access to newer technologies seems todepend on whether a “critical mass” of technol-ogy resources exists in a literacy educationsetting. Programs with relatively fewer computers(less than 15) also tend to have fewer of the moreadvanced technologies.7

Little is known about which factors createdemand for instructional computers or how muchtechnology planning precedes acquisition. Anec-dotal evidence suggests that the motivation topurchase hardware comes from any of foursources: word-of-mouth success stories, the de-sire to attract students, the initiative of a technol-ogy crusader on staff, or an attempt to serve morelearners when space, time, or personnel axelimited. 8 Very few literacy providers, especiallythose outside of community colleges or largeschool districts, appear to develop a comprehen-sive, long-range technology plan. Evenworkplace literacy programs operated by busi-nesses sometimes fail to tap in-house technologyexpertise from other departments.9

Access to Other HardwareEstimating the number of literacy programs

with access to video and telecommunications

2 Education TURNKEY, Inc. and Wujcik and Associates, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 34-35.

s Sivin-Kacbala and Bialo, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 26.4 Literacy Volunteers of Ameriq Inc., New Yo~ NY, “Computer Use SUIVey, 1984- 1991,” 1991. Forty percent of t.k LVA pm-

with computers reported using them for program management only.

3 Jo Ann Intili et al., An Evaluation Feasibility Study of the Use of kbrious Technologies to Assist in the Instrucn”on of JTPA Pm”cipants,vol. 1 (Berkeley, CA: Micro Methods, June 30, 1989).

b Sivin-Kachala and Bialo, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 28-29.

7 Ibid., p. 29.8 Ibid., p. 66; Eveland et al., op. cit., footnote 1; Holhn4 op. cit., footnote 1; and Arnold H. Packer, Retooling the Arnencan Wor~orce.’

The Role of Technology in Improving Adult Literacy Dun”ng the 1990s (W@in@@ DC: Soutbport Institute for Policy Analyais, 1988),9 Eve~ ~ ~., Op. Cit., foo~ok 1, pp. 13%159-


Despite a growing base of distance learning systems, few are being used to serve adults in literacy programs.Some schools, like Kirkwood Community College, are exploring the possibilities of reaching adult learners.

hardware is even more difficult than determiningcomputer availability. While statistics exist aboutthe presence of these technologies in differentinstitutional settings, it is unclear to what extentvideo and telecommunications technologies areactually being used for adult literacy education.OTA studies indicate that very few literacyproviders use video and telecommunicationstechnologies, even when a parent institution, suchas a public school, has access to hardware.

Community colleges, for instance, frequentlyuse broadcast and cable television to offer college-level telecourses. Over one-half of the communitycolleges responding to a recent survey reportedhaving a distance learning program,l0 but few usethese for adult literacy education.

The private sector also appears to have accessto video technologies that are used for general

training activities. Training magazine reports that92 percent of U.S. businesses with 100 or moreemployees use videotape materials for trainingpurposes, 20 percent use interactive videodiscs,and 10 percent use videoconferencing, withhigher percentages among larger businesses. Thissurvey did not distinguish between training forbasic skills/literacy and other types of corporatetraining, although 19 percent of the businessesreported providing some kind of remedial coursesin reading, writing, basic mathematics, or Englishas a second language (ESL).ll

A potential source of telecommunications hard-ware for literacy programs is the Federal StarSchools Program. The 10 telecommunicationspartnerships created by this program have pro-vided over 3,000 elementary and secondaryschools with satellite dishes and 1 project is

10 Ron Brey, U.S. poxt~eco~aq Di~tance~arning progr~ in the 1990s: A Dec~e of Growth (wm@oq m: AIIIH@IIASSOChtiOll

of Community and Junior Colleges, 1991), pp. 6-11.11 ‘‘~dUStryReWfi 1992: 1 lth Annual Survey of Employer-Sponsored Training in Amen%’ Training, vol. 29, No. 10, October 1992, pp.

31-59. When businesses were allowed to set the criterion for which coumes qualify as ‘ ‘remedial educatio~’ 40 pereent reported offering sucha course.


helping build a statewide fiber optic network inIowa. Although the program is primarily a K-12venture, several of the Star Schools projects areserving adults with limited literacy skills or adultswho want to learn English.12

Personal electronic devices, such as languagetranslators, hand-held dictionaries, and encyclo-pedias, are available in a limited number ofliteracy programs, although almost one-half mil-lion of these products are now in public schoolsand providers such as correctional institutions arebeginning to acquire them. Several million indi-viduals also own hand-held language devices.13

To date these devices have had limited learningapplications. Most were developed for a limitedpurpose, with preprogrammed contents on amicrochip. Now that vendors are placing contenton cartridges (e.g., whole books) sold separatelywith features like a built-in dictionary, theseproducts are likely to become more serviceablefor literacy in the future.

Availability y of Computer Courseware14

A second prerequisite to using technology isaccess to appropriate computer or video course-ware or other technology-based learning materi-als. Although it is estimated that as many as 2,000computer software products are marketed to theliteracy community, relatively few are specifi-

cally designed for use in literacy programs.l5

Most of the marketed software products are“stand-alone,” designed to run on an individualcomputer. Stand-alone products are generallyquite affordable-most cost less than $100 perprogram-although a few exceed $1,000.16

Reading/language arts was the most commonlyaddressed subject among the 1,451 stand-alonesoftware products identified by OTA, accountingfor more than one-half of the products (see table7-l). Mathematics was the next most popularsubject, with about 22 percent of the products.Also common were so-called productivity tools,such as keyboarding, word processing, and spread-sheet software. Other subjects, such as socialstudies, science, job preparation, life skills, andproblem solving, accounted for less than 10percent each of the products. Most stand-alonesoftware was targeted at adult basic education(ABE) programs, followed by ESL, and generalequivalency diploma (GED) preparation.17

These stand-alone programs are only one typeof courseware for literacy. Larger, more expen-sive integrated learning systems (ILSs) are alsoaimed at the adult literacy community. An ILS isa special type of computer network that typicallyincludes a centralized ‘‘server, linked to less-powerful terminals. It also includes instructionalsoftware covering one or more subject areas and

12 ~esen~tiom by Brian lhlbog F%ci,flc Northwest SW Schools P ~P? ~d ~~1 ~er, United States Educational NeWo~ at ~Federal Star Schools Project Directors Meeting, Washing@n, DC, Nov. 24, 1992.

13 ~U sisk presid~~ F* _ Resources, The Educational Division of FIXUWUI“ Electronic Publishers, Inc., personalcommunication Nov. 19, 1992.

14 CourseWare is educational software or video progmmming packaged with SUp~rt@ materials such as student llUlllldS, teacher guides,and operating manuals.

1S ~ &~~ of ~~ ~~= -~t~ t. ~~t ~~wy w~ ms~bl~ by si~~~~ Bia10 (op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 2-4) from

the following sources: Marjorie DeWest and Beverly U, Studcmt (eds.), Apple Access: A&lt Basic Skills Cum’adutn So~are Gw2ie(Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc., 1991); Jeff%ey H. Orloff (cd.), AppJeAccess:Macintosh E&cafional So~are Guide (Cuprdno, CA:Apple Computer, Inc., 1991); Tina Ruppelt (ed.),AppleAdultBaskEA cation Resource Guide (Cup@ino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc., 1988);Barbara A.W. Wright (cd.), Oregon/Washington Adult Basic Skills Technology Consorta”um Software Buyers Gui2ie (Seattle+ VA:Oregon/Washington Adult Basic Skills lbchnology ConsortiunL 1991); Debomh Haley and Norman Johnson (eds.), T2LSOL CALL InterestSection So*are~”st 1991 (Al~“ VA: Tkachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 1991); and Education TuRNKEY Sysxhe. (compiler), “~h’fEducatiotud systems EdUCtltiOtMd !$oftware and Coursew~” Unpubwed do Cumeng September 1991. Additional titleswere provided by the sites responding to O’IA’s survey.

16 siv~~~ and Bialo, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 10.

17 mid., pp. I-3 to 1-11.


Table 7-l—Distribution of Available Literacy Software Products by Subject

Major subjects Number Percent Major subjects Number Percent

Language arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769 53.0% Language arts topicsMathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 21.6 Grammar and punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 30.5General purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 8.6 Spelling and vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 30.2Life skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 8.4 Reading comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 28.5Social studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 7.6 Basic reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 26.9Problem solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.5 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 14.0Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4.0 Distribution of language arts products (total=769)ESL/LEP specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.4Career guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.7 Mathematics topicsComputers and keyboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.1 Basic skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 71.9Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.3 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 30.4GED specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.2 Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9.9Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 0.8 Distribution of mathmatics products (total=313)

KEY: ESL-English as a second language; GED-general equivalency diploma; LEP-limited English proficient.

NOTE: A total of 1,451 stand-alone computer software products used in literacy programs were identified for this anatysis. As some products coveredmore than one subject, the totals do not add up to 100 percent.

SOFIWARE TYPES:General purpose: Open-ended software that is not subject-specific.Career gu/darwe: Helps students learn about different careers and match their interests to various fields of work.Cornpufers andkeyboad Includes learning how to use a computer (e.g., booting up, inserting disks, standard keys) and learning how people usecomputer-based technology.Ernp/oyn?ent: Combines both preemploymenVwork maturity skills (e.g., good work habits and on-the-job etiquette) and vocation-specific skills.Life ski//s: Includes skills necessary for success at everyday living (e.g., coping with stress, balancing a checkbook, reading a bus schedule),Prob/em sohdr)g; Ackfressee general problem-solving skills with application across domains rather than subject-specific skills.

SOURCE: Jay P. Sivin-Kachala and Ellen Bialo, Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc., “Software for Adult Literacy: Scope, Suitability,Available Soumes of Information, and Implications for Federal Policy,” OTA cmtractor report, June 1992.

a range of grade levels; computer-based activitiesand a curriculum framework correlated to awidely used test instrument; and a managementsystem that sequences student activities, recordsstudent performance, and generates summaryreports. The OTA survey identified nine ILSproducts that are marketed to adult literacyPrograms. l8

Despite this volume and variety, OTA findsthat available computer software is not ade-quately meeting the demands of literacy pro-grams. Literacy providers canvassed in site visits,surveys, workshops, and personal interviewsagree that more appropriate applications are

desired-applications that cater to adult interestsand tie directly to the context of learners’ lives.19

Many of the existing software products weredesigned for children and young adults and maybe inappropriate for adult learners. As one adulteducator noted:

Most of the software that is on the market hasbeen written for “larger markets” and then soldto “submarkets” as being appropriate for theirpopulations. This is an immediate turn off toteachers of adult literacy who are very concernedwith the dignity of adult learners and want to usetechnology as a motivator. Sitting at a computeris an “adult activity” and should not be under-

18 Of tie fie ~ ~r~Uc~ ~mnfly Sold tO ~d~t fitaacy pro-, six me co~lat~ to the ‘lk.st of Adult Basic JMucation (Z4BE) and

five are correlated to the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS). See ibid., pp. 12-14.

19 st~hm R~er, Northwest Regional Educational LabOratOV, “On-Line Literacy Development: A Context for Technology in AdultLiteracy Educatio~’ OTA contractor repo% April 1992; Center for Literacy Studies, University of T5nnessee, Knoxville, ‘Life at the Margins:Profiles of Adults With Low Literacy Skills, ” OTA contractor repon March 1992; and Joyce FWUUI.SSOQ ‘‘The Developer’s Dile~” OTAcontractor repor4 October 1991.

—.


mined by programs that are written for kindergar-ten to grade three.20

Many subjects and applications are not well-covered. Among them are writing; problem solv-ing and critical thinking; adult-oriented course-ware for GED preparation and ESL; careerplanning, preemployment skills, and workplacereadiness; life skills; parenting skills; and readingand language arts for nonreaders and low-levelreaders, especially products that take advantageof human speech.21

Availability of Other Coursewareand Programming

Video courseware and programming foradult literacy are extremely limited in quantityand scope. Other types of learning materials,such as courseware for consumer electronics, arerare.

Video courseware can include content onvideotape, videodisc, or CD-ROM; live interac-tive distance learning courses; and televisionprogramming for broadcast, cable, and satellitetransmission. They range in sophistication fromthe basic and inexpensive, such as “teacher andblackboard” public access television courses; tothe slick and expensive, such as professionalvideotape productions involving location filming,professional actors, scriptwriters, teachers, andeditors. The formats for video courseware varyfrom interviews, lectures, and discussions, todramatizations, demonstrations, and storytelling.

A recent report surveying the current availabil-ity and use of broadcast-quality video program-ming identified five literacy series created forbroadcast and cablecast. Kentucky Educational

Television (KET) accounts for four of the fiveseries and 99 percent of the use.22 The fifth series,called On Your Own, is produced by WPSX-TV,a public television station in Pennsylvania inpartnership with Prentice Hall. It consists of 335-to 15-minute segments designed for use by ateacher. Although the series is carried into 800,000homes and learning centers throughout one-thirdof the State, it is not designed for free-standinghome viewing.

The most widely used video courseware foradult literacy is KET’s GED on TV (see box 7-B).This series is distributed to literacy programs inall 50 States, many of which use it to supplementclassroom instruction. The three other KET prod-ucts include Another Page, which is designed toteach reading skills at the 5th- through 7th-gradelevel; Learn to Read, a 30-segment series aimedat beginning readers; and Math Basics, a newseries of 11 half-hour segments.

Over 750 training and education coursewaretitles exist for videodisc; however, only about 50target basic skills.23 Several other video titlesrelevant to adult literacy address issues such asparenting skills, health, consumer issues, job-readiness, and staff development.

An Untapped Base of TechnologyOTA finds that a significant amount of

technology in businesses, homes, schools, col-leges, and libraries could be tapped for literacyand learning. Many companies have an impres-sive base of technology that is used for training.Large corporations also own videoconferencingand other telecommunications equipment, but it isused primarily for executive business meetings,

X) k -mr, &tor, ~~on ~umtion ~ ~plowent Rop @@t REEP), Ar~o~ V& p~~ COmmtiWtiO~ Apr.

22, 1992.

21 si~~~ and Bialo, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 61-62.

22 Marian L. Schwarz, “’lklevision and Adult Literaey: Poteatial for Aeceas to Learning for an Unserved PopulatiorL” report prepared forthe Ford Foundation June 1992, p. 25.

23 ~c~dpo~ “Title.aAvai.lablef orAdult Training and Adult Literacy,” unpublished data compiledfiom Video&scCompendium, 1993(St. Paul, MN: Emerging lkchnology Consultants Inc., 1992).

Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise I 197

Box 7-B-Broadcast Programming: The GEL) on TV Example

1 ~-~ Educational lblevis~ “KET/GEt) on TV Use and Bcdi@ 197S-1989,” uupublidd data, MJ’ 1990.2 ~ @~ do not M* bmadmst or tape duplication rights. KET-Kmtucky Educational ~m~

Instrl@kmalvi&o Cattdogue @Xingto14 KY: 19%.)3 s~ of * -kat-Home M- cited in MarionL. Schwam+ Z&vWon andAduftLkeracy Porendal*

Access to kzrning for an UilservedPopfdafion, 8 mpcxt fir tho Ford Rnmdatt● * June Im p. 30.Continued on nertpage

file exchange, or electronic mail and less often for teaching and learning. According to a 1991training. 24 survey, 2-year public colleges have a total of

Colleges and universities also have a base of 356,000 desktop computers, or a ratio of 1 fortechnology, plus wide experience using it for every 24 students. These computers are not

~ James Posko, “AT&T Video Conferencing, ” Procomm Enterprises Magazine, April 1991; Jeff Charles, “There IS a Video in YourFuture, ” 1992 Ten-YeurForecast (Menlo Parlq CA: Institute for the Future, 1992), pp. 159-164; and “IndustryReport 1992,” op. cit., footnote11, p. 46.

.—


evenly distributed within institutions, however, ondary schools are not open in the evening andnor a& they used exclusively for student instruc- because some school computers are restricted totion,25 let alone for adult literacy. In addition, the use by special programs (e.g., the Federal Chaptermajority of community colleges use distance 1 program), adult education programs often do1earning and video technologies for instruction.26 not have access to these resources. In addition,

Public schools have more than 2.5 million virtually all elementary and secondary schoolscomputers. Because many elementary and sec- have televisions, 98 percent have videocassette

z K~e~cQ ~ ~d Stip ~~ c~usco~uting ]991: The~UCOM-USCSurvey Oflle&tOp Computing in HigherEducation

@s Angeles, CA: Ccntcrfor Scholarly ‘Ikdnology, University of Southern Cdifomi& 1992), p. 12.26 B~y, op. cit., footnote 10, pP. l&13s 67”


recorders (VCRS),27 and61 percent have access tocable, although schools in the poorest communi-ties are often the least likely to have cable.28 Agrowing number of public schools have videodiscplayers, satellite dishes, and interactive distancelearning systems.

29 Despite the fact that many

adult learning programs are held in publicschools, use of these school-based technologiesfor adult literacy instruction is rare,

Perhaps the greatest untapped resources forliteracy are home technologies (see figure 7-l).Telephones and televisions are the most widelyavailable. Ninety-three percent of householdshave telephones,30 but over one-third of these arerotary or pulse phones, which limits their accessto hotlines, voice mail, and audio text.31 In 1990,98 percent of households had at least one televi-sion, over 72 percent of households owned VCRs,and 55 percent subscribed to cable. Only 3 percentof households had a home satellite dish system,mostly in rural areas or small towns.32

Home computers are far from pervasive, espe-cially among low-income and minority house-holds, but the number is growing. In 1989, 17.3percent of adults had a computer in their home, upfrom 9.1 percent in 1984. However only about 58percent of adults who have access to a homecomputer report actually using it. Home comput-ers were used most frequently by adults for wordprocessing (62 percent of users), video games (44percent) and household records (36 percent) .33

Figure 7-l—Technologies in the Home, 1990~—- –-

1

Telephones

Touch-tonedialing

Television %

Videocassetterecorders

Basic cable 55%0subscribers

Video game 35%machinesPersonal

m16%

computers

. . — . — —— — ——0% 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 00%0

Percentage of households

NOTE: Total number of households is approximately 93 million,

SOURCES: Personal computer data from Robert Kominski, ComputerUse in the United States: 7989, Special Studies Series, No. 171(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of theCensus, February 1991 ), p. 23; extrapolations to 1990 based on ratesof change between 1964 and 1989. Video game data from Julia Marshand Lawrence K. Vanston, Interactive Multimedia end Telacommunica-tbns: Forecasts of Markets and Twhnologies (Austin, TX: TechnologyFutures, Inc., 1992), p. 67. Telephone data from the U.S. Departmentof Commerce, The NTbl /nfrastrucfure Report, NTIA Spa”al Publica-tion 91-26 (Washington, DC: October 1991 ). Touch-tone data from anAT&T survey ated in Bob Bentz, “Reaehing Rotary Dialers With VoiceRecognition,” ktfoteti, July 1991, pp. 64-65. All television data fromHenry T. Ingle, “A Nation of Learners: me Demographics of Access toVieo and Telecommunications Technology,” New Msions for L4Ao:Use of Cable, Satellite, Broackast, and Interactive Systems for Literacyand Learning, Annenberg Washington Program (cd.) (Washington, DC:1992).

21 Q@~ ~u~tion Dam rnc., 1992-1992 Catalog & Education Market Reference Gta”de (Denver, CO: 1992).

28 Staen L. Schongar, Education and Technology, 1991 :A Survey of the K-12 Market (Sheltou CT: Market D* RetievaL ~ New YorkNY: LINK Resources, 1991), p. 61.

29 Ibid., p. 54.30 Ale~er B~linf~te, Telephone S~~ui&r~hip in ~he vs. (w~hin@on, DC: F~~ CC)mrnUniC~012S Colllrrdssiom Septettlber 1991)

cited in U.S. Department of Commerce, The NT..A Infrastructure Report, NTL4 Special Publication 91-26 (Washingto% DC: October 1991),app. F.

31 lg91 AT&T -ey ~it~ fi Bob Benz “R~~ Row D~ers Witi Voice Reco@tio~” lnfO~@, July 1991, PP. 64-65.

32 Hq ‘r’. @le, “A Nation of barriers: The Demographics of Access to Video and ‘Iklecommunications lkchnology,” New VisionsforVideo: Use of Cable, Satellite, Broadcast, and Interactive Systems for L“teracy and burning, Annenberg Washington Program (cd.)(wrGom DC: 1992), p. 14.

33 Row KOM, Cowuter use in the ~nitedstata: ~$)&), s~~ s~~es s~~ p-zs, No. 171 (wS.Sbk@OU DC: U.S. ~

of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, February 1991).


Game machines such as Nintendo or Sega areone of the fastest growing consumer technolo-gies. As of 1990, at least 35 percent of householdswere estimated to have acquired home videogame machines.34 In the past, software for thesemachines has been strictly entertainment. Re-cently the attachment of compact discs to thesetechnologies and the advent of more powerfulmicroprocessors have facilitated the introductionof new kinds of video game machines. As newdevices, e.g., compact disc-interactive (CD-I), arebrought to market, the manufacturers are negoti-ating with educational developers to create prod-ucts for their platforms. In some cases, educa-tional titles are included with the purchase ofhardware. This trend is expected to continue.35

USES OF TECHNOLOGYMost literacy programs do not have access to

technology. But what about those that do? Howare they using it? Are the technologies bringingthe expected advantages? Are they realizing theirpromise? Because systematic data are not avail-able to answer these questions, OTA has takensome ‘‘snapshots” of technology use in literacyprograms through a survey of software use in 33programs, 36 6 intensive case studies,37 and manysite visits.38 (For a list of all the sites, seeappendix G). Taken together these sources sug-gest some patterns and lessons regarding technol-ogy use.

General Findings About Technology UsePreceding chapters of this report have already

mentioned several potential advantages of tech-nology. These are summarized in boxes 7-C and7-D as a way of framing the discussion thatfollows about how programs are actually usingtechnology, what they are learning about itsstrengths and drawbacks, and whether technologyis fulfilling its potential.39

In its site visits and surveys, OTA found thatfor most programs “technology’ means comput-ers; other technologies are used only sporadically.In addition, the proportion of programs that usecomputers regularly for instruction is surprisinglysmall-probably not more than 15 percent of allliteracy providers.40 Research shows that whencomputers are first introduced into educationalsettings, they are used in ways that often mirrorcurrent instructional practices,41 and literacy is noexception. Educators who are least experiencedwith technology tend to use computers more fordrill, practice, and automated tutorials than forother types of activities,42 reflecting the overallprevalence of drill and practice in literacy instruc-tion.

As programs become more experienced withtechnologies, they are more likely to use them astools to assist all learning, and in ways that gowell beyond drill and practice. Literacy providerswith more technology experience use computerswith word processors, spreadsheets, desktop pub-

34 Jfia A. ~~ ~d ~WmW K. ~toq Interactive MuJfi~dia and Teleco~~”can”om: Forecasts of Markets and Technologies

(AustirL TX: ‘kchnology Futures, Inc., 1992), pp. 66-67.

35 John hlwry, C~ and CEO, Discis Knowledge Research+ Inc., pemonal communication Dec. 2, 1992.

SS siv~.~c~ and Bialo, op. cit., footnote 1.

ST J.D. Eveland et al., op. cit., footnote 1.

38 For example, see Hollant op. cit., fOOtIIOte 1.

39 For ~= diwm~ion of the ism= ~ ~X 7-D, ~ ch. 3, ~d of hose i.u box 7-E, S= ch. 6.

40 D~elop~~t ~mci~es, ~cc, Nafio~~lEvaluafion of~lt E~afiOn program: profiles Of Semice providers (w@O~ ~: U.S.

Department of Educatiou 1992), p. 72; Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. and Wujcik and Associates, op. cit., footnote 1; and Holland, op.cit., footnote 1.

41 K~en s~kgold ~d Martha Hadley, Accomplished Tmchers: Integrating Computers Into Classroom Practice (New Yodt, NY: BankStreet College of Edueatioq September 1990).

42 siv~~~ ~d Bialo, op. cit., f~~ote 1, p. 53.


‘H $

Many adults use computers in the LA Times Learning Center.

lishing, and databases-the same ways they areused in the ‘‘real world. ’43 Students learn to usecomputers for practical things like writing lettersor resumes, planning a budget, creating a businesscard or publishing a community newsletter.Educational games and simulations are also morecommon in sites with more computer experi-ence.44

All of the technology-using programs surveyedby OTA also reported using computers foradministrative purposes, such as general corre-spondence, registration and scheduling, recordkeep-ing, budgeting and payroll, student tracking,evaluation and planning, and mandated reports.45

The clearest finding from the case studies isthat most programs are using computers princi-pally as a supplement to a traditional programof classroom-based instruction. Two programs

drawn from OTA’s case studies illustrate thispoint.

The Metro Campus Adult Learning Center islocated on the fourth floor of the CuyahogaCounty Community College in Cleveland, Ohio.Students, who must have at least a 4th-gradereading level to enroll, attend either a basic skillscourse or GED classes. primary funding for theprogram is from JTPA: many of the students aresingle mothers who receive Aid to Families withDependent Children (AFDC). The center has acomputer laboratory with 31 Tandy computers,26 of which have no hard drives. All are linked toone of two file servers that contain PLATOcourseware. 46 The computer laboratory is open tostudents between 8:30 am and 4 pm. Classes arefrom 9 am to 1 pm every day. For 2 hours,students work in the computer laboratory, the

43 Ho~d, op. cit., footnote 1.

44 siv~.~c~ ~d Bi~o, op. cit., fOo~Ote 1, p. 53.

45 Ibid., p. 31.

a PLATO-Prograrnmed Imgic for Automatic ‘lkaching Opexatiom+4.s an integrated Iewnin g system designed for adults reading at gradelevels 4 through 12.

—


other 2 hours they spend in a classroom that segments, because most of its students generateprimarily uses traditional paper-and-pencil in- enough funding from JTPA to cover that period.structional methods. Student progress is tracked Current capacity is 85 students. Courses includeby the PLATO system and can be accessed ABE, pre-GED, life skills, counseling, and careerreadily by the teacher. orientation. Each student attends class for 3 hours

The Ripken Center is the first learning center a day, 5 days a week. Each day a student spendsestablished by the Baltimore City Literacy Corpo- half of the time (1 1/2 hours) doing classroomration. Classes here are set up in 6-month work; the other 1 1/2 hours are spent either in the


computer laboratory (3 days a week for a total of components from WICAT to supplement class-4 1/2 hours per week), a life Skills ClaSS (1 day), or room activities. Considerable diversity of lessonsa career preparation class (1 day). The Ripken characterizes activities in the laboratory; in 1 siteCenter has a laboratory with 14 IBM-compatible visit at least 10 different applications were beingpersonal computers, one of which operates as a used among the 15 students in the room. Wordfile server. These computers are setup to use the processing software is also available and manyWICAT system;47 teachers select appropriate students use it regularly.

47 me WICAT system is an integrated learning Syskm.

—


Making computers a more fundamental part ofthe education experience requires accumulatedskill and sustained effort. However, even pro-grams with well-versed staff do not always haveenough hardware to center instruction aroundtechnology.

Benefits and Limitations ofTechnologies for Literacy

OTA found that some of the anticipatedbenefits of technology are indeed being realizedin the field-the good news. Case studies suggestcaution, however, about overstating the advan-tages; technology has its limitations and cancreate new problems and challenges-the badnews.

The Good NewsLearners like the tools. The overwhelming

majority of people interviewed were highly en-thusiastic about the benefits of computers in adultliteracy. Almost everyone agreed that technologyhelps attract adult learners to the programs andkeep them there. Mastering technology enhancesself-esteem and increases motivation to learn. Inaddition, adults often view computers as a path-way to a vocational skill. Computer literacyprograms designed to familiarize users with wordprocessing, keyboarding, operating systems, andother applications are often more popular thanclassroom-oriented basic skills courses.

Information tools help teachers but do notreplace them. There is no substitute for thededicated and effective teacher. Contrary to thefears of some, there is no evidence from casestudies that technology will usurp the criticalrelationship between teacher and learner. Rather,the tools can sharpen and focus the teacher-student interaction, and can spell the teacherduring the more repetitive parts of the learningprocess; they can also ease some administrativetasks for the teacher. But ultimately it is theteacher who must guide the use of technology and

shape its contributioncontext.

Information tools do

to the overall learning

meet some of the speciallearning needs of adults with low literacy skills.Creative use of information technology can sup-port the open-entry, open-exit programs thatmany believe are essential for adult literacyinstruction. The programs currently using com-puters describe many advantages: technologysupports self-paced instruction, is nonjudgmen-tal, adjusts to different skill levels, provides a“private’ environment, and offers immediatefeedback. Technology seems to help create adifferent type of educational experience, one thatdoes not repeat the conditions of past failures.

The Bad NewsTechnology can be intimidating to some learn-

ers. Not everyone is equally enchanted by infor-mation technology. Any program that hopes toreach the full range of clients needs to providelearnin g opportunities that include a variety ofmethods. Those for whom technology does notwork deserve as much consideration and alterna-tive learning opportunities as those who are morecomfortable with state-of-the-art tools. Whiletechnology draws many learners into programs, itmay scare others away.

Tools require learner investment. Even themost “user friendly’ software takes some time tolearn. Most adults in literacy programs mustinvest time orienting themselves to the technol-ogy and learning how to use the tools before thetools can improve their learning. Additionally,since most learners have little or no access toinformation tools in their everyday lives, theymay be unable to practice and gain familiarityduring relatively brief computer laboratory timesin programs.

Technical problems with hardware and soft-ware are common; special expertise is oftenneeded to get technology working optimally. Asprograms come to depend more on systems madeup of widely differing combinations of machinesand software, they are more likely to need


specialized personnel to evaluate hardware andsoftware, perform systems integration, troubleshoot,and switch equipment over to different applica-tions. In most of the sites visited, there were oneor more “gurus” who, by virtue of interest andcapability (seldom formal training), had acquiredthe expertise and knowledge needed to keep thetechnology working for their less mechanicallyminded colleagues. These gurus are critical to thefunctioning of the programs-it is they who patchtogether the systems with baling wire and cello-phane tape—not to mention with recycled discdrives and self-taught midnight programming.

Decisions about technology implementation-what to buy, how to use it, what works withdifferent kinds of learners--often must be madeby trial and error. In OTA’s survey of technologyusers, word-of-mouth-especially from adult ed-ucation colleagues and educational technologyexperts-was cited as the most important sourceof information on software. If a State or region hasan agency that provides information on technol-ogy for adult literacy, most computer-usingprograms in the region will take advantage of itsservices. But technology users did not typicallyconsult available resources such as reviews fromonline services or software guides, mostly be-cause they did not know about these sources. Inaddition, most technology applications have notbeen formally evaluated. As a result almost nodata on effectiveness is available to help guidetechnology implementation decisions (see thesection on “Barriers” below).

Information technology requires new skills ofteachers. Traditional methods of training teachersand volunteers for adult literacy are not generallyoriented toward technology use. Many adulteducators lack computing experience and, evenwhen they can operate the equipment, cannotkeep it running smoothly. Those uncomfortablewith technology are unlikely to recommend it totheir students; some fear it will replace them, orcome between them and their students. Further-more, effective teaching with technology requiresnew approaches that integrate technology with

classroom work and make the most of technol-ogy’s capabilities.

Integrated learning systems can be a mixedblessing. ILSs are designed to be all-inclusive,simplified arrangements for handling the com-plete teaching task. They are often especiallyvaluable to smaller programs because they canreduce the need for specialized support personnel.The broad content coverage offered can providematerials for practicing what was covered in classas well as materials that can ‘‘ffl in the gaps’ ina program’s curriculum. The automated manage-ment system takes care of placement, assessment,and diagnosis, and allows for self-paced, individ-ualized instruction and testing.

However ILSs also have some disadvantages.Often they are difficult to customize for specificlearner needs; some have materials designed forchildren that appear condescending to adults;some lack opportunities for learner control whichcan undermine motivation; and others are limitedin their ‘‘save and resume’ capabilities whichcreates problems for students who only have ashort amount of time to work on lessons. Mostnewer systems now targeting adult literacy aretackling these concerns in their design andsoftware.

The Promise UnfulfilledOTA finds that in many critical respects the

technologies that are accessible to adult literacyprograms are vastly underutilized and the poten-tial of technology remains largely unfulfilled. Yetthere are enough promising, effective, and excit-ing models of technology use to suggest that thepotential is more than visionary and to encouragecontinued implementation.

Technology is rarely used to reach learnersoutside of classrooms or to provide flexibilityfor learners. Information technology for adultlearning seems to have made little headway indelivering services to learners whenever andwherever they need it. Typically there is little useof ‘‘distance learning” in the programs visited;


Motorola employees enrolled in Project SALSAlearned at home on loaned computers and moderns.

most programs still require students to come toprogram sites within specified hours. Often thereare good reasons for this-e. g., to provide socialreinforcement or to develop employability skillssuch as punctuality. However, in most programs,learners experienced major difficulties in going toprogram facilities. Program administrators talkedabout difficulties in providing access to thetechnology whenever and wherever it was needed-they described situations in which equipmentsat idle at some times and could not meet demandat others. There was little evidence of ‘portable’technologies that learners could take home or toother learning sites.

Yet the potential remains. Individual experi-ments are being tried by a few; innovative ideasbloom where nourished.

■ In a workplace literacy program at several ofMotorola’s plants in Arizona, students enrolledin a reading course were given computers andmodems to take home. Throughout the 6-monthcourse, they had access to a networked readingcurriculum; families of the workers were en-

couraged to use the computers as well (see box7-E).“Playing to Win” is a neighborhood technol-ogy center in the basement of a housing projectin East Harlem, New York. The center, whichserves about 500 people and has about 40computers, is designed to give neighborhoodresidents access to computers and computer-based learning. The schedule at the center isfilled with a mixture of classes from neighbor-ing public schools, adult literacy programs,vocational groups, Head Start, and plenty ofopen laboratory time where any East Harlemresident can use the computers for a nominalsum. Trained counselors are on hand to helpnovices; learners can work on their own, or signup for workshops and classes.48

The Mississippi Mobile Learnin g Lab, equippedwith 12 computer workstations, travels totowns in northeast Mississippi and providescomputer-assisted basic skills instruction. Thelaboratory offers basic computer literacy andword processing, job skill development, ABE,GED, and commercial motor vehicle driverslicense review. The laboratory serves six coun-ties and stays for about 8 weeks in eachlocation. Each learner who comes has anindividualized course designed for him or her.49

At the Euclid Adult Learning Center, studentscan watch KET tapes during classroom times.They then complete related exercises in anaccompanying workbook. To help studentswork at home, an 800 number is available thatcan be accessed from any touch-tone phone. Astudent can direct the phone system to aparticular lesson and can review the lesson asmany times as necessary by pressing “0.”50

Networking-of both people and machines-also limited. There is a striking absence of

networking among sites and even within sites. At

~ see Steven bvy, “AXXXS for W“ MacWorld, August 1989, pp. 4344.

49 Hokd, op. cit., footnote 1.

50 Eve~ et d., Op. d., f~~ote 1“


Box 7-E—Project SALSA: Sending Computers Home With Learners

SOURCES: LimIa h et al., S/USA (Southvut Adwnce$ Leunabg Sy#em@r AdWtr) Piios Projec! Rerturc h Report~AzxUosalsdoGmmllm“ly collegq April 1991); Jhlll%asicr, mlm4gerof6dacMoarwca@% Motada~*permnal camumbWQ 1992; snd Karm M@ ssmdate &m of~ ~ -~ -$-.Wmmbmn, 1992.


the most basic level, there is far less use ofcomputer networks than is possible or desirable.Although there are numerous examples of net-worked systems that combine electronic mail,bulletin boards, and other capabilities to createexciting learning environments for children,51

these methods are not being employed in adultliteracy programs. This is paralleled by a generalisolation of personnel in one facility from those atother facilities even when programs fall under onecentral administrative system. Programs oftenseem to be functioning in an intellectual andoperational vacuum.

Coordination of services with other agencies isfrequently desired, but seldom achieved. Fewprograms use their technology to identify oraccess other social services available to adultlearners, except for some welfare reform initia-tives where such coordination is mandated. Inshort, the potential for information exchange issingularly untapped in agencies visited, despitetheir desire for it.

Several projects and States are experimentingwith networking and data coordination:

■ In Philadelphia ‘‘Power Learning," a pilotproject, implemented by the Mayor’s Commis-sion on Literacy, is linking together learnersand teachers from eight community-based adulteducation projects. One-hundred learners, eachenrolled in a program at one of the eight sites,have been loaned a computer and a modem totake home. The system allows electronic con-ferencing among teachers and learners, accessto PLATO courseware, and word processing.Learners are using the computers in manyways, but writing is the predominant activity.Students are writing about themselves, talking

to each other online, and sending messages totheir teachers.52

The Outreach and Technical Assistance Net-work (OTAN Online Communication Systemhas been set up as part of California’s strategicplan for adult education. This system provideselectronic mail through which people workingin adult education can contact others in Califor-nia and throughout the Nation (see chapter 6,figure 6-2). In addition, it provides an elec-tronic database full of resources and informa-tion for teachers and administrators.53

Video technology is surprisingly underusedgiven its familiarity and availability. The vir-tual explosion of easily accessible and relativelyinexpensive video technologies, in particularVCRs and videotapes, offers exciting new possi-bilities for using video as a learning and teachingtool. Yet video use in literacy programs is limited.Videos are used largely to provide information orstimulate group discussions in class. A fewprograms have videocameras or other videoproduction equipment, which they use to tapespecial events or mock job interviews, but pro-ducing video or using video as a classroomresource is a rare activity.

■

■

�

Examples of innovations include:

To help employees who want to improve theirreading skills at home, one company is distrib-uting a 5-1/2 hour beginning reader video seriescalled I Want to Read.54 As part of the service,this company conducts a promotional cam-paign with an 800 number, mails videos andsupport materials to interested employees, of-fers telephone counseling, and helps employeesto find a community literacy program.Arlington Community Television has produceda video series called Communicating Survival

51 SW R~er, op. Cit., fOOblO@ 19,

52 Dow Cwvr, exmtive ~tor, ~~or’s co~ssion On fit~cy, p~~dclp~, p~ yrsod UMIIIIlllnhtiou W. 26, 1993.

53 J~~ ~eiwb ~d Ge~d H. ~1~~ “~ult ~ucaion ‘I&hnoIogy in the tild~ shk,’ Muff kzr~i~g, January/FeMuary 1993,pp. 15-16.

~ me series was produced by Anabel Newmm of the University of India.m


—

that provides information critical to new immi-grants, such as the useof911, emergency healthcare, the supermarket, and so forth. The tapesare produced in several languages and are beingdistributed for use by individuals, ESL classes,and refugee assistance groups.A collaboration between El Paso CommunityCollege and Levi Strauss is the first majorproject attempting to design and implement avideo-based workplace literacy curriculum. Aseries of 60 ESL videos that focus on textileproduction and manufacturing techniques usedin Strauss’ 7 El Paso plants have been com-pleted; the project is about to begin productionof another 60 episodes to teach reading, writ-ing, and mathematics skills within theworkplace context. Using employee input andformative research, the video series is beingdesigned for initial use with the predominantlySpanish-speaking workers in these plants.ss

The Children’s Television Workshop has re-cently produced a children’s literacy programcalled Ghostwriter. The series is targeted to-ward 2nd to 4th graders, particularly those whoare ‘‘. . . becoming reluctant readers and writ-ers—who do not see the personal relevance ofthe printed word or are experiencing difficultyunderstanding and creating text. ’ ’56 The pro-gram, which is being broadcast on many PublicBroadcasting Service (PBS) stations during the1992-93 television season, focuses on a multi-ethnic group of three boys and three girls whosolve mysteries in their neighborhood by read-ing and writing. Viewers are encouraged towrite and read through a host of print-basedactivities like letter writing and contests.57

While not aimed at adults, the engaging format

has attracted a number of parents seeking toenhance their literacy skills.The Annenberg/Corporation for Public Broad-casting (CPB) project is soliciting proposals forfunding to develop an adult television coursethat teaches ESL. The course will include aseries of at least 20 broadcast-quality televisionprograms (30 minutes in length) with inte-grated print and audio materials. The first phase(year 1) will fund one planning and formativeresearch effort ($100,000). Annenberg/CPBexpects to provide $1.5 million for productionand distribution (to be matched by an additional$1.5 million in outside funds). The programswill have wide distribution through broadcastand cable, in community-based ESL programs,in community college ESL programs, andthrough public libraries, corporations, and othercommunity organizations .58Vermont Interactive Television is a statewidetelecommunications system that allows peopleall over the State ready access to education andtraining resources. Currently nine sites areconnected via two-way interactive television.Learners go to the site nearest their home andattend classes that may be taught by teachers inanother part of the State. Learners can use thesystem to work on their GED. All classes arepreserved on videotape for learners who maymiss a class or want to review material.59

Simpler, inexpensive technologies-such asaudio recorders, closed-caption decoders, andhand-held electronic devices-are largely ig-nored. Although many literacy educators de-scribed the virtues of audio for learners who lackreading skills, audiotape recorders were seldombeing used. Few literacy programs seemed aware

55 Au ~~ of the above e~plm are drawn ffOm Schwarz, Op. Cit., footite 22.

56 ~l~en’s ‘lMevision Workshop, “Literacy Project Snapshot” unpublished manuscript, Nov. 19, 1990, p. 2.

57 ~~en’s Wlevision WOtiop, Gtwsrwriter Activify Guide (New York NY: 1992).58 ~n&..~pB ~oj=~ c ‘@lish ~ a s~ond -We solici~tion Guidelines,’ Unpubfihed documen4 1993.

59 ~ fAd~tBmi~ ~ucation: fipm@ Hofions Over ~,’ Online: T~e N~~~ettero~Ve~m/ntmac~Ve Telew”sion, VO1. 2, No. 1, A-t

1991.


of other, less well-known devices such as closed-caption decoders or hand-held dictionaries andtranslators (see box 7-F).

There are some experiments that indicate thesetechnologies have much to offer:

The Mott Haven Library Center for Readingand Writing in New York City (see chapter 4),which serves mostly adults who read belowgrade-4 level, has an extensive collection ofbooks on tape that are very popular with theselearners. The collection is large because a poolof volunteers reads and records books; thecollection can easily and inexpensively beupdated to keep up with the interests andrequests of the learners.The Institute for Communication Disordersoffers a special literacy program for learningdisabled adults with O to 3rd-grade readingability at the International Center for theDisabled in New York City. The teacher, alearning disabilities specialist, reports that cal-culators and the Franklin Speaking SpellingAce are extremely helpful to her students.Cassette tape recorders, which students use tolisten to books on tape and to make audio notes,are at the top of the teacher’s list as usefultechnology.The Arlington Education and EmploymentProgram (REEP) in Arlington, Virginia, andthe National Captioning Institute (NCI) haveproposed a project to use closed captioning inESL classes. After REEP has identified videosrelevant to their ESL curriculum, NCI willprovide captions (available at two differentpaces) and will provide training to teachersusing the captioned videos. Anecdotal reportssuggest that many non-native speakers ofEnglish find captioning helpful; NCI reportsthat 50 percent of individuals who purchased

decoders in 1990 did so in order to learnEnglish. 60

The availability of relevant and versatilesoftware is limited. Providers repeatedly men-tioned the need for software that addresses thespecific needs of adults with low literacy skills.They ask for content that is meaningful to adults,not just a refashioning of something originallymade for children. There is a great need forhigh-quality programming that can be easilycustomized by instructors to meet the specialneeds of local client populations.

Interesting possibilities are being explored asprograms acquire technology and software thatenable them to create their own products.

Design tools, such as software shells, make itincreasingly easy to create courseware thatreinforces basic skills through materials spe-cific to the workplace (see box 7-G).The Correctional Educational Division (CED)of the Los Angeles County jail system (seechapter 4, box 4-F) has supported the onsitedevelopment of computer software and videoprogramming that more closely meets the needsof their inmate population. For example, theyhave developed computer reading materials forthe 3rd- and 4th-grade reading levels that makeuse of idioms frequently heard by inmates inthe jails. CED also has impressive videoproduction facilities; one of their main pur-poses is to produce short videos, requested byteachers, to illustrate concepts or skills thatteachers find themselves demonstrating repeat-edly (e.g., the safe use of hand tools).Chemeketa Community College in Salem,Oregon, has recently created software forteachers called Textbook Toolbox. This soft-ware allows teachers with no programmingexperience to create electronic textbooks using

60 w &~ CO= ~m d~& warranty registrations. C. Eric Kirkland, National Captioning Institute, Inc., personal eommurdeah “o&August 1992.


Box 7-F-Closed Captioning

1 -c Law 101-431, The ‘lWWMon DeCoda Circdry Ad of 1990.2~ to the Natiomal Capd@ng Snstitute @wI), the MeJ81 ctovaYmxattcov@rs amlt 2s percent oftbe pmdudoll

costs fw Captiaming. NCI @mat@ * cost of al bur at Captb@g at aboat $s00 m $1,800 @ up to 20 pmm—hmm@mding on tlm q@icaticm Morgan B- msnegcr of public rdathlq National Ca@odng - -~ w 12,1993.

3 *~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ‘qJ* ~ -~to ‘lba@l Rand@ to a“ -Resuuch ClndInstnwli o% VOL 28,N0. 4,1989, PP. 27-3Z R -U d, Rxuw@mM-Wdwmity, Inst@@forthestudyof Ahlit Litemcy, “Adult LitMacy, computer %M@ogy awl ti Hcar@gImpdra&” wqMMled~ 198% SllsaaB. Neuman ad Pa&Ma Ko@ino@ ‘Waptioncd lblevisim a9 ‘CamphdW Ihput’: Ef%%ts d I&dc@alwd LearningFrom context for~ - ~:’ - Research&Ql#&&m~mLz’7$ 1% pp. 94-106; a#lRoba’thf. Wi&om @ d., “U* clOscd Captionod ‘MovMon to Bnbancu ~-” y~qftheN&naf~”ng Coq%rehce, vol. 35, WS6,pp. 61-65.4~-&Reaeamhaml Developmatofficeat tlw W(3BR C!@OrlCaItCm, fimded bythc C!mpadO nfbrl%blic

Bmhsthlg ad m us•~@~cOr@uc@ ~onhulnaa * Sn6 6ell@ @ues * to captionsfor adults d cllildrul SIMl delivtsy ofsbnulmEOus Spsnisb tmlslaa“on. ~ao~ Bxecudve~, WGBH Caption

~ CIMUJ@g DevOlOpnMX in the lbkvidon Ldscspe,” pmsemtion St the~w~ - Oct. 17,1991.


Box 7-G—Basic Skills Instruction Embedded in Job Training Materials

Jet Lmglnesam s9mFxMlofs-1mjcffm!!wml cQmmwM_~=t~~t~ 1) mmfESSr) Z)um!zw!x 3)Mbm 4) QsfM!&t, Mcl tha 5)m!2wi0J.~ Tha sections wcrt( tocjether tomllect md ~air, to~j~t fuel,~ tfJEN?9@xJlfflY movfwJMw.$lwS=lfmm the rewof ma Sngtna (UllJs providingthe ~t that -s tha -t) Tha

‘%’’’E’”’tO -————

whigh-pressurelr out

A

Compressor

A compressor works bysqueezing air into a smallerspace, ratsmg its pressure In ajet engine the compressor has anumber of stages Each stagetakes the air squeezed from theprev!ous stages and squeezes Iteven smaller ElI?*=

$-:

E!!m“stages

1-4


notes, sounds, graphics, movies, and dictionaryfeatures.61

BARRIERS TO USE OF TECHNOLOGYWhy are literacy programs not taking greater

advantage of technology? OTA identified severalbarriers that inhibit widespread access and effec-tive use of technologies. They include funding,market, informational, and institutional prob-lems. Many of these barriers are interrelated: e.g.,funding barriers contribute to market barriers andvice versa.

Funding BarriersHardware and software cost money. Even

technology that is reasonably priced by thestandards of public schools, small businesses, ormiddle-income consumers may be out of rangefor literacy programs, since most cannot buy inquantity and thus take advantage of reducedprices. As discussed in chapters 4 and 6, mostliteracy programs operate on very tight budgets(average spending of $217 per student62), usingfunding from multiple and sometimes unreliablesources. Most literacy providers, especially smallcommunity-based organizations, cannot affordtechnology.

The median annual technology budget of thetechnology-using programs in OTA’s survey(those with less than 15 computers) was $500.63

Compare this with the average cost of $1,000 to$1,500 for a computer with color monitor, key-board, and mouse. The startup price of an ILSgenerally ranges from $18,000 to $65,000, in-cluding equipment, the management and instruc-

tional software, setup, and initial training. Annualsupport and software updates for ILSs cost from$1,500 to $6,000.

Newer technologies such as computer-basedmultimedia systems and interactive videodiscsystems are even less affordable (see box 7-H).Among the most expensive technologies aretwo-way interactive telecommunications systems.Initial capital costs are high, and continuingoutlays, such as subscriber fees, can also beexpensive, making distancefor most programs.

The cost of technology isthe millions of adults wholiteracy-related technology

learning prohibitive

also an obstacle forcould benefit fromin the home or at

work. As noted above, televisions, VCRs, tele-phones, computers, and game machines are com-monplace features in many homes and work-places. But adults with limited literacy skills areamong the least affluent consumer groups. Manycannot afford technological devices, even at massmarket prices. They are also less likely to come incontact with technologies on the job.64

Although telephone service is often thought ofas universal, only 93 percent of householdsactually have telephones (fewer than have televi-sions). Furthermore there are disparities relatedto ethnicity-while 95 percent of white house-holds have phones, only 84 percent of African-American and 83 percent of Latino households doso.65 Those households with annual incomes ofless than $15,000 also have lower rates of phoneservice. 66 A 1991 survey of cable and VCRpenetration also shows a strong relationship to

61 Lucy Tribbl~ ~.~d, ~meke~ comm~ty co~ege, s~~ OR, p~~~tion ~ titer~ VOIUIIteerS of AIMfiCtl National

Conference, Denver, CO, November 1992.62 ~ ~omt is for fi~ ~= Iwo pro=~s ~d~ by ~ ~~t Education ~t ~ ~cludes ~e~ and State/locrd contribution. S=

ch. 4, table 4-1.

63 siv~.~c~ md Bia,lo, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 24.

~ Center for Lit~cy Studies, Op. Cit., fOOmOte 19.

6S Be~~te, op. cit., footnote 30.

66 Ibid.

331-048 0 - 93 - 8 QL. 3



suddenly, as lf startled.41 Now you may think that Idrew back - but no.4; HiS room was as black aspitch with the thick darkness(for the shutters were closefastened, through fear ofrobbers), and so I knew that he

The Tell-Tale Heart

Q; I fairly chuckled at theidea: and perhaps he heard II

‘ 4

me; for he moved on the bed Ill

1. .

could not see the opening ofthe door, and I kept pushing lton steadily, steadily, I l l

Ill ~

When youm

‘ n m

- c h o i c e s : -

4;; Pronunclat lon ~;

this sequence happens: ~;; Sy l lables

f d;{ Pro nuncl ati on 2 d:; Espa?iol

~;~’ E~Planatlon

3 ~ fldd to Recall Ilst Q Pause

‘~ R(jl.1 ,“ nPcdll ,,s,

o 0P** (s*c*) ❑ nut o saue1-

! $J E $aue ~ecall mmmR Fiuto Open and EJect Books

I

This software version of the Tell-Tale Heart allows the reader to choose either a Spanish or English reading ofthe text, the tempo of the reading, and words to be defined,

income (see figure 7-2); 41 percent of households holds with incomes of $50,000 or more. Comput-in the lowest income bracket (under $15,000) ers are found in the homes of 18 percent of whitehave cable and 39 percent have VCRs, compared adults, but only in 8 percent of African-Americanwith 69 and 93 percent respectively for those in and 8 percent of Latino adults.68 Both access tothe highest income bracket ($60,000 or more).67 and use of home computers are related to the

Computer ownership is related to income, educational level of adults. For example, only 4.6education, and ethnicity. While 15 percent of all percent of those with less than a high schoolhouseholds had a computer in 1989, only 6 degree have a home computer, compared withpercent of households with incomes under $20,000 33.7 percent of those with a college degree.had them compared with 39 percent of house- Furthermore, 25.6 percent of those without a high

67 Ace Niel~ co., NatiO~ (sos~t~) S~Ple of 4,~ Ho~~l& @Jie~n p~pl~~~ s~~), & ~~ in Boston COllddIlg

Group, “Public lklevisio~ Developing a Ready-t@Learn Service, ” report prepared for tbe Public Broadcasting Service, January 1993. Datacollected by Nielsen in 1991.

68K “ommski, op. cit., footnote 33.


Figure 7-2-Households With VideocassetteRecorders and Cable Subscriptions,

by Income, 1991

Household income,_.—— —

Under$15,000

$15,000-$19,000 55%

i$20,000-$29,000

$30,000-$39,000

$40,000-$59,000 ‘?/0

$60,000+ 3%t 1 1 r T-

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Percentage of households

D Cable subscribersa Videocassette recorders

NOTE: The average for all households in 1991 is 57 percent cablesubscdbers and 73 percent with VCRs.

SOURCE: A.C. Nielsen Co., National (50-State) Sample of 4,000Households (Nielsen Peoplemeter Service), as reported in BostonConsulting Group, “Public Television: Developing a Ready-to-barnService,” report prepared forthe Public Broadcasting Service, January1993. Data collected by Nielsen in 1991.

school degree report using their computers, com-pared with 71.2 percent of those with collegedegrees (see figure 7-3).

Market BarriersThe costs to research, develop, market, distrib-

ute, and support technology aimed at the special-ized needs of adult learners can be very high. Todevelop a courseware package, the needs oflearners must be researched, educational expertsmust be consulted, and courseware must be testedin the field. In some cases, focus groups areconvened and formal assessments conducted.Although some technical aspects of the develop-

ment process have become cheaper in recentyears, consumers have also come to expect betterpresentation quality (i.e., the use of graphics andsound) and educational value (i.e., the incorpora-tion of critical thinkin g skills and contextsrelevant to the learners). These features increasethe cost of development.

Without some reasonable hope of a return,companies are unlikely to invest the startup costsfor specialized technology aimed at limited,fragile submarkets. Such is the case with theliteracy market-by any measure small, frag-mented, underfinanced, and Underdeveloped.69

Figure 7-3-Adults With Home Computers,by Level of Schooling

Highest level of schooling—-

Elementary:0-8 years

L

2.9% _ Use computerat home

EZ Have access toHigh school:

1-3 years6.5% computer at home

High school:4 years

College:1-3 years 23.4%

0 % 10% 20% 30% 40%Percentage of adults

NOTE: Figure includes persons 18 years and older in 1989.

SOURCE: Robert Kominskl, Computer Use in the United States: 1989,Current Population Reports, Special Series P-23, No. 171 (Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Ckmmerce, Bureau of the (%sus,February 1991).

69 Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. and Wujcik and Associates, op. cit., footnote 1.


The universe of literacy programs--or potential‘‘customers’ ‘—is small compared with othereducational or corporate markets. In addition, asexplained above, funding limitations preventmany literacy programs from purchasing hard-ware, which further shrinks the potential cus-tomer base. Although individual learners theoret-ically comprise a much larger market, they areleast likely to be able to afford technology .70

Definitive data are not available on total salesof literacy-related technologies, but statistics onsales of computer software corroborate the notionthat in the large pond of the technology market,the adult literacy market is a small fish indeed.The entire personal software industry had annualsales of about $4.6 billion in 1990. In that sameyear, elementary and secondary schools spentabout $230 million for educational courseware.71

By comparison, OTA estimates that the adultliteracy market had annual software sales in 1990of roughly $10 to $15 million (see figure 7-4).72

Without a large and visible base of potentialcustomers or a healthy record of past sales toattract them, even software companies with con-siderable expertise in "crossover marketing"may shy away from the literacy market. Develop-ers outside the education field seem particularlyuninterested. Consequently, most of the activecompetitors in the !iteracy market are those witha stake in larger education and training markets,such as K-12 schools or corporate training, Someof these vendors simply sell their existing educa-tional products to literacy clients. Others success-fully revise products originally designed for theK-12 education market. Only a few companiesmarket high-quality products designed especiallyfor adult literacy (see box 7-I).

Figure 7-4-The Personal Computer SoftwareMarket, 1990

K-1 2 educational software Adult literacy software sales:sales: $230 million $10-$15 million (estimated)

1

Overall PC software sales:

NOTE: Does not include software purchased or !icensed as part of anIntegrated learning system.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993, based on datafrom Educat Ion TURNKEY Systems, Inc. and Wujcik Associates, “TheEducational Software Marketplace and Adult Literacy Niches,” OTAmntractor report, June 1992.

The literacy software market is in an early stageof development. There are currently few peoplewith both expertise in adult literacy and know-how in technology to develop applications for theliteracy market. In addition, slow economicgrowth and a lack of other factors make it unlikely

that technology “seeding” will occur for adultliteracy. 73 However, some firms have been able

locate funding to cover the high costs of develop-ing literacy software, including multimedia with

70 O’rA/,Annen&rg Workshop, “New Visions for Video Use of Cable, Satellite, Broadcast, and Interactive Systems for Literacy andLearning, ’ Jan. 27, 1992.

‘1 Figures for educational courscware are for the 1989-90 school year and do not include software purchased or licensed as part of anintegrated learning system. EMucatlon TURNKEY Systems, Inc. and Wujcik and Associates, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 12-13.

7Z E~@te~ b~$~ on OTA conversations with vendors and prog~s.

73 Scedfig ,s gant~ of computers by ~dwwc comp~es to stim~tc fi~re s~es, It ~so s~ulates the development of courseware ~d

peripherals. Seeding has occurred in the K-12 and higher education markets.


1 ArtharJ. S* pmsia ~“ -R080wCC8, The Educational Division of FrauWn Bl CCtNXiiC Publishers, Inc.,prsonsl Conununicatiom Oct. 28,1992.


opportunities for customization (see box 7-J).Virtually all of the technology firms included inOTA industry case studies raised the necessaryfunding internally or through partnerships withother groups.

Information BarriersOTA finds that there is inadequate informa-

tion available to both consumers and produc-ers of adult literacy technologies. From theconsumer end, most literacy educators, eventhose with some technology expertise, are notaware of the range of technology options avail-able. The problem exists at all levels but is mostobvious among novice technology users, who donot fully understand the capabilities of technol-ogy and who rarely or never consult softwarereviews. 74 Literacy program administrators often

have little training in or experience with technol-ogy, hence do not know what to look for or howit could benefit programs.

From the vendor end, there is a shortage of

specific market information on potential or exist-ing literacy customers and their needs. Particu-larly lacking is more comprehensive data on thecurrent uses of educational technology by literacyprograms and home consumers; their current andanticipated expenditures for hardware, course-ware, and other instructional materials; and effec-tive product design features for hard-to-reachliteracy populations.75

Technology vendors in OTA’s case studiesadopted various strategies to cope with this lackof information, including hiring consultants andmarket research firms to conduct limited studiesor develop ‘‘best estimate’ projections; conduct-ing their own design research during prototypetesting, rather than relying on existing research;hiring experienced developers and marketers whohad their own information sources in the literacy

Digital books on many different topics can be pluggedinto this small hand-held device, making it possible toread and learn anywhere, anytime.

field; and refining existing products based onfeedback from their customer base.76

Both literacy programs and technology devel-opers could benefit from more information on theeffectiveness of different types of technologies inimproving literacy skills. This is especially truefor specific subgroups of learners such as adultswith the very lowest reading skills, with limitedEnglish proficiency, or with learning disabilities.Similarly, there is little hard data available on theeffectiveness of some newer technologies foradult literacy, such as interactive distance learn-ing. Some literacy providers are reluctant to adopttechnology-based approaches because they havedoubts about their effectiveness, especially whenweighed against their cost. More evidence ofeffectiveness might help persuade adult educatorsto buy hardware and convince technology ven-dors to invest in developing better software.

Institutional BarriersSome of the common institutional challenges

faced by literacy programs constrain their use oftechnology and work against the development of

74 siv~~~ and Bialo, op. cit., footiote 1, p. 68.

75 Education TURNKEY, Inc. and Wujcik Associates, op. cit., footnote I.76 ~ide


1 Basal al’rim somg=,pfeddmto ~ tcmtivemwiedge, Inc., C3-@& NC,wm@~ ~ ~ 1=. s=* ~ SongeG “why MuMmdia we Pempdve on Literacy courmmKq” Litemcy PrudWner, a Fublicathn ofLiteracy volunteers of Amdca-New York S- Inc. VOL 1, No. 1, Dccembm 1992.


a viable literacy market. The diverse and some-times fragmented nature of the literacy field is onesuch barrier. Different types of literacy programs,such as ABE, GED preparation, ESL, correctionaleducation, workplace skills enhancement, andfamily literacy, require different kinds of instruc-tional content. The apparent need for customizedproducts for each submarket, however small orseemingly unprofitable, increases developmentand customer support costs and may dissuadedevelopers from entering the market. In addition,the diversity of service providers means that thereis no identifiable, formal market relationship, noclear purchasing pattern, and no single organiza-tional structure; this makes it difficult for compa-nies to obtain market-relevant information andcomplicates marketing and distribution.77 Thefragmentation of funding sources presents stillanother barrier, especially when some Federalgrant-in-aid programs limit expenditures for hard-ware and equipment (see chapter 5).

Another institutional barrier cited by technol-ogy developers is the lack of common perform-ance objectives for literacy programs. Industryrespondents believed that commonly acceptedstandards and objectives could reduce customiza-tion costs and over time bring down prices.

The shortage of experienced professional stafffor adult literacy, who could help develop soft-ware and programming, is also perceived as a

barrier, particularly among firms that have de-cided not to enter the adult literacy market.Virtually all of the case study firms in the literacymarketplace had a core team with directly relatedexperience, which the firm could supplementthrough consultants and reassignment of stafffrom other divisions within the company.

CONCLUSIONSThe use of technology to address the problem

of adult literacy is limited but growing. Technol-ogy has the potential both to improve the existingsystem of literacy education and to reach peoplein new ways. Although some literacy providersare experienced users of technology, the potentialof technology for programs has barely beenexploited. Of equal import but even less exploredis the potential of technology to help individuallearners and give them access to information andlearnin g tools. The promise of technology needsto be realized. There are encouraging signs thatinvestment and interest in technologies for liter-acy are increasing. Rapid technology develop-ment is occurring simultaneously with a growingrecognition of the importance of lifelong learn-ing. These factors have created an opportune timeto stimulate the private sector, aggregate themarket, and encourage innovative uses of tech-nology.

77 Ibid., pp. 34-35,

LookingAhead to a

Future WithTechnology 8

T oday’s literacy programs are unable to meet the currentdemand, much less projected future requirements, forliteracy services. Many learners cannot or will notparticipate in the literacy programs now in place. It may

be impossible to provide enough teachers, classes, and programsno matter how much money is pumped into the current system.Ways must be found to extend the range and increase the impactof existing teachers, programs, and expertise.

This chapter looks ahead to tomorrow, with three scenariosoffering a vision of adult literacy for the next 5 to 10 years. Thescenarios combine several themes raised throughout this report.First, they reflect a desire to go beyond reliance on school-basedprograms and classroom-oriented instruction; instead, theyassume more flexible ways of providing service. Second, thescenarios present literacy instruction integrated into and reflec-tive of the daily activities of a learner’s life. Because adults spendmost of their time and energy either at home or at work, familyand workplace are both setting and context for much of theliteracy instruction in the scenarios. The goals of workplace andfamily literacy-economic security, professional advancement,and improving the opportunities of one’s children-are naturallymotivating to learners. Because these goals complement goalsheld by our society—international competitiveness and personaleconomic self-sufficiency-workplace and family literacy activ-ities may be able to elicit broad-based support and financialcommitment. Finally, the scenarios assume a primary role fortechnology-increasingly powerful, portable, flexible, and af-fordable tools that can empower the learner any time, any place,and in a range of applications.

223

224 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools

A LOOK INTO THE FUTURE:THREE SCENARIOS

What futures are possible if technology, flexi-bility, and comprehensive services could beprovided to learners in contexts relevant to theirdaily living and long-term goals? The scenariosprovide one way of envisioning these possibili-ties, using three fictional learners typical of manywho need literacy assistance. The technologydepicted in them is suggestive of possible appli-cations, based on current trends and devel-opments. 1 They exemplify the kind of changesthat could occur by the year 2000 and are meantto illustrate ideas, not to make specific predic-tions.

Carla King: Moving Ahead Witha Changing Industry

Carla King, a vivacious 32-year-old, lives withher mother and 10-year-old daughter Latanya ina garden apartment on the outskirts of a smallmidwestern city. Since graduating from highschool, Carla has worked in jobs as a cashier, mailroom clerk, receptionist, and school bus driver,with her mother providing babysitting. Althoughthey have few extras, Carla has been able tosupport the family adequately on her income,supplemented by her mother’s social securitycheck. Carla hopes her 4-year relationship withher boyfriend, a truck driver, will lead to marriageand greater financial stability.

Carla has worked for the Cobra Alarm Com-pany for 3 years. Cobra sells, installs, services,and monitors alarms for residences and busi-nesses. Working the 3 pm to 11 pm shift, Carla

for a Lifetime

monitors incoming signals that indicate a trig-gered alarm and responds by contacting thepolice, fire, or emergency medical departments,and home or business owners or their designees.She also takes requests for repairs, writes workorders, and directs the incoming calls not handledby voice mail.

The company was founded by Scott Webster,a 43-year-old entrepreneur. In the last 6 years thecompany has grown from Scott, his brother, andtwo sisters to 35 employees. Scott was able to gethis business off the ground with assistance fromthe Coalition-a collaborative of local businessesand city and State government that helps developand support small businesses and create jobs forcommunity residents. The Coalition helped Scottobtain low-interest financing, develop a businessplan, and recruit employees from the local area.The Coalition provides continuing support andmanagement expertise. The Coalition has beenparticularly supportive in helping companiesdevelop workplace education programs.

Cobra’s 5-year business plan calls for a sub-stantial increase in the number of large commer-cial customers. This change will accompany themove to a new “smart alarm’ system. Thecompany plans to acquire new telecommuni-cations and computer equipment with sophisti-cated voice-recognition capability that automatestelephone operations and monitors alarms auto-matically. Once smart alarms replace older mod-els, human telephone operators will no longer beneeded. Customers will give oral instructions,such as changing the party to be notified in anemergency, directly to their smart alarm. Thealarm’s computer will recognize, execute, and

1 The ways in which technology is conceptualized in these scenarios comes from the OTA Workshop on Bmerging Communications audInformation lkchnologies: Implications for Literacy and Lxuning, Sept. 26-27, 1991; and O’IA/Annenberg Workshop, “New Visions forVideo: Use of Cable, Satellite, Broadcas4 and Interactive Systems for Literacy andkuning,” Jan. 27, 1992. See also Robert Olsenet al., 21stCentury barning and Health Care in the Home: Creating a National Teleco~” cations Network (Washingto& DC: Institute for AlternativeFutures/conSumerInterestRewarchInstitute, 1992); Julia A. Marsh and LawrenceK. =tomltieractiveMuln”#h andTelecommunicatz”ons:Forecasts ofMarketsand Technologies (AustirL TX: ‘lkchnology Futures Inc., 1992); “Newton’s World,” MacUser, August 1992, pp. 45-48.Finally, these scenarios build on previous O’lA work including ti”ti”ng for Learning: A New Course for Education, OTA-SET-430(w_om ~: U.S. ~v~~t m@ o~ce, Novemti 1989); Worker Zhining: Competing in the New International Economy,OTA-ITE-457 (Washin@orL DC: U.S. Governmen t Printing (Mce, September 1990); and Rural America at the Crossroads: Networking forthe Furure, OTA-TCT471 (WashingtorL DC: U.S. Government Printing Ollice, April 1991).

Chapter 8-Looking Ahead to a Future With Technology | 225

verify the owner’s request, relaying it directly toCobra’s central computer.

With this change to a more competitive high-tech product, Scott plans to reorganize the com-pany around the principles of total quality man-agement. Each employee will be expected toknow several jobs well and understand the entireoperation.

Carla’s current job will phase out with thechangeover. She wants to stay on at Cobra, butshe realizes that she has little opportunity foradvancement without additional education. As ageneral track student in high school, she bypassedboth challenging academic courses, such asalgebra and geometry, and practiced vocationalcourses. Although her oral communication skillsare adequate, her written skills are limited. She isconcerned about the new responsibilities she willhave as a team member. Carla will be expected toread and comprehend technical material anddiagrams, troubleshoot problems for customers.make well-reasoned judgments using technicalinformation. write reports. and make suggestionsfor change.

As a part of preparing for the reorganization,Scott meets with the State government workplacetraining coordinator, the community college adult

education director. and Cobra’s employee com-mittee to design the education and training thatwill be needed to move the company into its newrole. An assessment reveals that one-half ofCobra’s employees need to improve their writingand reading skills. One-third need to 1earn (orbrush up on) mathematics for technical work andstatistical process control.

With help from education advisers at thecommunity college, the company develops acustomized skills enhancement program. Allemployees are given 2 to 5 work-hours per week,company time, to participate in skills enhance-ment and training, providing they contribute atleast 2 additional hours a week of their own time.Profit-sharing credits are offered to employeeswho spend 4 hours per week or more of their owntime at learning activities for their individualized

learning plan. Scott admits it is unlikely he wouldbe able to provide these incentives without therecently passed Federal tax credits for companiesoffering workplace literacy programs like Cobra’s.

In part because there is no room onsite toconduct classes, Scott has purchased from theCoalition, at a reduced rate, several lightweight,battery-operated, notebook-sized personal learn-ing devices (PLDs) for his employees to checkout. The PLD functions like a combinationcomputer, television, and telephone; it unfolds toshow a screen for the display of both video andgraphic information. Screen text is as clear andeasy to read as a book. With a touch of thenetwork button on the screen, the PLD opens atelephone line to transmit or receive data over adistance. The PLD has a built-in pen-based dataentry system and touch screen, microphone andspeaker, a detachable keyboard, and an externalhard disk drive for extra data storage.

Carla likes the PLD because it is powerful andeasy to use. When she first went to her Coalitioneducation counselor, Carla was given a personalinterest inventory and skills assessment softwarepackage to complete at home on the PLD. Resultswere downloaded into the Coalition’s office, andthe next afternoon Carla and her counselor metonline and discussed her academic strengths andareas for improvement in relation to the needs ofthe new job. Carla’s learning style preferenceswere matched to available program resources.Carla’s profile indicated she likes to study inde-pendently and works well in small groups, but isintimidated by structured classroom settings.Consequently, her counselor suggested self-studymodules and distance learning options for herpersonal learning plan.

The distance learning capabilities of the PLDenable Carla to enroll in a mathematics class,identified through a national database of distancelearning classes, that matches her learning needsand time schedule. In this class she has two studypartners in two different cities, Using PLDs, allthree study together as if they were in the sameroom. On her PLD, Carla prepares mathematics


assignments by entering data, plotting graphs,and graphically rendering mathematical con-cepts. This whole process helps demystify thesubject matter, and real-world problems show herthe practicality of having good mathematicsskills. The PLD’s calculator helps her avoidarithmetic errors and permits her to concentrateon mathematical concepts.

Carla also signs onto a current events readingclub. Based on her interest profile, Carla ismatched with seven other young women aroundthe city. They meet for 2 hours on Saturdaymornings in the local library, but most of thediscussion goes on over the electronic-mail con-nection of the PLD. While at the library, Carladownloads articles from The Washington Post,The New York Times, and weekly news maga-zines onto her PLD. She shares these with herdaughter and mother, and together they comparethe different emphases of these news accountswith what they see on the evening televisionnews. The PLD software helps Carla generate,outline, and organize ideas for her written piecesfor the club, and the word processor with voice,pen, and keyboard input makes writing easier.Carla reorganizes, revises, and edits with the helpof software language aids-spelling, grammar,punctuation and style checkers, and a thesaurus—

before sending her reports to other members of theclub.

Ten months later, Carla has overcome herschool anxieties and now enjoys her education.She has checked out the PLD so often that she hasconsidered purchasing one on her own. She likesthe fact that, when she practices skills on her owntime, the software records her study time and shereceives “educredits” that can be applied to acertificate program at the community college andfor reduced-cost purchase of her own PLDthrough the Coalition’s lease/purchase plan formember businesses. After completing the mathe-matics course, Carla feels ready to tackle amodule on basic principles of electricity andelectronics. This course uses multimedia softwareand scientific probes that can be added to the

PLD. Course materials havea team from the Coalition’s

been customized bytechnology advisers

and Cobra technicians. The software simulatesthe actions of redesigning wiring diagrams, re-placing computer chips, and reprogramming asmart alarm.

Carla uses the PLD in many more ways:pursuing her hobby of home gardening by access-ing a horticultural database, locating a Spanishtutor for Latanya through a database of localeducational resources, and using the multimediaencyclopedia software and other references toassist with her school projects. Carla’s mothercommunicates electronically with new friends on‘‘ seniornet, ’ a national network she subscribes toat a reduced rate through her church’s seniorcitizens center.

Carla is making steady progress and plans toenroll at the community college for an associatedegree in electronics next year. She will alreadyhave several credits under her belt through herself-study modules. Her new confidence is show-ing up at work, where she is participating moreactively in team meetings and suggesting newapproaches to tasks. In training sessions thatrequire the use of technical manuals, Carla keepspace with other workers. Best of all, she has beengiven a promotion and pay raise to reflect herincreased responsibilities.

Dave Decker: ChangingStarting a Future

Nineteen-year-old Dave

a Life,

Decker officially leftschool when he turned 16, but he dropped outintellectually years before. He always had troublereading and repeated both the 4th and 7th grades.By the time he was in the 8th grade, when he wasa foot taller and several years older than the otherkids, he knew he did not fit in. Instead, he founda new circle of fiends-the older guys that hungout at the pool hall, drank beer, and stole cars forkicks. Dave and his friends were arrested severaltimes for car theft and vandalism. After his fourtharrest, this time with a drunk and disorderly


charge, Dave’s mother refused to bail him out.The judge ordered him to enroll in a substanceabuse program and assigned him to a detentioncenter for juvenile offenders.

His first week in detention, Dave’s literacyskills were assessed using a procedure developedby a four-State consortium of correctional educa-tional programs, Dave took a battery of multime-dia diagnostic assessments that included a seriesof science experiments, writing assignments, andsocial studies miniprojects. The tests requiredhim to read documents: write reports, memo-randa, and essays; collect and interpret scientificdata to formulate and test hypotheses; drawconclusions from multiple historical source docu-ments and maps; apply mathematics to solvereal-life problems; and create charts and graphs inseveral subject areas. Other assessment softwarehelped Dave learn more about his aptitudes andinterests in areas such as music, art, mathematics,mechanics, physical strength and dexterity, lead-ership, and interpersonal relations. Multimediamaterials were also used to help Dave identifypossible career directions. When Dave expressedinterest in the job of a physical therapist, he calledup a database of health career simulations that lethim shadow’ a therapist for a day, ask questionsabout the job, and practice providing therapy topatients.

Dave’s assessment results—test scores andinterpretive analyses-were sent to the Statedetention education offices for processing andreturned to the local staff within 24 hours. Anindividualized educational plan was developedfor Dave by the second week in the program andhe signed an education contract, spelling out hisgoals and the requirements for meeting them. Hewas given a personal ‘‘educard’ containing dataon his testing results and plan. As he progressedthrough his plan, each step was credited on thecard, and time was deducted from his open-endedsentence.

Dave worked especially hard on language artsskills. During class he used a small personalmultimedia computer connected with the State’s

online database of courseware and reading ma-terial. After class, he downloaded materials heneeded extra work onto a notebook-sized PLD hechecked out to use in his room and repeat lessonsas many times as he wanted. The PLD heldDave’s attention, did not make fun of his mis-takes, and rewarded him with bonus points forcenter privileges when he completed a unit. Itheld no preconceptions about his ability andturned his lefthanded ‘‘chicken scratch’ hand-writing into fine-looking typed words and sen-tences, especially when he remembered to use thespell, punctuation, and grammar guides.

Several months after entering the center, Davereceived a card with no letter inside, only a pictureof a smiling red-headed baby with the word‘‘Georgette’ written in his mother’s handwriting.His girlfriend Kathy had given birth to his child.Dave stared at the photograph with a mixture ofshock, denial, pride, shame, and tenderness. Untilthen, Dave had drifted aimlessly through life, hislow self-esteem leading him to doubt his abilityto succeed at anything. For the first time he felt hehad a goal to work toward. Dave resolved to staysober and assume the responsibility of father-hood.

After his release from detention, Dave returnedhome. Because he had received so many edu-credits while in the center, his high schooldiploma was finally within reach. But he swore hewould never again set foot in the local highschool, and he had to work to help support hislittle girl while Kathy lived with her parents andfinished high school. Dave enrolled in a generalequivalency diploma (GED) course offered on thelocal Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) channel,watching at home in the evenings and tapinglessons he had to miss when caring for Georgette.He spent his days working in his uncle’s feedstore, and his uncle let him use the computer tohook up with an electronic mail support group forteen alcoholics. Dave found it reassuring to knowthat he could use the 24-hour “chat” linewhenever he needed support. Each day he also


dialed into the computer’s video connect to checkin with his probation officer.

One night, when Dave was feeling particularlylow, he was thrown out of a local bar for drunkand disorderly behavior. His probation officerrealized Dave was at a crisis point and sent RickCarter over to the house. Rick, also a recoveringalcoholic, described the We Are Family (WAF)Program he had created to help other adolescentparents avoid the mistakes he made as an angryyoung man. While most teen parents entered theprogram voluntarily, for a few like Dave, partici-pation was a condition of his parole.

Dave was reluctant, but did not want to lose hisparole or the delicate relationship he was trying toreestablish with Kathy and Georgette. Rick ex-plained that the goal of the program is to improveself-esteem through increasing literacy skills,working around three themes: parenting, healthand safety, and job preparation. Reading, mathe-matics, science, and writing skills are introducedand reinforced within the three themes by profes-sional teachers, both onsite and through distancenetworks. Because the community is a rural one,spread across hundreds of miles, they meetelectronically through satellite downlinks andtelephone/computer connections. Study groupsform around multimedia lessons, supported by alibrary of interactive CDs, which students canorder up through touch screens on the television.Those who do not have the necessary hardwareare given loaners through the library.

Dave’s work on the family skills activitiessupports his evening GED studies. He recentlyworked on reading comprehension by trying toinfer meaning from context clues, using a CD onchild immunization downloaded from the system.While watching the CD, he tries out variousoptions that test his understanding, resulting inscenarios created by his choices. Shocked by thenegative effect his response has had on thecharacters in the story, Dave realizes he has notunderstood the material sufficiently, and decidesto watch a more detailed explanation of theconcept. He can repeat portions of the CD, asking

for definitions of concepts or terms, pursuing hisown interests indepth or just following along withthe written student guide. Kathy and Dave workon some modules separately, since he is stillliving at his parents house. When they gettogether at Kathy’s, they share what they havelearned with each other.

Dave spends a great deal of time with hisdaughter and fully shares child-rearing responsi-bilities, working from 2 to 9 pm so he can care forthe baby while Kathy is at school. Dave is alsolearning ways to interact with Georgette that willhelp stimulate the baby’s communication skills.He borrows paper and electronic books from thelibrary to read to her. His favorites are interactivebooks that contain music, animation, voice narra-tion, and video. Georgette’s favorites are anybooks where her father supplies the sound effects.

His affectionate and increasingly skilled par-enting of Georgette has won over Kathy’s parents,and they see that his commitment to his family ishelping him to stay sober. They have given theirblessing to their marriage when Kathy finisheshigh school.

Fifteen months out of the detention center,Dave passes the GED on his second try. He plansto enroll in a laboratory technician certificationprogram through the community college’s dis-tance learning network. Later, after he gets hisconfidence up, he may take some classes oncampus, but, right now, without a car and so littlefree time, the class at the community center is allhe can handle. With a certificate, he hopes to workin a new biogenetic laboratory that is located inthe area.

Although Dave has finished his parole and nolonger has to participate in WAF’s teen dadprogram, he will continue to participate as avolunteer. It has helped him get his life on track.

Tina Lopez: Family Support Through aMultipurpose Literacy Center

Tina Lopez, age 24, lives in a small town insouth Texas. She left school in her native

—

Chapter 8-Looking Ahead to a Future With Technology 1229

Guatemala to marry Eduardo when she was 15,and followed him to the United States when shewas 18. When Eduardo lost his job and becameabusive they separated, leaving her to raise hertwo young children alone on a small welfarecheck.

Through her Spanish-speaking counselor at thewelfare office, Tina learned about the RiverFamily Literacy program. With 5-year-old Jimmyand 2-year-old Maria old enough for school anddaycare, Tina has been told that, by participatingin the literacy and job preparation activitiesoffered through the center, her check will beincreased for each of the educredits she earnstoward her high school degree. The programguarantees her a job paying, at a minimum, 10percent more than her welfare check when shegraduates from the program. Her health insurancebenefits will be transferred from State support toemployer support automatically under the na-tional health assurance program.

Tina did not like being told what she had to do,and was initially reluctant to participate becauseof unpleasant memories of school. She recog-nized, however, it was her only choice for a betterfuture. When her girlfriend Dolores showed herthe PLDs and other learning tools that partici-pants can check out of the center’s library andbragged about how much English she learned inher 6 months at the center, Tina signed up.

River School, the location of the family pro-gram, is a center for community life. It houses anelementary school, an after-school program, aninfant care and early learning center for childrenfrom 6 months, and English as a second language(ESL) literacy classes based around parentingsupport and job preparation. The building alsocontains a medical clinic, a mental health center,a buying cooperative, and a Food Stamp outlet.Videoconferencing booths at the school give localresidents access to case workers at the countyoffice for other social services not availableonsite.

Tina’s reception at the River Family LiteracyProgram is warm and respectful. The director of

the program, Elena Martinez, shows great sensi-tivity in serving this multicultural community.Computer-scheduled minibuses are on call to takeparticipants to and from the River School at allhours.

Tina participates in the program 5 days a week.After getting Maria settled in the early childhoodcenter and Jimmy in kindergarten, Maria goesdown the hall to her ESL parenting support group.After the children and Tina have lunch together,she goes to the job training center, where ESLinstruction is integrated with all the materials.

Tina and other family literacy participantsspend several hours each morning working aloneor in small groups, using the multimedia libraryof parenting materials. Tina is working withsimulations helping her understand and handlecommon childhood conditions, such as tantrumsand bed-wetting. Although the material is pre-sented in English, at any point the user can clickto an audio assist in Spanish, Creole, Cantonese,or Vietnamese. Materials are presented in stagesof reading difficulty geared to the user’s re-sponses to questions that routinely check oncomprehension. If the user answers these cor-rectly in a certain amount of time, the materialgradually increases the vocabulary and difficultyof material. These embedded tests are so low keythat Tina moves through them without any of theanxiety she used to associate with testing inschool. Since the tutorials are private, eachparticipant is moving at her own pace, butprogress is automatically recorded on the system.Tina enjoys this activity, particularly since shecan choose the content she wants to study from ahuge topic menu. When she asks Elena about howto deal with Maria’s tendency to bite her brotherwhen he pushes her around, Elena added asegment on dealing with aggressiveness in chil-dren at that age. Tina particularly enjoys the smallgroup discussion sessions held after each of theseprivate tutorials; this is when she can discuss herapproach to these issues with the other womenand clarify points she found difficult. A trained


literacy tutor acts as a facilitator in these grouplearning sessions.

“Aggressive,” “discipline,” “appropriate,”and ‘‘sense of humor’ Tina adds these words tothe electronic pocket translator she checks out ofthe library each week. Her friend Dolores hasbought her own, but Tina has been unable to putaside the money to buy one, and cannot unless shecollects enough attendance and improvementcredits to qualify for the “top students’ dis-count. ” The device has a vocabulary of 25,000commonly used words. With this device, Tina canspeak a word (in English or Spanish) into thebuilt-in microphone, see the word in English orSpanish translation on a small screen, and hear thetranslated word spoken, defined, and used in asentence. Since it can be customized by addingvocabulary, Tina, Jimmy, and even Maria addwords they are learning together, and play wordgames with it on the bus to and from the center.Tina now knows the secret of Dolores’ Englishsuccess.

Tina goes to the after-school center to workwith the children two afternoons each week. Oneof her favorite activities is creating slide showsand videos with the children. The center has a fullsupply of minicameras that the children use forvideowriting, and plug-in units for editing andadding sound effects and graphics. Tina workswith the children to help them appreciate howcarefully they must plan and edit their materialsto create the best stories. In one project, Tinaworks with Jimmy, several of his friends, andsome 6th graders from the school and theirteacher to create a history of Central Americanchildren’s games. They record interviews withcommunity residents of all ages and videotapethem demonstrating the games they know. Stu-dents also graphically illustrate the games step-by-step. The 6th-grade students research the African,European, and Indian origins of the games. Thegrateful teacher lends Tina her own notebookmultimedia sketchpad so she can work on thegames project at home. The project becomes arich family learning experience as Tina and her

children talk about it and work together on it afterschool. After her children go to bed, Tina spendstime writing storyboards, sketching graphics, andtrying out various animations. She previewssupplemental video segments downloaded fromthe cable station. The county librarian is soimpressed with the final product that he requestspermission to make copies to place in the library.It is the first real school-related success Tina hasever experienced.

Tina soon has enough English skills to moveinto the next phase of the program: job search.Although job opportunities in town are limited,the River Family Literacy Program has a‘ serviceinformation kiosk’ that Tina has used for infor-mation about finalizing her divorce, changing hername back, and other legal concerns. The kioskalso maintains a database of job openings, salarylevels, and requirements for positions offered bypublic and private employers in specified geo-graphic areas in the region. Although Tina firstthought she would like to work at the RiverFamily Center, openings there are scarce, so shehas been checking the kiosk database on a regularbasis. The relatively high pay and opportunity towork outdoors attract Tina to highway construc-tion. Her job counselor sets up a videoconferencewith women who are already working in thismale-dominated vocation so Tina can learn first-hand about working conditions.

Tina learns that to advance in the field, she willneed to read technical manuals, operate comput-ers that control the latest road constructionequipment, and make decisions that require anunderstanding of geometry and geology. Shesigns up for job training to prepare her forhighway construction. Several of the courses sheneeds are not available at the center, but Tinaenrolls in a geometry class at the communitycollege. She takes the course via satellite at RiverSchool, because she cannot rely on her car tomake the 100-mile round-trip to the college twicea week. She downloads mathematics softwareonto her loaner PLD to help her prepare for theexamination.

Chapter 8-Looking Ahead to a Future With Technology I 231

Through her ESL, parenting, job preparation,and mathematics courses, Tina eventually gainsenough credits to earn a high school degree after2 years. She could have taken the GED sooner toshorten the process, but the concept of a formalexamination scared her off. She begins to workfor a highway construction contractor. Withsupport from the family literacy program staff,she and her children have tried to prepare for theextended absences her job requires. Her friendDolores cares for Maria and Jimmy while Tina isaway from home, with support from the centershould any crises arise. While she is on the road,Tina visits with her children through the video-phone at the center and a videophone at herconstruction office.

After 5 years, Tina has made steady progress onher job and is the first woman in her company tosupervise a road construction crew. She hasbought her own electronic pocket translator, towhich she has added her specialized construction-related vocabulary. She keeps up with the center’sparenting classes through a videophone linkup tothe computer at work. Tina continues to monitorthe children’s homework when she is at home andby electronic means when she is on the road. Shehas also been browsing through several onlinecollege catalogs; she and the children have a betgoing on who will be the first one to get a degreein engineering.

QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE SCENARIOS:HOW TO CREATE A FUTUREFOR LITERACY

These scenarios show how people, institutions,programs, and technology could come together toincrease adult learners’ options for learning. Theylook ahead to the year 2000, and offer anoptimistic vision. The challenge lies in turningthese visions of the future into a reality for themillions of Americans with limited literacy skills.This view of the future includes several keyelements:

Providing new options for those who wish toparticipate in literacy programs but are over-whelmed by barriers such as transportation,childcare, and competing demands on theirtime;Motivating people to enter programs, andproviding successful learning experiences tohelp them persevere until they have reachedtheir literacy goals; andOffering affordable, flexible technology toolsto help people pursue learnin g in classes or ontheir own.

The scenarios assume continuing advances inhardware, software, and networking capabilities,along with public commitment and financialsupport to guarantee access to these resources forthose who need them most.

Hardware AdvancesThe scenarios assume that current trends in

telecommunications and hardware developmentwill produce an array of important capabilities.They include:

more and cheaper computing power;integrated video, sound, text, and graphics onthe same display;smaller, portable hardware;higher resolution screens;variety in input devices;embedded intelligence;greater channel capacity for television; andinteractivity between computers, telephones,and other hardware.

As computing power continues to expand, newcapabilities will become increasingly affordable.These hardware advances will take many formsand offer capabilities beyond today’s realities.For example, the ability to deliver, process, ordisplay video, text, graphics, and audio from asingle box is reducing the number of componentsneeded for multimedia. Additionally, the abilityto use natural speech for input and control of


computers is a particularly promising develop- greater, because of the standard for closed cap-ment2 (see box 8-A). Computers, regardless of tioning on all televisions manufactured aftermanufacturer, will be able to share data more 1993. Displays with high resolution will increaseeasily in the future. Improvements in digital text readability and reduce eye fatigue, makingtransmission and advances in compression tech- applications such as computer-based books morenology will increase channel capacity. The num- attractive. New switching techniques will makeber of captioned television programs will be much television more like telephones and both of them

z Robert E. Caleu “Corning Soom The PC With Ears,’ The New York Times, Aug. 30, 1992, sec. 3, p. 9; and “Answer Me,” TheEconomist, July 25, 1992, pp. 79-80.


2 RoM E. c~e~ “c-s- ‘l’he w With Ears,” The New York ~.~$, Aug. 30, 1%% Sec. 3, p. 9.g ~ ~ic sys- nX@IWS a 386 MS-DOS computer, 8 meg of RAM vOiCU@fOf@ a miCrOp-, ~ a ~ m~~

The upgraded 12-meg versio~ packagd with a mouse ad ldlls and WordPerfect Sofhvw curredy sells for approximately$5,000, with distribution rights given to the C@ral Indiana Easter Seals Society. Dorsey Ruley, Ameritech InformationSelvicw Chicago, L personal Communicatiorq April 1993.

4 ~ith we~~ ‘~sx @ ~ ~ Wri&: A -on tie S@@s of s-h Roco@ti~” The Cotttputing Teacher,

vol. 19, No. 1, Au_epternber 1991, p. 9.5 R~ey, oP. cit., fcxmwte 3.

more like computers, making vast amounts of expect that, in the next 5 years, machines with thevideo, text, and data available instantly to homes power of today’s high-end personal computersand businesses. could be sold for prices similar to today’s

All of these trends could promote greater televisions, making them more affordable toopportunities for adult learning. It is reasonable to literacy providers.3 Miniaturization of hardware

3 The horizon of computing power continues to move forward, however, and today’s high-end computing power is unlikely to meettomorrow’s expectations. Nonetheless, the computer industry’s product evolution and marketing strategies have kept the price of personalcomputers fairly level from year to year. For example, computers that sold in 1987 for about $1,000 (e.g., IEM PCjr. and Apple IIC) to $2,500(IBM MS-DOS 286 and Apple Macintosh) have betm replaced by a new generation of vastly more powerful compute-till in the $1,000 to$2,500 price range.


Advancements in speech recognition technologiesallow users to operate a computer and input databy speaking into a microphone. In addition to theimportance of this resource for persons withdisabilities, speech recognition will make computerseasier to use for a range of applications.

components will permit powerful uses of learningtechnologies in sizes that vary from desktop tonotebook to pocket or pocketbook sized. High-resolution screen displays will be flatter. Storagedevices will be more compact. As the range ofpossible sizes increases, the technology willbecome more flexible and small, portable equip-ment will expand opportunities for literacy educa-tion anytime or anyplace (on the bus, during workbreaks, or waiting in a doctor’s office) and inplaces where space is limited, such as in crowdedworking and living quarters. A researcher notes:

Ubiquitous computers will also come indifferentsizes, each suited to a particular task. My col-leagues and I have built what we call tabs, padsand boards: Inch-scale machines that approxi-mate active Post-it notes, foot-scale ones thatbehave something like a sheet of paper (or a book

or a magazine) and yard-scale displays that are theequivalent of a blackboard or bulletin board.4

Speech recognition technology could helppeople express complex ideas more capably thanthey can read or write. When commands orinformation can be entered by speaking into acomputer, the learner can focus on content and notbe distracted or intimidated by the technicalitiesof operating a computer. Speech recognitiontechnology could also help boost English profi-ciency in daily tasks. Speaking into a pockettranslator for assistance with unknown or difficultwords could facilitate communication in real-lifesituations when learners might find themselves ata loss for words.

It will be important to assure interconnectivitybetween various kinds of hardware. Literacypractitioners will need to participate in standard-setting, in order to guarantee that features appro-priate for education and adult literacy are assured(see box 8-B).

\

Small but powerful and easy to use, portablecomputers like this could make it possible for learnersto study anywhere, anytime.

4 Mark Wekcr, “~e Computer for the 21st Ceatury,” Scientific Americun, September 1991, p. 98. lhc author is head of the Computascience Laboratory at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Cent=.


Box 8-B-Understanding How Standards Are Set

1 u-s. c ,OngIess, OfBcu of Iixhllology Assenm@ Glblnll srmdanik: Bui$iifng Bloc&jbr the Futim, 0’l&~-512

w~ DC: Us. Govmncslt- ~,_ 19%?h pp. 5-6.2 ‘me “qwuty” layout of th koybod was Established to prevent @fning on chsrle# Lathsm Sholes’ early typewriter.

Ifastandmdforkey phcement had not beemdopteduntilt bekeyscotdd bepk%d inanyamwgCmentWithOUt_, tOd@S_ cdd be easier to kam and faster to use. ~ A. N- The Design of Everyday Things (New Yx NY:Doubleday, 1990), pp. 145-1S1.


Networking AdvancesTelecomrnunications networks play an impor-

tant role in all of the scenarios: learners, teachers,and other classmates were able to converse orsend text, graphics, or video to each other, andaccess online databases. Location was no longera barrier. Books without pages could be sent fromlibraries without walls;5 curriculum was distrib-uted from classrooms without doors.

As telecommunications networking grows, itwill expand opportunities to reach workers andfamilies by providing:

greater convenience to learners;new ways for teachers to serve larger numbersof learners;a broader range of courses and learning mod-ules;expanded access to information, expertise, andlearning resources;more resources for informal, interactive learn-ing; andinformational resources to meet social, health,and housing needs.

The scenarios assume the availability of somemix of coaxial cable, Integrated Service DigitalNetwork (ISDN), fiber, and satellite transmis-sions to homes, businesses, schools, and commu-nity centers. High-speed, two-way communica-tions for text, graphics, video, and voice in thehome could provide the most complete range ofinstructional options and accommodate a widerange of learning styles, but will require greaterbroadband capacity than available in most homestoday. Fiber optic cable, with its bandwidthcapacity far in excess of copper wire or cable, hasalways been considered the key to more rapidtwo-way transmission of voice, data, and video.6

While the expansion of high-bandwidth fiber

optic cable has been dramatic, the majority of thenew fiber deployment has been for long-distancecarriers.

It has been thought until recently that a fullrange of interactive multimedia networking capa-bilities would not be available until fiber opticcable could be brought the ‘‘last mile” from thelocal provider (cable or telephone company) tothe home, a task anticipated to cost from $200 to$400 billion and possibly taking as long as 20years.7 However, recent research breakthroughsby both cable and telephone companies havecreated alternative solutions to carry informationbeyond the bottlenecks of existing systems. Withcable, the breakthrough came with appreciationthat, for short distances, coaxial cable has almostas much bandwidth as fiber. Using a combinationof fiber for the main lines, and no more thanone-quarter mile of coaxial wire for the deliveryto the home, two-way interactivity over existingcable systems may indeed be practical andaffordable. Similarly, research conducted by thetelephone companies, using Asymmetric DigitalSubscriber Line (ADSL) technology, stretchescopper wire to its outer limit, also extending thecapabilities of existing networks.

Also important to the fulfillment of this visionof a networked information system are continuingadvances in switching or routing. It is switchingthat “makes the connection” between the userand the information service, data, or product.8

Efficient high-speed switching is required tomove digitized information (a phone call, movie,newscast, teleconference, book, catalog order,financial transaction, video game, software pro-gram, medical report, travel order, or any otherinformation product or service) from any one ofmillions of points on a network to another.

Continuing research is necessary to enhanceand expand these and other promising telecom-

5 See John Browning, “Libraries Without Walls for Books Without Pages,” Wired, premiere issue, JanuaIY 1993, pp. 62-65, 110.

6 ()~on et al., op. cit., foottWe 1, PP. 19-~”

T Philip Elmcx-Dewit4 ‘‘Electronic Superhighway, “ Time Magazine, Apr. 12, 1993, p. 54.8 Olson et al., op. cit., footnote 1, p. 25.

Chapter 8-Looking Ahead to a Future With Technology 1237

munications capabilities. Ultimately, the availa-bility of these technologies will be determined bythe high capital outlays required to upgrade andexpand the overall national communications in-frastructure. 9

Software AdvancesNo matter how fast, how small, how intercon-

nected the technology, without high-quality course-ware-computer software, video, and printedmaterials-technology will not be used effec-tively for learning. The scenarios suggest course-ware applications that personalize content, heightenthe appeal of learning, and help learners monitortheir own progress to increase the rate and qualityof learning.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some learn-ers will approach new technologies timidly (seechapter 3). As computer-based technologies be-come more ‘‘user-friendly, ” like televisions,radios, and telephones, they will be less intimidat-ing. The easier the technologies are to use, themore likely it is that adult learners will acceptthem. The design of software and person-computer interfaces plays an important role inmaking computers user-friendly. Such features asconsistency across applications, the use of ‘win-dows’ to display more than one piece of informa-tion at a time, and icons (e.g., a picture of a trashcan to represent the concept of deleting materialthe user has been working on but does not want tosave; a picture of a magnifying glass to representthe concept “find out more about”) have alreadymade technology easier to use. High-resolutiongraphics, sound, and video also make informationmore engaging and understandable. Multipleways of interacting with the computer (e.g.,

Residents in Cerritos, California, can pay bills, getstock quotes, make airline reservations, take SATpreparation courses, or find out about municipalservices on Main Street, an interactive informationvideo service that uses a combination of the telephonenetwork and a local cable channel’.

handwriting and voice input, in addition totoday’s touch screens, keyboards, and mouse)will improve user-friendliness. Collaborative workspaces are being designed to make it easier forgroups of people to create a document, implementa project, or solve a problem in shared computerspaces. 10 Programming and editing tools aremaking it easier and less expensive for adulteducators and learners to create or customize theirown multimedia courseware, enhancing the con-nection between meaningful context and learn-ing.11

Finally, new knowledge about cognitive proc-esses in general, and adult learning in particular,can lead to better educational applications. Asinstructional theory and design evolve over the

g See U.S. Congress, 0i31ce of lkchnology Assessment “Advanced Networking lkchnologies, ” background papa, draf~ April 1993.10 S= Den.is NewmarL “’lkchnology as Support for School Structure and School Restructuring,” Phi Delta Kappan, VO1. 74, No. 4.

December 1992, pp. 308-3 15; Olsen et al., op. cit., footnote 1; and Berna@n Porter, ‘‘Aspects: Creative Word Processing in the Classroom,’The Writing Notebook, vol. 9, No. 4, April/May 1992, pp. 14-15; and Marlene Scardamalia et al., ‘‘Educational Applications of a NetworkedCommunal Database,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 2, No. 1, 1992, pp. 45-71.

11 David L. wfio~ “CornpU~r Programs Wh.hout ~O_em “ The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 38, No. 37, May20, 1992, pp.A15-16.


RUTH,

f *,,\& $!: , ,,i~ &i ‘ :**, P $ ;

, ,++, ~,

t’ .,; I . . “ * . ;& -n- * . < h

Good software is crucial for effective learning with computers. Material must be engaging and related to learners’needs and interests.

next decade, instruction in basic skills andapplications that require higher order thinkingskills will become more fully integrated intofunctional contexts. Flexible applications andlearner-designed materials can empower adultsand reward them for independent study, whilebetter diagnostic tools, improved tutorials, andautomated “checkups” and recordkeeping canhelp learners manage their own instruction andknow when to seek extra assistance.

The expansion of broadcast and cable televi-sion programmingg also provides greater resourcesfor adult literacy. Within the next 5 to 10 years,compressed digital video technology will make itpossible to carry at least eight broadcast-quality

signals on a channel that today carries just one.Given these improvements in technology, cablechannel capacity is expected to increase to at least500 channels; PBS plans to increase its capacitycorrespondingly. What will people watch on allthese channels? One possible future suggestshigh-quality literacy programming targeted forvarious groups of adults (e.g., senior citizens,rural farmers, or parents of teenagers), similar tothe programming for young children now offeredmany hours a day.

One area of special concern to the developmentand use of literacy courseware is clarification ofcopyright issues (see box 8-C).

Chapter 8-Looking Ahead to a Future With Technology! 239

Issues of Access and EquityThese technology advances can provide re-

sources that go beyond what is available today.However, unless those who need them most—people like Carla, Dave, Tina, and their families—have convenient, timely, and affordable access tothem, the futures projected in the scenarios willnot occur. In fact, these learners and millions likethem may become further disadvantaged if theydo not have access to these resources.

People learn best when they have frequent andregular opportunities to practice new knowl-edge.

12 As the scenarios illustrate, it is more

convenient and easier to practice when technol-ogy is available at home. Yet those who mostneed literacy assistance are those with the mostlimited incomes, and thus least likely to haveaccess to these empowering technologies.

To analyze the access barriers to future tech-nology, it is useful to look at current patterns ofaccess to the backbones of future learnin g tech-nologies: the personal computer, telephone, andtelevision. Access is affected by income, race, andethnicity. 13 Many more adults have access ‘0

telephones in their homes than to home comput-ers, but television is currently the most widelydistributed technology (see chapter 7, figure 7-l).Despite high purchase prices, the widespreadavailability of television and, more recently,telephones provide models for greater computeraccess. Unlike computers, televisions and tele-phones are sold in a variety of stores, in urbanareas and small rural towns. Televisions can berented, mail-ordered, or purchased new or used.Future learning technologies could become asavailable as today’s television and telephone if

Adults learn best when they can practice new skillsrepeatedly. It is critical that those most in need of adultliteracy services have easy access to technologies forlearning,

they, too, were sold, rented, and leased to learnersat reasonable cost, on installment plans or throughother financing schemes, through workplaces,community-based organizations, schools, and post-secondary institutions.

In the scenarios, the pocket translator is artexample of limited purpose, specialized equip-ment that could be developed at prices mostlearners could afford or that businesses couldmake available to their workers. Similarly, PLDscould be priced at a cost affordable to mostworkers and families, or provided by theworkplace and family literacy programs, Accord-ing to current projections, equipment with capa-bilities similar to those described for the PLD willcost about $500 in 1997, if purchased in bulk.14

Even at that cost, some learners like Tina may beunable to afford these tools unless some subsidyis provided.

12 Sw, for ex~ple, David Twitcheu (cd.), “Robert Gagne and M. David Merrill in Conversatiorx The CO@tive pwchologic~ Basis for

Instructional Desi~” Educational Technology, vol. 30, No. 12, December 1990, pp. 3545; and Robert Gagne et al., Pn”nciples ofInstructionaiDesign, 3rd ed. (New York NY: Holt Rinehart and Winstoq 1988).

13 For ewple, among African-tierican and Hispanic households with incomes at minimum wage level, about 20 and 25 perccn~respectively, do not have home telephones, compared with an overall rate of 93 percent. Federal Communications Comrnis siom ‘‘TklephoneSubscriberShip in the U.S.,” unpublished documen~ February 1992.

14 Gruy Simons, Summer Institute of Linguistics, “Hardware Projections for Project ’95 Target Machine, ” unpublished paper, 1992; andMarsh and W.nstoq op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 63-77.


The rapid pace of development in computer, are not ignored, it is necessary to stimulate thevideo, and telecommunications hardware and market to assure innovations focused specificallysoftware typically has been stimulated by profita- on improving learning.ble markets in business, entertainment, or con- Although some computer companies that begansumer products. Most hardware is created with with education as their primary activity arethese other markets in mind and later adapted for thriving, as are some educational software com-educational applications; eventually, education panies, serving adult learners in particular re-(K-12 as well as adult literacy) has been able to quires extra efforts in development and market-benefit from these advances in technological ing.15 There is no zip code promoters can target,

power and flexibility. However, some analysts and developers do not consider those most in needsuggest that, to assure that important social goals of literacy assistance an appealing market. Yet,

Is EdUC~tion TURNKEY Systems, Inc. and Wujcik and Associates, ‘‘The Educational Software Marketplace and Adult Literacy Niches, ’OTA contractor repo~ April 1992.

Chapter 8-Looking Ahead to a Future With Technology I 241

the number of potential consumers of adult political participation, and efficient access toliteracy products is large and growing, whetherdiffused as individual learners or aggregated asmembers of preexisting groups such as jobtraining or welfare programs.

Similarly, information and telecommunica-tions applications are also driven by the needs oftheir markets. Where the information is of valueto the society as a whole-e.g., access to timelyinformation regarding education, training, health,

government services-user payments alone maynot be enough to support information dissemina-tion. Thus, some have suggested that “universalservice’ should include not just the technology ofcommunication but also a body of information,access to which should be guaranteed for everyone,providing an “information safety net” to all.16

The power of networked telecommunications,and the policy of universal access, are significant:


For meeting the widely disparate informationneeds of a large and heterogeneous population,the switching capability of a network is its singlemost important characteristic. . . . Once we areswitched and connected to an information source,interactivity provides the means to further refineour choice of information. . . . Universal accessimplies overcoming not only the boundaries ofpoverty but geographical boundaries as well. . . .But offering services to rural users may beworthwhile for society as a whole where alterna-tives involving travel, ignorance, and economicunderdevelopment are expensive.17

CONCLUSIONSTechnologies that expand literacy options in

the directions suggested in the scenarios willrequire substantial investment by all segments ofsociety. Businesses will need to commit resourcesfor continuing education and training of person-nel as jobs and skills change. Adult learners willbe required to contribute the money, time, andeffort necessary to learn. The technology industrywill have to create hardware, courseware, andnetworks that serve a wide spectrum of learners.The public sector will need to underwrite the earlydevelopment of technologies and materials, andtest their use in literacy applications.

Motivated adults with appropriate materialslearn faster, persevere longer, and retain more ofwhat they learn. Many who are reluctant to enterformal programs could benefit from new modelsof customized personal instruction, guided byteachers and mentors but facilitated by portablelearning technologies. Technologies could im-rove motivation by providing immediate feed-back and more opportunities to practice learningprivately. Technology-based diagnostic aids andinstructional management systems could ensurethat learning tasks are well matched to learningneeds. Finally, adults could learn new skills noteven offered when they were in school.

However, access and use of new informationtechnologies are likely to be limited if currenttrends continue. Although there will be notableexceptions, the quality of most adult literacycourseware is likely to improve slowly. More-over, many useful learning technologies, such ascomputers and online databases, are likely toremain too expensive for economically disadvan-taged families. This forecast could be alteredthrough Federal policies that encourage the devel-opment, access, and use of technologies to expandthe quantity and quality of adult literacy options.

17 ~& pp. 132, 138.

Appendix A:List of Boxes,

Figures,and Tables

BoxesChapter 1 Page

l-A—How Many Adults Have Literacy Needs? Estimating the Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l-B—Advantages of Technology for Adult Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-C—Advantages of Technology for Literacy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l-D-Distance Learning in Vermont ...., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l-E--Learn, Earn and Prosper: Mississippi’s Project LEAP..,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 22-A—Life Skills and Competencies: Two Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-B—Family Literacy Skills: Some Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-C—The Future of Workplace Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 33-A—Literacy Needs Among Those Who Speak English as a Second Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-B—Learning Disabilities Among Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-C—Profile of Yuvette Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3-D-Profile of Sokhhoeun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-E-Profile of Tom Addington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-F—Assessing Progress: harriers and Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-G—Profile of Michela Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-H—Television as Everyday Teacher: The Importance of Media Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 44-A—Baltimore: The City That Reads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-B—Ford’s Skills Enhancement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-C—Literacy Volunteer Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-D-New York Public Library Centers for Reading and Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-E-A Partnership for Literacy: Dalton, Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-F—Literacy in the Los Angeles County Jail System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

121518

344055

6667687072747790

96102104108118124


Chapter 5 Page5-A—Highlights of the Federal Role in Adult Literacy: 1777 to 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1305-B—Key Legislation and Executive Actions: 1986 to 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1335-C—Major Provisions of the National Literacy Act of 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1345-D-Key Technology Provisions in Federal Literacy Laws and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Chapter 66-A—Extending Educational Opportunities Through Telecommunications: Kirkwood

Community College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1676-B-Coordinating Literacy Funding: NewYork State’s Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1846-C-Cambridge’s Community Learning Center: Piecing Together Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Chapter 77-A—Technologies for Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1917-B—Broadcast Programming:The GED on TV Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1977-C—Advantages of Technology for Adult Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2027-D-Advantages of Technology for Literacy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2037-E-Project SALSA: Sending Computers Home with Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2077-F-Closed Captioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2117-G-Basic Skills Instruction Embedded in Job Training Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2127-H—Multimedia, Hypermedia and Adult Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2147-I—Franklin Electronic Learninn g Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2187-J—Developing Innovative Software: The Example of Interactive Knowledge, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Chapter 88-A-Computers That Speak, Computers That Listen: Speech Production and Speech

Recognition Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2328-B—Understanding How Standards Are Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2358-C-Copyright Issues: How They Affect the Development and Use of Literacy Courseware . . . . . . . . . . 240

FiguresChapter 1

1-l—A Literacy Time Line: Rising Societal Standards for “Functional Literacy” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4l-2—Adult Literacy Programs, Providers, and people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9l-3-Funding for Adult Education Compared With Other Federal Education Initiatives,

Fiscal Year 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13l-4-Funding for Select Federal Domestic Priorities, Fiscal Year 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 22-1—Highest Level of Education Attained by U.S. Adults Ages 25 and Over, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412-2—Dropout Rates for Persons Ages 16 to 24, 1972-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422-3-Percentage of High School Dropouts Ages 16 to 19, by State, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442-4-Assessing Literacy Skills Used in Everyday Life: The Young Adult Literacy Assessment . . . . . . . . 482-5--Legal Immigration to the United States, 1820s to 1980s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512-6-Ability to Speak English in Non-English Speaking Homes: 1990 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522-7—Number of People, Ages 5 and Above, Speaking a Non-English Language at Home,

by State, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

— —. — _.—

Appendix A-List of Boxes, Figures, and Tables | 245

Chapter 3 Page

3-l—Percentage of Adults (17 and Over) Participating in Educational Activities During 1990-91,by Current Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Chapter 44-l—A Comparison of Federal and State/Local Expenditures for Adult Education, Fiscal Years 1980-93. 994-2-Percent of Adult Literacy Programs Using Various Locations, 1980 and 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074-3-Learning Environments Used in Adult Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Chapter 55-l—Programs, Agencies, and Funding Streams: The Massachusetts Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1385-2—Identifiable Federal Funding for Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Education, Fiscal Years 1988-92.. 1405-3-Funding for Select Department of Education Programs, Fiscal Year 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1415-4-Funding for Select Federal Domestic Priorities, Fiscal Year 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Chapter 66-l—The Pattern of Attrition in Literacy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1656-2-Outreach and Technical Assistance Network (C)TAN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1726-3-State Certification Requirements for Adult Basic Education Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Chapter 77-l—Technologies in the Home, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1997-2—Households With Videocassette Recorders and Cable Subscriptions, by Income, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . 2167-3-Adults With Home Computers, by Level of Schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2167-4-The Personal Computer Software Market, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

TablesChapter 2

2-l—Workplace Skills and Competencies: Some Examples From Selected Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382-2—High School Dropouts Ages 16 to 24, by Sex, Race-Ethnicity, Income, Region, and

Metropolitan Status, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432-3-States With 5 Percent or More of the Population (Ages 5 and Above) Speaking a

Non-English Language at Home, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Chapter 33-l—Factors Affecting an Individual’s Decision to Participate in Adult Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chapter 44-l—Fiscal Year 1990 Expenditures and Enrollments Under the Adult Education Act,

State-by-State Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100A-Z—Examples of private Sector Support for Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Chapter 55-l—Appropriations for Major Federal Adult Literacy and Basic Skills programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Chapter 66-l—Model Indicators of program Quality for Adult Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Chapter 77-l—Distribution of Available Literacy Software Products by Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

331-048 0 - 93 - 9 QL. 3

Appendix B:Major FederalAdult Literacyand Basic Skills.

Programs

Fiscal year1992 funding(in millions

Federal agency Program Purpose of dollars)

Department of Adult Education ActEducation (AEA) Basic Grants

AEA State LiteracyResource Centers

AEA WorkplaceLiteracy Partnerships

AEA English LiteracyGrants

AEA NationalPrograms

Literacy for Stateand Local Prisoners

Commercial DriversProgram

Adult Education forthe Homeless

Special Programs forIndian Adults

1.0

Primary Federal program for adults with inadequate basic $235.8skills. Formula grants to State education agencies (SEAs) foradult basic education, secondary education, and Englishliteracy. State set-asides for incarcerated and institutionalizedadults, and teacher training and innovation.

Centers chosen by Governor perform coordinating, re- 5.0search, training, and technical assistance functions.

Secretary makes competitive grants to partnerships of 19.3education providers and private sector partners. Literacyprograms for workers with less than high school education.(If appropriations exceed $50 million, program administeredby States.)

SEAS receive competitive grants for English literacy pro-grams for limited English proficient (LEP) adults. Secretaryalso may fund demonstrations of innovative approaches forEnglish literacy instruction.

Secretary carries out range of national research andevalua- 9.0tions in adult literacy; provides technical assistance; sup-ports demonstration projects; and with Department ofHealth and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Labor(DOL), funds National Institute for Literacy.

Grants to State or local correctional agencies. Literacy 5.0training for inmates.

Competitive grants to business, labor, apprenticeship pro- 2.5grams, and education agencies. Literacy programs helpcommercial drivers pass mandated test

Discretionary grants to SEAs provide basic skills and literacy 9.8training for the homeless.

Competitive grants to Indian tribes and organizations lm- 4.3prove education below the college level for Indian adults.

246

Appendix B-Major Federal Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Programs | 247



Even Start FamilyLiteracy

Bilingual FamilyEnglish Literacy

LSCA Title I PublicLibrary Services

Student Literacycorps

Migrant EducationHigh School Equiva-Iency Program (HEP)

Department of Job OpportunitiesHealth and Human and Basic Skillsservices (JOBS)

State legalizationImpact AssistanceGrants (SLIAG)

Refugee Resettle-ment Program

Head Start FamilyLiteracy Initiative

SEAS receive formula grants for family literacy projects run $70.0’by Iocal education agencies, community-based organiza-tions, and others. Participants are educationally disadvan-taged parents and their children ages O to 7 who live in areaseligible for Chapter 1 and Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act (ESEA) grants. Parents taught literacy andparenting skills; children receive education and schoolreadiness.

Competitive grants to educational institutions to help LEPadults and out-of-school youth achieve competence in English,support their children in school, and gain citizenship knowl-edge. Preference to families with children in Title Vll, ESEA.

Secretary makes discretionary grants to State and localpublic Iibraries to support literacy programs in public libraries.

Formula grants to State library agencies. Primary purpose:to expand public library services in underserved areas.States may also use funds to help public libraries provideadult literacy programs and to support model library literacycenters.

Competitive grants to higher education institutions. Projectsencourage undergraduates to volunteer as literacy tutors foradults and children.

Competitive grants help migrant farmworkers or their chil-dren ages 17 or older obtain general equivalency diploma(GED) and proceed to job or higher education.

Provides Aid for Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)recipients with education and training in order to avoidwelfare dependence. State welfare agencies receive enti-tlements. Services must Include basic education, GEDeducation, English as a second language (ESL), and jobtraining. Participation mandated for some parents.

Reimburses States for costs of public assistance, publichealth, and adult education for newly legalized aliens.Services include basic education, GED education, Englishliteracy instruction, and citizenship instruction.

States receive formula grants for social services for eligiblerefugees. Funds may be used for English language instruc-tion.

Head Start provides education, social services, and schoolreadiness activities for low-income preschool children andtheir families. As of 1992, HHS requires every Head Startproject to integrate family literacy activities Into regularpractices.

6.1

8.2

83.9’

5.4

8.3

1,000.Oa

($1,1°=.9’deferred until

fiscal year 1993)

83.0’

(Minimum forfamily literacy.

Total fiscal y-1992 funding

for Head Startwas $2,202.0.)




Department ofDefense

Department of theInterior

Department ofJustice

ACTION

Job Training Partner-ship Act (JTPA) TitleII-A Training for Dis-advantaged Youthand Adults

JTPA Tine II-BSummer YouthEmployment andTraining

JTPA Title IIIDislocated WorkerAssistance

JTPA Title IV-B JobCorps

National WorkforceLiteracy Collaborative

Army Basic SkilsEducation Programs(BSEP) I and II

Navy Skills Enhance-ment Program

Bureau of IndianAffairs Adult Educa-tion Program

Bureau of PrisonsLiteracy Program

Volunteers inService to America(VISTA) Literacy Cups

$1 ,773.5’

495.2a

577.0’

846.5 a

oizations develop literacy programs tailored to workforce (DOL requests $1.2needs. DOL plans to expand to include broader technical for fiscal year 1993assistance. for this and National

Literacy Act duties.)

BSEP I and BSEP II provide basic education to soldiers whoneed to improve their skills to complete initial entry training,as well as job-related basic skills competencies.

Provides basic skills training to help sailors achieve-compe-tency and perform jobs.

Bureau of Indian Affairs contracts with Indian tribes tooperate basic literacy and GED programs for Indian adults.

inmates in Federal prisons who perform below high schooldiploma literacy level must participate in literacy programuntil they meet GED levei, or for a minimum of 120 days. LEPinmates must attend ESL program until they function at8th-grade competency levei.

Volunteer tutors assigned to adult literacy projects in needycommunities. Projects are competitively selected.

(estimate)

(estimate)

3.4

16.1(estimate)

4.8

a ~un~ are for entire program; spedfic expenditures for dult literacy and bask skills education are not availa~e.

SOURCE: Information for this appendix is from Nancy Kober, “Profiles of Major Federal Programs,” OTA contractor report, July 1992.

Appendix C: KeyCoordinationProvisions in

Literacy Laws andRegulations

R = required; E = encouraged; O = optional

Adult Education Act (AEA) Joint review of State plan by other State boards.Basic Grants

State plans and coordinates programs with job training, vocational educa-tion, immigration, rehabilitation, special education, Indian education, highereducation, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA).

State plan describes how delivery system will be expanded throughcoordination and how volunteers will be used.

State considers degree of coordination in selecting local providers.

Local coordination with Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), vocationaleducation, and other programs cited in law.

Local cooperative arrangements with business, industry, volunteer groups,and others.

Limited English proficient (LEP) programs coordinate with Federal bilingualeducation and vocational education programs.

Public housing Gateway grantees consult with other adult education serviceproviders.

Set-aside of 10 percent for incarcerated should be coordinated with servicesfor ex-offenders and may support cooperative projects with educationagencies, community-based organizations (CBOs), and businesses.

Set-aside of 15 percent for teacher training and innovation maybe used forpromising coordination programs.

State advisory council includes broad representation and advises oncoordination.

Centers develop innovative approaches to Federal-State, interstate, andintrastate coordination; assist public and private agencies in coordinatingservice delivery; and encourage government and industry partnerships.

Department of Education (ED) consults with Department of Labor (DOL) andthe Small Business Administration in making grants.

Programs run by partnerships of public/private sector groups.

Programs that collaborate with other providers receive priority for nationalstrategies grants.

AEA State Resource Centers

Workplace Literacy

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

E

o

0

E

R

R

E

249



English Literacy

Commercial Drivers

National Institute for Literacy

McKinney Homeless Literacy

Even Start Family Literacy

Bilingual Family Literacy

Library Services and ConstructionAct (LSCA) Title I

Library Literacy (LSCA Title VI}

Student Literacy Corps

DOL Workforce Collaborative

JTPA Title II-A

Funds may be combined with other LEP literacy funds.

Grantees refer adults with serious literacy problems to other providers.

Joint administration by ED, DOL, and Department of Health and HumanServices (HHS).

Institute helps government agencies develop model coordinating systemsand advises on uniform requirements.

Institute research coordinated with other relevant Federal researchactivities.

State programs coordinate with existing resources.

Secretary considers cooperative arrangements in selecting grantees.

Local programs coordinate with AEA, JTPA, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 ofElementary and Secondary Education Act, Head Start, special education,volunteer literacy, and other programs.

Local projects should build on community resources.

ED coordinates with all relevant programs.

Nonlocal education agency applicants coordinate with local educationagencies (LEAs).

Model library literacy centers coordinate with other State agencies andnonprofit organizations.

Local projects cooperate with other agencies if appropriate.

ED coordinates with other LSCA programs.

ED gives priority to projects that coordinate with literacy organizations andCBOs.

State plans describe how projects will be coordinated with education andlibrary services.

Projects coordinate with volunteer literacy.

institutes of higher education collaborate with community agencies to runprojects.

Promotes cooperation among State and local agencies and private sector;cooperates with National Institute for Literacy and other Federal centers.

Governor establishes criteria for service delivery areas (SDAs) to coordinatewith other key programs.

Governor reserves 8 percent to support coordination between educationagencies and JTPA entities.

Governor develops coordination plan.

Mandated State Job Training Coordinating Committee (SJTCC) reviewsplans of relevant State agencies and advises on statewide coordination.

SDA plan reviewed by LEA and other public agencies.

Private industry councils (PICs) include representatives of educationalagencies in SDA.

Funds may not duplicate existing services.

o

R

R

R

R

R

E

R

E

R

E

R

E

R

R

R

E

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Appendix C–Key Coordination Provisions in Literacy Laws and Regulations | 251


JTPA Title Ill

Job COrpS

Job Opportunities andBasic Skills (JOBS)

JTPA Title II-B Same as JTPA II-A above.

Local program goals may include demonstrated coordination with othercommunity organizations.

States inordinate with other State programs, consult with labor organiza-tions, and inordinate services with 1974 Trade Act.

Labor organizations involved in substate planning and implementation.

Substate grantees coordinate services with other programs.

Funds may be used for joint services with vocational education.

SJTCC reviews State plan.

DOL cooperates with ED and Department of Defense.

Centers develop relationships with communities.

HHS consults with ED and DOL to ensure service coordination.

HHS, ED, and DOL support joint technical assistance.

State welfare agencies coordinate with JTPA, AEA, vocational education,preschool and early childhood, and other State agencies.

Governor ensures coordination with JTPA and employment, training, and

education.

State welfare agency consults with State education agency (SEA), Stateemployment service, and State agencies for JTPA, vocational and adulteducation, employment service, childcare, and public housing.

SJTCC and SEA review State plan.

Local welfare agencies consult with PICs.

Local programs coordinate with PICs and LEAs.

State ensures that JOBS funds are not used for services already available,

States ensure coordination of public and private resources.

Local volunteer agencies cooperate with State and local government.

Grantees collaborate with community literacy programs.

ACTION coordinates with community action programs and other Federal,State, and local programs.

ACTION consults with other Federal agencies to encourage use ofvolunteers in agency programs.

Projects encouraging intrastate coordination receive preference.

Refugee Resettlement

Head Start Family Literacy

VISTA Literacy Corps

o

R

R

R

o

R

E

E

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

E

R

E

E

E

R

R

E

SOURCE: Information for this appendix is from Nancy Kober, “Profiles of Major Federal Programs,” OTA contractor report, July 1992.

Appendix D:Glossary

Analog communication: A communication format inwhich information is transmitted by modulating acontinuous signal, such as a radio wave. Voice andvideo messages originate in analog form sincesound and light are wave-like functions; thus, theymust be converted into digital messages in order tocommunicate along digital communications for-mats or media,

Animation: Animation is apparent movement pro-duced by recording step-by-step a series of stilldrawings, three-dimensional objects, or computer-generated graphics. Movement over time is shownby replacing each image (frame) by the next one inthe series at a uniform speed-frames per second(fps). The human eye perceives fluid movement at30 fps-the approximate rate of film, television,and VCR-quality video.

Application tools: Computer software that enables theuser to manipulate information to create documentsor reports.

Artificial intelligence: The use of computer process-ing to simulate intelligent behavior. Current re-search includes natural language recognition anduse, problem solving, selection from alternatives,pattern recognition, generalization based on experi-ence, and analysis of novel situations.

Asynchronous communication: Two-way commu-nication in which there is a time delay betweenwhen a message is sent and when it is received.Examples include electronic-mail and voice-mailsystems. In contrast, synchronous communicationis simultaneous two-way exchange of information-e.g., a telephone conversation.

Audioconferencing: An electronic meeting in whichparticipants in different locations use telephonesand audio bridges (devices that connect and controlmultiple telephone lines) to communicate simulta-neously with each other.

Audiotext: An automated telephone information serv-ice with branching capability accessed through atouch-tone telephone. Audiotext services are oftenused by businesses or public agencies to providecommonly requested information, such as instruc-tions for obtaining a drivers license.

Authoring: The process of building or modifyingcomputer software using a computer programdesigned for that purpose. Generally, authoringsoftware applications require less technical exper-tise compared to use of programming languages.

Bit (Binary digiT): The smallest unit of informationa computer can use. A bit is represented as a “O”or a “1“ (also “on” or “off”). A group of 8 bitsis called a byte. Bits are used to measure the speedof digital transmission systems. Speeds are com-monly expressed in kilobits (Kbps), i.e., thousandper second; megabits (Mbps), i.e., million persecond; and gigabits (Gbps), i.e., billion per second.

Bulletin board service (BBS): A computer servicethat is modeled after a community bulletin board.Using a computer, modem, and phone line, individ-uals connect to a central “host” computer to postor read messages or to upload and downloadsoftware. Communication is usually asynchronous.

CD-ROM (compact disc-read only memory): Anoptical storage system for computers that permitsdata to be randomly accessed from a disc. With read

252

— —

only discs, new data cannot be stored nor can thedisc be erased for reuse. Other optical storagesystems allow users to record or write and rewriteinformation.

Coaxial cable: Shielded wire cable that connectscommunications components. Coaxial cable iscommonly used in cable television systems becauseof its ability to carry multiple video (or otherbroadband) signals.

Codec: An electronic device that converts analogvideo signals into a digital format for transmission,and vice versa. The name is an abbreviated form of“coder-decoder" or “compressor-decompressor"when compression is also involved.

Compression: Squeezing information so that it re-quires less space to store or transmit. When speechis compressed, for example, pauses are eliminated.Compression is generally expressed as a ratio. Forexample, an 8-to-1 ratio means that the informationrequires one-eighth of its original space. In com-pressed video, digital technology is used to encodeand compress the signal. Picture quality is generallynot as good as full motion; quick movements oftenappear blurred. The greater the compression ratio,the higher the chance for loss of quality in image,sound, or motion.

Computer graphics: Drawings and figures that can bedigitized, altered, created, stored, and producedwith a computer. Application tools allow users todraw or “paint” original images with a mouse orgraphics tablet.

Consumer electronics: A class of electronic productsthat are typically designed, marketed, and sold tothe consumer mass market. Televisions, videocas-sette recorders, video game systems, walk-aboutradios, pocket calculators, and portable compactdisc players are examples.

Courseware: A package used for teaching and learn-ing, which includes computer or video software andrelated print materials such as a teacher’s guide andstudent activity books.

Digital communications: A communications formatused with both electronic and light-based systemsthat transmits audio, video, and data as bits ofinformation.

Digital video: A format used to store, manipulate, andtransmit moving images as bits of information.Codecs are used to convert traditional analog

Appendix D-Glossary | 253

signals into a digital format and back again. Digitalvideo can be compressed for more efficient storageand transmission.

Digitize: To change analog information to a digitalformat. Once information has been converted to thisform, it can be conveniently stored, manipulated,and compressed. It can also be transmitted over adistance with little or no loss in quality. Sound (suchas speech or music), stills (such as transparencies),and motion video are commonly converted intodigitized form.

Downlink: An antenna shaped like a dish that receivessignals from a satellite. Often referred to as asatellite dish, terminal, Earth station, or TVRO(television receive only).

Electronic mail (e-mail): A computer application forexchanging information over a distance. Communi-cation is asynchronous. E-mail typically consists oftext, but multimedia formats are under develop-ment.

Facsimile machine (fax): A device that convertshard-copy images and text into an electronic formfor transmission over telephone lines to similardevices at another location.

Fiber optic cable: Hair thin, flexible glass rods thatuse light signals to transmit information in eitheranalog or digital formats. Fiber optic cable hasmuch higher capacity than copper or coaxial cable,and is not as subject to interference or noise. Fiberoptic cable has the bandwidth to accommodatehigh-speed, multimedia networking.

Flat-panel display: A video or computer screen thatis relatively thin, lightweight, and typically used inportable computers.

Gbps: See bit.Groupware: A computer software program that al-

lows the same information to be shared amongseveral computer users simultaneously. With someapplications, users can see each other and from theirown computers, add to or edit text and graphics ina single document.

Icon: A symbol displayed on the computer screen thatrepresents a command or program (e.g., a trash cansymbolizing the command to delete a document).Icons help make computer operating systems andapplications easier to use.

Interface: A general term used in the computer worldto designate the hardware and associated software


needed to enable one device to communicate withanother or to enable a person to communicate withcomputers and related devices. A user interface canbe a keyboard, a mouse, commands, icons, ormenus that facilitate communication between theuser and computer.

ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network): Aprotocol for high-speed digital transmission. ISDNprovides simultaneous voice and high-speed datatransmission along a single conduit to users’premises. Two ISDN protocols have been standard-ized: narrowband ISDN-two 64 Kbps channelscarry voice or data messages and one 16 Kbps datachannel is used for signaling; and broadbandISDN—twenty-three 64 Kbps channels carry voiceor data messages and one 64 Kbps channel is usedfor signaling.

Kbps: See bit.Laserdisc: See videodisc.LEOS (low-Earth orbiting satellites): Small satel-

lites with a lower orbit (hundreds of miles) thangeosynchronous satellites (22,300 miles). In thefuture, LEOS could be used to provide data andvoice communications to portable computers, tele-phones, and other devices without the use of wires.

Local area networks (LANs): Data communicationnetworks that are relatively limited in their reach.They generally cover the premises of a building ora school. Like all networking technologies, LANsfacilitate communication and sharing of informa-tion and computer resources by the members of agroup.

Mbps: See bit.Microwave: High-frequency radio waves used for

point-to-point and omnidirectional communicationof data, video, and voice.

Modem: A device that allows two computers tocommunicate over telephone lines. It convertsdigital computer signals into analog format fortransmission. A similar device at the other endconverts the analog signal back into a digital formatthat the computer can understand. The name is anabbreviated form of “modulator-demodulator.”

Mouse: A pointing device that connects to a computer.With a mouse, users can control pointer movementson a computer screen by rolling the mouse over aflat surface and clicking a button on the device. Themouse is also commonly used to define and move

blocks of text; open or close windows, documents,or applications; and draw or paint graphics.

Optical storage: High-density disc storage that uses alaser to ‘write’ information on the surface. Erasa-ble or rewritable optical storage enables writteninformation to be erased and new informationwritten.

Pen: See stylus.PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network): The

public telephone network that allows point-to-pointconnections anywhere in the system.

RAM (random access memory): Computer memorywhere any location can be read from, or written to,in a random access fashion. Information in RAM isdestroyed when the computer is turned off.

ROM (read only memory): Once information hasbeen entered into this memory, it can be read asoften as required, but cannot normally be changed.

Satellite dish: See downlink.Scanner: An input device that attaches to a computer

that makes a digital image of a hard-copy documentsuch as a photograph. Scanned pictures, graphs,maps, and other graphical data are often used indesktop publishing.

Simulation: Software that enables the user to experi-ence a realistic reproduction of an actual situation.Computer-based simulations often involve situa-tions that are very costly or high risk (e.g., flightsimulation training for pilots).

Smart Card: A small plastic card containing informa-tion that can be read by a computer reader. Forexample, a smart card can be used to keep track ofFood Stamp eligibility and qualify the holder forother social services that use the same criteria.

Software: Programming that controls computer, video,or electronic hardware. Software takes many formsincluding application tools, operating systems,instructional drills, and games.

Storyboard: A board or panel containing smalldrawings or pictures that show the sequence ofaction for a script of a video or computer software.

Stylus: A tool similar to a pen with no ink used formarking or drawing on a touch-sensitive surface. Inpen-based computing, a stylus, rather than a key-board, is used as the primary input device.

Synchronous communication: See asynchronouscommunication.

Appendix D–Glossary | 255

Tablet or graphics tablet: A computer input deviceresembling a normal pad of paper on which imagesare drawn with a pointing instrument such as astylus. The tablet converts hand-drawn images intodigital information that can be processed anddisplayed on a computer monitor.

Teleconferencing: A general term for any confer-encing system using telecommunications links toconnect remote sites. There are many types ofteleconferencing including: videoconferencing, com-puter conferencing, and audioconferencing.

Touch window: A computer screen that allows data tobe entered by using a specialized stylus to write onthe screen, or by making direct physical contactbetween the finger and the screen.

Uplink: A satellite dish that transmits signals up to asatellite,

Videoconference: A form of teleconferencing whereparticipants see, as well as hear, other participantsin remote locations. Video cameras, monitors,codecs, and networks allow synchronous communi-cation between sites.

Videodisc: An optical disc that contains recorded stillimages, motion video, and sounds that can beplayed back through a television monitor. Video-discs can be used alone or as a part of a computer-based application.

Voice mail: An electronic system for transmitting andstoring voice messages, which can be accessed later

by the person to whom they are addressed. Voicemail operates like an electronic-mail system.

Voice recognition: Computer hardware and softwaresystems that recognize spoken words and convertthem to digital signals that can be used for input.

Wide area networks (WANs): Data communicationnetworks that provide long-haul connectivity amongseparate networks located in different geographicareas. WANs make use of a variety of transmissionmedia, which can be provided on a leased or dial-upbasis.

Window: A part of the computer screen that is givenover to a different display from the rest of the screen(e.g., a text window in a graphics screen). It can alsobe a portion of a file or image currently on thescreen, when multiple windows are displayedsimultaneously.

Wireless: Voice, data, or video communicationswithout the use of connecting wires. In wirelesscommunications, radio signals make use of micro-wave towers or satellites. Cellular telephones andpagers are examples of wireless communications.

Workstation: A computer that is intended for individ-ual use, but is generally more powerful than apersonal computer. A workstation may also act asa terminal for a central mainframe.

Appendix E:List ofAcronyms

ABEACCESS

ADSL

AFDCAPLARCASE

BCLCBIABOCESBRIBSEP

CASAS

CBECBOCDCD-ICD-ROM

CLCCPBCPCC

DODDOL

EDE s

adult basic educationAdult Centers for Comprehensive

Education and Support ServicesAsymmetric Digital Subscriber LineAdult Education ActAid for Families with Dependent ChildrenAdult Performance LevelAppalachian Regional Commissionadult secondary education

Baltimore City Literacy Corp.Bureau of Indian AffairsBoard of Cooperative Education ServicesBaltimore Reads, Inc.Basic Skills Education Programs

Comprehensive Adult StudentAssessment System

computer-based educationcommunity-based organizationcompact disccompact disc-interactivecompact disc-read only memoryCorrectional Education DivisionCommunity Learnin“ g CenterCorporation for Public BroadcastingCentral Piedmont Community College

Department of DefenseDepartment of Labor

Department of EducationEmployment System

ESEAESL

GED

HHS

ILS

JOBSJTPA

KET

LEA

LLALSCALVA

NAEP

NCALNCI

NSF

OEOOTAN

PACE

256

Elementary and Secondary Education ActEnglish as a second language

general equivalency diploma

Department of Health and HumanServices

integrated learning system

Job Opportunities and Basic SkillsJob Training Partnership Act

Kentucky Educational Television

local education agencylimited English proficientLaubach Literacy ActionLibrary Services and Construction ActLiteracy Volunteers of America

National Assessment of EducationalProgress

National Center for Adult LiteracyNational Captioning InstituteNational Institute for LiteracyNational Literacy ActNational Science Foundation

Office of Economic OpportunityOutreach and Technical Assistance Network

Parent and Childhood Education

PBSPICPLUS

R&D

SBIRSCANS

SDASEASEPSJTCC

Public Broadcasting Serviceprivate industry councilProject Literacy US

research and developmentArlington Education and Employment

program

Small Business Innovation ResearchSecretary’s Commission on Achieving

Necessary Skillsservice delivery areaState education agencySkills Enhancement programState Job Training Coordinating

committee

SLIAG

TABETOEFL

UIUTC

VISTAVIT

WIC

Appendix E–List of Acronyms | 257

State Legalization Impact AssistanceGrants

Test of Adult Basic EducationTest of English for Foreign Learners

Unemployment InsuranceUnited Technologies Center

Volunteers in Service to AmericaVermont Interactive Television

Women, Infants, and Children

Appendix F:WorkshopParticipants,and Reviewersand Contributors

Workshop on Emerging Communication and Information Technologies: Implications forLiteracy and Learning, September 26 and 27,1991

Vivian Homer, Chairperson Martin Lamb

Bell Atlantic University of Toronto

Burt Arnowitz Michael North

Arnowitz Productions North Communications

Peter Bradford George Peterson

Cement Boat Company, Inc.National Geographic Society

Doug CarlstonBroderbund Software

Stephen RederNorthwest Regional Educational Laboratory

Susan GoldmanAntonia Stone

Vanderbilt UniversityPlaying to Win

Charles HouseRichard Venezky

Informix Software, Inc.University of Delaware

Alan KayApple Computer, Inc.

Bud WonsiewiczUS WEST Communications

Ray KurzweilKurzweil Applied Intelligence

258

Appendix F—Workshop Participants, and Reviewers and Contributors 259

OTA/Annenberg Workshop New Visions for Video: Use of Cable, Satellite, Broadcast, andInteractive Systems for Literacy and Learning, January 27, 1992

Milda K. Hedblom, ChairpersonAugsburg College

Walter BaerRand Corp.

Patricia CabreraEducational Telecommunications Network

R.L, Capell IIIBell South

J. Ronald CastellBlockbuster Entertainment Corp.

Nathan I. FeldeNYNEX Science and Technology Center

David FormanNational Education Training Group

Rich GrossKirkwood Community College

Reviewers and Contributors

Emily Vargas AdamsCeden Family Resource Center

Judith A. AlampreseCOSMOS Corp.

Eunice AskovInstitute for the Study of Adult Literacy

Elsa AuerbachUniversity of Massachusetts

John AvolioRedford Union School

Lynn BarnettAmerican Association of Community and Junior

Colleges

Henry IngleClaremont Graduate School

Newton N. MinowThe Annenberg Washington Program

Barbara PopovicChicago Access Corp.

Marian L. SchwarzConsultant

Don SuttonJones Intercable, Inc.

Sandra WelchPublic Broadcasting Service

William WilsonThe Kentucky Network

Kristina Hooper WoolseyApple Computer, Inc.

Hal Beder

Rutgers University

Brenda Bell

National Alliance of Business

Robert BickertonMassachusetts Department of Education

Karen BillingsCLARIS

Jan Biros

Drexel University

Brian BlackBlack Light Design


Janet BolenEducation is Essential Foundation, Inc.

Bob BozarjianMassachusetts Department of Education

Gary BradyDutchess County BOCES, NY

Morgan BramletNational Captioning Institute

Frances BuchananWatts Adult Learning Center

David BuzardOutreach and Technical Assistance Network

Marge CappoWINGS for Learning/Sunburst

Chip CarlinLiteracy Volunteers of America, Inc.

Nguyen Minh ChauOpportunity Systems, Inc.

Forrest ChismanSouthport Institute for Policy Analysis

Daryl ChubinOffice of Technology Assessment

Robert ClausenClausen Associates

Donna CooperMayor’s Commision on Literacy, Philadelphia

John CradlerFar West Laboratories

Jodi CrandallCenter for Applied Linguistics

Barbara CrosbyTexas State Library

Jinx CrouchLiteracy Volunteers of America, Inc.

Evelyn CurtisTexas Education Agency

Jan DavidsonDavidson and Associates

Catherine Carroll DayMassachusetts Department of Employment

and Training

Chris DedeGeorge Mason University

Paul DelkerConsultant

Bryna DiamondNew York Public LibraryCenters for Reading and Writing

Mark DillonGTE Imagitrek

Margaret DouhertyHouston Read Commission

Roger DovnerLiteracy Assistance Center

Richard ErdmannWasatch Education Systems

Gerard FialaU.S. Department of Labor

Hanna Arlene FingeretLiteracy South

John FleischmanOutreach and Technical Assistance Network

Ronald FortuneComputer curriculum Corp.

Rob FoshayTRO barring, Inc.

Appendix F—Workshop Participants, and Reviewers

Harold L. Hodgkinson

Michael FoxConsultant

Jim FrasierMotorola, Inc.

Maggi GainesBaltimore City Literacy Corp.

Linda GarciaOffice of Technology Assessment

Carol GoertzelLutheran Settlement House Women’s Program

Marshall GoldbergThe Alliance

Sheryl GowenGeorgia State University

Bill GrimesSan Diego Community College

Michael GrubbsTandy Corp.

Bob Guy

Jostens Learning Corp.

Pat HartgroveTexas Literacy Council

Ted HasselbringVanderbilt University

Jan HawkinsBank Street College of Education

Jeanne HayesQuality Education Data, Inc.

Mike HillingerLexicon Systems

and Contributors | 261

Center for Demographic Policy

Yvonne HowardU.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Kathy HurleyIBM Corp.

Paul IrwinCongressional Research Service

Linda JacobusLexington Technology Center

Paul JurmoConsultant

S. James KatzBellcore

Peter KelmanScholastic, Inc.

Brenda KempsterKnowledge NetworkPacific Bell

Becky KingNational Center for Family Literacy

C. Eric KirklandNational Captioning Institute, Inc.

Peter KleinbardYoung Adult Learning Academy

Judy KoIoski

National Adult EducationProfessional Development Consortium

Andrew KolstadNational Center for Education StatisticsU.S. Department of Education

Robert A. Kominski

Bureau of the CensusU.S. Department of Commerce


Mark KutnerPelavin Associates, Inc.

Jane Nissen LaidleyPeople’s Computer Co.

Donna LaneOregon Office of Community College Services

Mary LeonardCouncil on Foundations

Judith LoucksJostens Learning

Mary LovellU.S. Department of Education

Jeanne LoweGED Testing Service

John LoweryDiscis Knowledge Research, Inc.

Lucy Trible MacDonaldChemeketa Community College

Shirley MalcomAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science

Ray ManakCenter for Training and Economic Development

Inaam MansoorArlington (VA) Education and Employment Program

Laura MartinChildren’s Television Workshop

Bodie MarxScott, Foresman and Co.

Sylvia McCollenFederal Bureau of Prisons

Garry McDanielsSkills Bank Corp.

Harry R. MillerU.S. Distance Learning Association

Ken MillerIBM Corp.

Preston MillerLiteracy Volunteers of Franklin County, NY

Karen MillsRio Salado Community College

Mark MorganDevelopment Associates, Inc.

Garrett MurphyNew York State Office of Adult Education

Monroe C. NeffHouston Community College System

Sara NewcombU.S. Department of Education

David NewmanThe Roach Organization

James OlsenWICAT Systems

Edward PaulyManpower Demonstration Research Corp.

Karen PearlNew York City Literacy Assistance Center, Inc.

Pamela PeaseJones Intercable, Inc.

Pedro PedrazaHunter College

Aqueda PenaCreative Academic Achievement Pro-Success

Learning Center

Robert PepperFederal Communications commission

Appendix F–Workshop Participants, and Reviewers and Contributors | 263

Ruth ShawCentral Piedmont Community College

Dennis PoeU.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Paul SiegelBureau of the CensusU.S. Department of Commerce

Curtis PriestCenter for Information Technology and Society

Ronald S. PugsleyU.S. Department of Education Robert Silvanic

National Governors’ Association

Diane RapleyBroderbund Software Arthur Sisk

Franklin Electronic PublicationsMina ReddyCambridge Community Learning Center Ellen Skinner

Texas Department of Human Services

Craig RieckeLiteracy Volunteers of America Margaret Smith

Texas Department of Criminal JusticeAndrew RockU.S. Department of Health and Human Services Tim Songer

Interactive Knowledge, Inc.Pavlos RoussosTexas Education Agency Gail Spangenberg

Business Council for Effective LiteracyC. Dorsey RuleyIllinois Bell Richard K. Sparks

Idaho State University

Tony SarmientoAFL/CIO Brian Stecher

Rand Corp.Rose SaylinHuntington Beach Library Sondra Stein

ConsultantErnestine SchnulleCorrectional Educational DivisionLos Angeles County Jail System

Thomas G. StichtApplied Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Inc.

Betty StoneSomerville Center for Adult Learning Experiences

Gail SchwartzU.S. Department of Education

Nancy StoverThe Discovery Channel

Sylvia ScribnerCity University of New York

Beverly StudentLIST Services, Inc.

Joan SeamonU.S. Department of Education

Andrew SumNortheastern University

John SenerU.S. BASICS


Charles TalbertAdult and Community Education BranchMaryland Department of Education

Sue TalleyFoundation for Educational Software

James TollefsonUniversity of Washington

Gaye TolmanLiteracy Volunteers of Maricopa County, AZ

Jay TuckerUnited Auto Workers/Ford Program

Terilyn C. TurnerSt. Paul Lifelong Literacy Center

Daniel WagnerNational Center for Adult Literacy

Peter WaiteLaubach Literacy Action

Dave WeaverLIST Services, Inc.

William WederU.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Michael WeinerSelectronics Corp.

Joan WinstonOffice of Technology Assessment

Barbara WrightOregon/Washington Adult Basic Skills Technology

Consortium

David WyeOffice of Technology Assessment

Malcom YoungDevelopment Associates, Inc.

Chris ZachariadisAssociation for Community Board Education

Sharlene WalkerOregon Office of Community Colleges

Appendix G:Contributing

Sites

Throughout the course of this assessment, OTA received invaluable information and assistance from manyliteracy programs located across the United States. The following is a listing of the sites that participated in OTA’scase studies and the survey of software, as well as programs that were visited by OTA staff.

ACCESS CenterDuchess County Board of Cooperative ServicesPoughkeepsie, NY

Adult Learning CenterWhite Plains, NY

Adult Success CenterIdaho State UniversityPocatello, ID

Allenwood Federal Prison CampMontgomery, PA

Baltimore Reads, Inc.Baltimore, MD

Ripken Learning CenterWords for Life

Center for Training and Economic DevelopmentCuyahoga Community CollegeCleveland, OH

Metro Campus Adult Learnin g Center, Cleveland, OHEuclid Adult Learning Center, Cleveland, OHMulti-Media Community Literacy Program,

Garfield Heights, OHJob Readiness Program, Cleveland, OH

Chinese-American Civic AssociationBoston, MA

Columbia Basin CollegeLearning Opportunity CenterPasco, WA

Community Learning CenterCambridge, MA

Baltimore Urban League Job Training Center Continuing Education Learning CenterBaltimore, MD Jackson, MS

Bronx Educational Services Correctional Educational DivisionBronx, NY Los Angeles County Jail System

Hacienda La Puente Unified School DistrictCenter for Reading and Writing Los Angeles, CAMott Haven Public LibraryBronx, NY

265


Creative Academic Achievement Pro-Success(CAAP) Learnin“ g Center

McAllen, TX

Eastern Idaho Technical CollegeIdaho Falls, ID

Eastern Michigan University AcademyUnited Auto Workers/Ford Motor Co.Ypsilanti, MI

El Barrio Popular Education ProgramHarlem, NY

El Centro del CardenalBoston, MA

Estill County Parent and Child Education ProgramRavenna Elementary SchoolRavenna, KY

Eva Bowlby LibraryWorkplace and Adult Literacy ProjectsWaynesburg, PA

Garrett Heyns Education CenterShelton, WA

Greater Columbus Learning CenterColumbus, MS

Hattiesburg Education Literacy ProjectHattiesburg, MS

Institute for Communication DisordersInternational Center for the DisabledNew York, NY

Job Skills Enhancement ProgramMeridian Community CollegeMeridian, MS

Lane Community College Adult Basicand Secondary Education

Eugene, OR

Laramie County Community CollegeLaramie, WY

Lewisburg Federal PenitentiaryLewisburg, PA

Lexington Technology CenterLexington, SC

Literacy Action CenterSeattle, WA

Literacy Assistance CenterNew York, NY

Longfellow Adult Learning CenterOwensboro, KY

Lutheran Settlement HouseWomen’s ProjectPhiladelphia, PA

Metropolitan Education ProgramSan Jose, CA

Mid-Manhattan Learning CenterHarlem, NY

Mississippi Gulf Coast Community CollegePerkinston, MS

Mississippi Mobile Learning LabNortheast RegionBonneville, MS

Mobile Automated Learnin g LaboratoryMississippi Delta Community CollegeDelta Region, Moorhead, MS

National Education, Development and Training CenterUnited Auto Workers/Ford Motor Co.Dearborn, MI

Walton Hills Stamping Plant, Walton Hills, OHWixom Assembly Plant, Wixom, MI

New York City Public SchoolsOffice of Adult and Continuing Educati on

Queens Adult Learning “ Center, Queens, NYBrooklyn Adult Learning Center, Brooklyn, NY

Appendix G-Contributing Sites | 267

Northwest Tri-County Intermediate Unit CenterErie, PA

Odessa Community CollegeAdult Education Co-opOdessa, TX

Playing to WinHarlem, NY

REEP programArlington, VA

Rouge AcademyFord Motor Co. Dearborn Engine PlantDearborn, MI

St. Bernadine’s Head Start CenterBaltimore, MD

South Dade Skills CenterLeisure City, FL

STAR Adult Education Center(Formerly Literacy Volunteers of America of Biloxi)Biloxi, MS

Sunflower County Library Adult harriers programSunflower, MS

Henry M. Seymour Library, Indianola, MSEast Sunflower Elementary School, Sunflower, MSRuleville Library, Ruleville, MS

Support for Training and Educational Services, Inc.New York, NY

Technology for Literacy CenterSt. Paul, MN

Tillamook Bay Community CollegeTillamook, OR

United South End SettlementBoston, MA

Ventura Adult/Continuing EducationVentura, CA

Watsonville/Aptos Adult SchoolWatsonville, CA

Watts Adult Learning CenterLos Angeles, CA

York College Community Learning CenterCity University of New YorkQueens, NY

York College Learnin g CenterLiteracy InitiativeJamaica, NY

Young Adult Learnin g AcademyNew York, NY

Appendix H:ContractorReportsPrepared forThis Assessment

Copies of contractor reports done for this study are available through the National Technical InformationService (NTIS), either by mail (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,Springfield VA 22161) or by calling NTIS directly at (703) 487-4650.

Center for Literacy Studies, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, “Life at the Margins: Profiles of AdultsWith Low Literacy Skills,” PB 93-163871.

Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. and Wujcik and Associates, “The Educational Software Marketplace andAdult Literacy Niches,” PB 93-163897.

J.D. Eveland et al., Claremont Graduate School, “Case Studies of Technology Use in Adult LiteracyPrograms, “ PB 93-163905.

Nancy Kober, “Profiles of Major Federal Literacy Programs,” PB 93-163863.

Stephen Reder, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, “On-Line Literacy Development: A Context forTechnology in Adult Literacy Education,” PB 93-163889.

Jay P. Sivin-Kachala and Ellen R. Bialo, Interactive Educational Systems Design (IESD), Inc., “Software forAdult Literacy: Scope, Suitability, Available Sources of Information, and Implications for Federal Policy,’ PB93-163913.

268

Index

ABE. See Adult basic educationACCESS. See Adult Centers for Comprehensive

Education and Support ServicesAccess to services, 239-242. See also Location of

servicesAccess to technologies, 17,190-200,213-216,239-242

computer hardware, 190-192video, 192-194

Accountability requirements, 148-149Adult basic education, 110, 112Adult Centers for Comprehensive Education and

Support Services, 184Adult Education Act, 18,95,98, 101, 103, 127, 130,

131, 175amendments, 57, 134State grants under Section 353,21

Adult learners. See LearnersAdult Performance Level Project, 6,32,34Adult secondary education, 110, 112Adults without a high school diploma, 50. See also

Educational attainment; GEDAdvanced Research Projects Agency, 21Advantages of technology, 8, 12, 14-16, 84-89,204AEA. See Adult Education ActAnnenberg/Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 209APL. See Adult Performance Level ProjectArlington Education and Employment Program, 210ASE. See Adult secondary educationAt-risk youth, 58-60,226-228Attrition issues, 107-109, 164-168Audio recorders, 191,209-210

Baltimore Reads, Inc., 96-97. See also Ripken CenterBarriers to participation, 7-8,82-84, 162-168

administrative, 17fear of job loss, 80-81legislative, 17psychological, 62,79-80,83-84situational, 62, 83, 166

Barriers to use of technology, 15-16cost, 213-216, 239-242information, 219institutional, 219-221market issues, 216-219

Basic skills, 32-33,45,206Federal appropriations, 139job training materials, 212

Bookson CD-ROM, 214on tape, 191, 210

Broadcast. See Telecommunications; Videotechnologies

Businesses. See also Workplace literacyDalton, Georgia, 118-119Ford Skills Enhancement Program, 102General Electric, 212Motorola, 207partnerships, 224-225

Cable television. See Telecommunications; Videotechnologies

Californiacorrectional facilities, 124-125Outreach and Technical Assistance Network, 170,

208Cambridge Community Learning Center, 186Capacity-building, 157-158

Federal funding, 143269


CASAS. See Comprehensive Adult Student Assess-ment System

Categorical grant programs, 12CBO. See Community-based organizationsCD-ROM, 190, 192,214Certification of teachers, 171, 174-175

technological applications, 22-23Chapter 1, 13, 16, 19, 158, 198Chemeketa Community College, 210,213Children’s Television Workshop, 209Closed captioning, 14, 191,209-210,211

legislation, 211Coalitions. See also Partnerships; Service coordination

State-level, 96-98Colleges and universities

access to technologies, 197-198graduate-level programs, 22

Community-based organizations, 9,99-100, 146, 166access to computers, 192

Community colleges, 193Community Learning Center (Cambridge), 186Competency skills, 34-36,65, 131-132Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System,

34-36, 169-170Computer. See also Software and programming

access to, 190-192, 199, 239-242computer-based technologies, 191. See also specific

technologiescourseware, 194-196, 200-204, 205, 210, 212hardware, 190-192,204-205,231-235home, 199,206,207,215-216laboratories, 118-119,201-202networks, 176-177. See also Electronic networks;

Integrated learning systemsrecruiting learners, 163-164

Computer-assisted education, 2-3, 14, 179,200-204effectiveness, 85-89family literacy, 120-121incarcerated adults, 123-126workplace literacy, 102, 117-119

Consumer electronics, 191Copyright issues, 240-241Correctional facilities, 124-125, 191-192,210. See

also Incarcerated adult programsCourseware, 210-213,240

computer, 194-196, 200-204,205,210, 212multimedia, 214,220, 227video, 196,208-211

curriculum development, 169-170,203. See alsoCourseware

technological applications, 12,22, 161-162workplace literacy, 117-119

Cuyahoga County Community College, 102,201

Delivery systems. See service delivery systemsDemographic trends, 6,30,41-56

future literacy needs, 58-60Department of Commerce, 22Department of Education, 9, 14,22,95, 128, 131, 137Department of Health and Human Services, 95, 128Department of Labor, 6, 14,52-56,95, 128, 137Disadvantages of technology, 204-205Distance learning, 15, 18,22,67, 193-194,202,209,

230effectiveness, 85incarcerated adults, 126

Dropout rates, 41-45,59-60. See also Educationalattainment

Educard, 227Education Is Essential Foundation, Inc., 118-119Educational attainment, 4145,78,215. See also

Dropout ratesElectronic networks, 14,206-208,236-237. See also

Distance learningEmployment and literacy rates, 52-53English as a second language, 66, 110, 114, 168,

208-210. See also Limited English proficientadults

computer networks, 176-177Federal funding, 145staff development, 170-171

Enrollment rates. See Participation in adult literacyprograms

Equity. See Access to technologiesESL. See English as a second languageEuclid Adult Learning Center, 206Evaluation. See Measurement methods; Performance

evaluation; program evaluation; TestsEven Start, 13,40, 120, 128, 132, 147, 152External Diploma program, 113

Family literacy, 13,38-39,40, 119-121,207English as a second language, 229Federal funding, 142Skills, 38-39,40,226-228

Index | 271

technological applications, 120-121Federal funding, 13,95,99, 128, 137-141, 157

capacity-building, 143ESL programs, 145mandatory participation, 142-143problems, 141target groups, 144-146workplace literacy, 142

Federal-level coordination, 154-157, 158-159Federal program issues, 11-14,95

appropriations, 139number, 135-136

Federal requirements and policies, 16,26-27,114,147.See also specific departments and agencies

accountability, 148-149competency, 131-132history, 129-131incarcerated adults, 121-122interagency coordination, 17-18, 23-24program evaluation, 149service coordination, 154-155technology, 128, 150-153

Florida, 19Ford Skills Enhancement Program, 102Franklin Electronic Learning Resources, 218Funding barriers, 213-216Funding sources, 9-10,94-99,

coordination of, 181-188direct for technology, 19Federal, 9, 13,95, 137-146

179-180

for incarcerated adult education, 122merging, 184-188private, 98-99, 101, 147State and local, 95-98,99, 100, 184

Futureliteracy needs, 58-60technology advances, 231-238

GED, 10, 18, 113via television, 15, 196-197

General Electric, 212General equivalency diploma. See GEDGeorgia

Partnership for Literacy, 118-119Graduate-level programs

technological applications, 22

Hand-held electronic devices, 14,209-210,218. See alsoPersonal electronic devices; Pocket translators

Hardware advances, 231-235Harlem Community Computing Centers, 163-164Head Start, 9, 13, 18, 132Home technologies, 85, 199-200,202,205-206, 207,

208-209, 211,213-216. See also Personal elec-tronic devices

Hoover, Herbert, 131Hypermedia, 212,214

ILS. See Integrated learning systemsIllinois, 96Immigrants, 50-52,63-64, 129,228-231

profiles of, 63,70,77video series, 208-209

Immigration Act of 1990, 114Immigration Reform and Control Act, 63, 114, 132Incarcerated adult programs, 7, 121-126, 132,210

Federal requirements and policies, 121-122multimedia technologies, 125technological applications, 123-126video instruction, 125

Individualized instruction, 8, 202incarcerated adults, 123technological applications, 88-89

Information tools, 8,34-36, 89,202,204Inmates. See Incarcerated adult programsInservice training, 21, 171. See also Staff developmentInstitute of Communication Disorders, 210Integrated learning systems, 118, 123-124, 179, 194-

195. See also Computer networksdisadvantages, 205

Integrated services, 23, 147Interactive Knowledge, Inc., 220Interactive video, 3, 214. See also Video

effectiveness, 86workplace literacy, 163

Interagency coordination, 17-18,23-24, 154-157,158-159, 181-188,208,219-221

Intergenerational literacy. See Family literacy

Jefferson, Thomas, 29Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program, 13, 18,

21,95, 128, 139-140, 146, 184Job seekers, 52-56Job Training Partnership Act, 14,52,95, 128, 156


JOBS. See Job Opportunities and Basic Skills programJTPA. See Job Training Partnership Act

Kenan Trust Family Literacy Program, 40, 120Kentucky Educational Television, 168, 196-197Kirkwood Community College, 166-167

Laid-off workers, 63Laubach Literacy Action, 103-106, 111

teaching methods, 111Learners, 5-6,62-65,69, 107-109, 144-146

assessment, 177-179, 203, 227decision to participate in adult literacy education,

78-81motivation, 6, 8, 80-82profiles of, 63,65,66-68,70,72,77recruiting, 12, 161-168, 203using technology, 85-89, 202,204-205

Learning disabilities, 8,67,210,211Learning in context, 69-76Learning time, 8, 85-86,202Legislation, 129-135. See also specific legislation

closed captioning, 211new emphases, 142-144technology use, 150-153

LEP adults. See Limited English proficient adultsLibraries, 108,210Life skills, 32-39, 62-63Limitations of technology, 204-205Limited English proficient adults, 13,50-52,54,66,

114, 128. See also English as a second languageFederal funding, 145

Literacy definitions, 3-5,29-32,4547,56Literacy rates, 6,30,41-60

uncounted rate, 57Literacy Volunteers of America, 23, 103-106, 111

access to technologies, 192LLA. See Laubach Literacy ActionLocal funding, 97-99Location of services, 106-107, 147Los Angeles County jail system, 124-125,210LVA. See Literacy Volunteers of America

Manpower Demonstration and Training Act, 129Mandatory participation, 7, 13, 122

attrition, 165-166Federal funding, 142-143

program administration, 180-181technological applications, 161, 180

Marketplace issues, 216-217,219,239-242Maryland

Baltimore Reads, Inc., 96-97Ripken Center, 202-204

Massachusetts, 103, 138, 183Cambridge Community Learning Center, 186

Measurement methods, 4-5,30-32employment, 52-53tests, 45-47,74-75, 109, 177-179

Media literacy, 90Metro Campus Adult Learning Center (Ohio), 201-202Michigan, 156, 183Military software

computer-based instruction, 19Military training programs, 23Mississippi, 183

Columbus Learning Center, 1Mobile Learning Lab, 206Project LEAP, 18

Mississippi Mobile Learning Lab, 206Modems, 191, 192Mother’s education level, 59-60Motivation, 6, 8, 80-82, 202. See also Learners

technological applications, 86-87Mott Haven Library Center for Reading and Writing,

108,210Multimedia technologies, 14, 16, 191, 192,214

courseware, 220, 227incarcerated adults, 125workplace literacy, 118, 212, 220

Multipurpose literacy centers, 228-231

NAEP. See National Assessment of EducationalProgress

NALS. See National Adult Literacy SurveyNational Adult Literacy Survey, 4,56-58National Assessment of Educational Progress, 33-34National Center for Adult Literacy, 22National Center for Family Literacy, 120National Commission for Employment Policy, 36National Institute for Literacy, 14,22, 132, 143, 157National Literacy Act, 21, 122, 132, 134, 175-176National Science Foundation, 20National Technological University, 22National Telecommunications and Information

Administration, 20-21

Index | 273

National Workplace Literacy Partnerships Program,116-117

Need for services, 168New Jersey, 96New York 23

coordinating funding, 184New York Public Library Centers for Reading and

Writing, 108,210New York Public Library Centers for Reading and

Writing, 108,210Nonparticipation, 82, 147. See also Participation in

adult literacy programsNorth Carolina 14

OhioCuyahoga County Community College, 201

OTAN. See Outreach and Technical AssistanceNetwork

Outcome-based evaluation. See Performanceevaluation

Outreach and Technical Assistance Network 25, 170,208

PACE. See Parent and Child EducationParent and Child Education, 120Participation in adult literacy programs, 78-84, 107-

109, 112, 114, 144-146, 147. See also Barriers toparticipation; Recruiting learners

learner’s initial decision, 78-81Partnerships, 11,23, 181. See also Coalitions; Service

coordinationBaltimore Reads, Inc., 96-97interagency partnerships, 17-18, 23-24public-private, 224-225telecommunications, 193-194workplace literacy, 118

Pen grants, 16Performance evaluation, 128, 149-150Personal electronic devices, 14, 191, 194, 199,209-

210,218,225-226,239pocket translators, 191,218,239

Playing to Win program, 164,206Pocket translators, 191,218,239Policy issues, 16-27, 126

capacity-building, 157delivery systems, 158Federal-level coordination, 158-159funding limitations, 157

interagency coordination, 17-18, 23-24priority setting, 157program improvement, 158situational barriers, 83staff development, 157-158target groups, 158technology, 150-154, 158

Prison inmates. See Incarcerated adult programsPrivate sector funding, 98-99, 101, 147Problem-solving skills, 33-34,71-76professional development standards, 22-23. See also

Certification of teachers; Staff developmentProfiles

at-risk youth, 226-228immigrants, 63-64,70,77,228-231learners, 63,65,66,68,70,72,77

Program administrationfunding problems, 179-180mandatory participation, 180-181technological applications, 12, 203

Program evaluation, 177-179,203Federal role, 149technological applications, 162

Program improvement, 158Project LEAP, 18Project SALSA, 207Providers of literacy programs

businesses, 102, 118, 119,207,212colleges and universities, 197-198, 201-202community-based organizations, 99-100, 146, 166,

186, 192community colleges, 167, 193, 210, 213labor unions, 117libraries, 108,210multipurpose literacy centers, 184, 206, 228-231schools, 62, 198-199

Psychological barriers to participation, 62,79-80,83-84

Public information campaigns, 163Public schools, 62

access to technologies, 198-199

Range of program services, 168Reading level estimates, 45-46Recordkeeping

attrition, 165Federal requirements, 148technological applications, 162, 180-181


Recruiting learners, 161-168,203technological applications, 12,216-218

Research and development, 19,25-26Federal role, 127-129service delivery system, 93-94technology, 161-162

Right to Read initiative, 131Ripken Center, 202-204

Scanners, 192SCANS. See Secretary’s Commission on Achieving

Necessary SkillsSchool-based programs, 62School completion rates. See Educational attainmentScientific literacy, 39Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary

skills, 36-38Service coordination, 10,23,203,208. See also

PartnershipsFederal, 153-157, 181-182Federal agency reorganizations, 156local, 183-188program consolidation, 156State and local, 24, 182-183, 184technological applications, 12,24-25

Service definitions, 144Service delivery systems, 30,94-115

policy issues, 126State, 103

Situational barriers to participation, 62,83, 166Skills

basic, 45, 139-140,206,212competency, 34-36, 65, 131-132family, 38-39,40,226-228Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program, 139-

140,146, 184life, 32-39,62-63problem solving, 32-33,71-76Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary

Skills, 36-38technology, 34-36,89-90,204,206, 207,212workplace, 36-38,55

SLIAG program See State Legalization Impact Assist-ance Grants

smart cards, 177Software and programming. See also Computers;

C o u r s e w a r e

advances, 237-238

availability, 194-196,210development, 19-20, 170,210,220distribution, 195marketplace issues, 216-217,219research and development, 161-162,220

Speech production and recognition technologies, 191-192,212,232-233

Staff development, 21-23,157-158,170-175, 203. Seealso Volunteer training

distance learning, 22technological applications, 12, 162, 176-177video, 176

Standards for hardware and software, 235Star Schools Program, 18, 22, 158, 193-194State and local service providers, 103. See also specific

programsreaction to Federal technology policy, 153-154service coordination, 155-157, 182-188

state funding, 95-99, 100,184State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants, 103,132,

140, 152Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, 109Students. See Learners

Target learner groups, 2,6,47-56,64, 144-147, 158.See also specific groups

Federal funding, 13, 144-147Teachers, 114,204-205. See also Staff development

certification, 22-23, 171, 174Teaching methods, 111, 169-170, 175Technological applications, 88-89,97, 123-126,200

204,205-213coordination, 24-25, 180-188, 208curriculum development, 22, 161-162, 169-170,

172-173,210-213distance learning, 15, 18, 167ESL programs, 114,176-177,208-209, 210family literacy, 120-121Federal provisions for, 150-153, 158incarcerated adult, 123-126library program, 108,210program evaluation, 162, 177-179recordkeeping, 162, 180-181recruiting learners, 12,161, 162-164retaining learners, 164-168staff development 162, 176-177teacher certification, 22-23

volunteer programs 104

Index | 275

workplace literacy, 102, 117-119Technology skills, 34-36, 89-90, 204,206,207,212Telecommunications, 11, 15, 18, 120, 167, 176, 191,

193-194, 209, 231-237, 241-242. See also Dis-tance learning; Video technologies

Telephone service, 191, 199,213,215Television. See Telecommunications; Video

technologiesTests, 45-47, 74-75, 109, 177-179. See also Measure-

ment methodsTexas, 19, 103

correctional facilities, 124Touch screens, 191, 192Transfer of learning, 76

Underutilization of technologies, 205-206Unemployment insurance, 53

Vermontdistance learning, 15interactive television, 209

Vermont Interactive Television, 209Video technologies, 14, 15, 19,90, 124-125,192-194,

208-209. See also Telecommunicationsaccess to, 192-194, 199, 239-242broadcast television, 196, 197-198,209,238GED preparation, 113, 197-198immigrants, 208-209interactive videodiscs, 86, 163, 214programming, 196,208-211

staff trainin g, 176telecourses, 15, 193videocassette recorders, 198-199, 214videoconferencing equipment, 196-197video game machines, 15, 191, 200volunteer training, 104, 176workplace literacy, 163, 209

Volunteer programs, 103-106, 110-111, 192technological applications, 104

Volunteer training, 11, 104-106, 176-177. See alsoStaff development

computer networks, 176-177

Welfare recipients. See also Mandatory participationcomputer-matching systems, 180-181profiles, 228-231

Workplace literacy, 12-13,36-38,69-71, 102, 115-119, 224-226. See also Businesses

curriculum development, 117-119,212, 220Federal funding, 142home computers, 206,207hypertext/hypermedia systems, 212recruitment, 163skills, 36-38, 55technological applications, 102, 117-119, 163,206,

207,212,220video, 163, 209

Young Adult Literacy Assessment, 46,48

u. s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1993 0 - 331-048 QL 3