Background paper prepared for

Education for All Global Monitoring R

Literacy for Life

The adult literacy educationUnited States

Talmadge C. Guy 2005

This paper was commissioned by the Education for Albackground information to assist in drafting the 2006 report. It hThe views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of thattributed to the EFA Global Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. Tfollowing reference: “Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Mfor Life”. For further information, please contact efareport@unesc

2006/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/37

the

eport 2006

system in the

l Global Monitoring Report as as not been edited by the team. e author(s) and should not be he papers can be cited with the

onitoring Report 2006, Literacy o.org

1

Talmadge C. Guy, Ed.D. The University of Georgia

Athens, Georgia, USA 1.0 Introduction

Over the past 20 years, adult literacy has received significant, though perhaps

misleading, attention from the media. The public perception of the “illiterate” as well as

of the extent of the literacy problem in America flows not from research or from

informed practitioners (Quigley, 1997). The media characterize illiteracy as a crippling

limitation, a barrier to individual and social advancement and as a problem to be fixed.

Instead, there is substantial research to suggest that literacy is very complex. Major

surveys of adult literacy skills have adopted fairly broad definitions of literacy. The

results of the National Assessment of Literacy Survey (NALS) suggest that while

functional literacy proficiency is a real challenge for many adults from all walks of life, a

complex mix of variables influence literacy proficiency resulting in the conclusion that

no simple profile of illiteracy in America exists. How do we understand the phenomenon

of literacy in America? And how does adult literacy education respond to this

phenomenon?

The picture that has emerged is that low literacy proficiency is relatively common

with somewhere between one in five and one in three adult Americans with sufficient

difficulty in reading or computation to be challenged by the ordinary tasks of everyday

life and work. To the casual observer these figures may seem surprising—even shocking.

Indeed, public reaction has alternated between shock and disbelief. For a society as

economically and technologically advanced as the United States, it might seem

implausible that such a large proportion of the adult population is in need of literacy

education. Yet, there is persistent inequality grounded in historical marginalization of

2

African Americans, Hispanics, the poor, and the under educated1. One explanation for

the documented large number of adults identified as low literate or functionally illiterate

is the growing emphasis on educational credentialing for the demands of family,

employment, and civic life (Comings, Reder, and Sum, 2001). In turn, this increased

demand for literacy proficiency in adult life has led to an increased focus on the need for

higher literacy skills.

Against this backdrop, I provide an overview of the adult literacy education

system in the United States focusing on policy developments, programs and participants,

research findings, and challenges for the future. In discussing the adult literacy education

system, it is important to clarify that adult literacy education occurs in many arenas of

American society including schools and colleges, social service agencies, community

organizations, libraries, museums, companies, union halls, churches, and in homes. It is

beyond the scope of this paper to document and to discuss the full range of adult literacy

education. The focus of this paper is the adult literacy education system funded by the

United States Department of Education under the auspices of national legislation. Senge

(1994) defines system as “the perceived whole whose elements ‘hang together’ because

they continually affect each other over time and operate toward a common purpose" (p.

90). It is in this sense that I employ the phrase “adult literacy education system” to refer

to the policies, programs, agencies, participants, and personnel that "hang together" under

a common, though multiple and sometimes conflicting, set of purposes.

1 I use “under-educated” to denote those persons who lack sufficient educational credentials to compete successfully in the labor force. While this standard changes over time, it is commonly considered in today’s economy that a high school credential or its equivalent is minimally necessary to compete. In actuality, postsecondary education is rapidly becoming the standard as measured by estimates of lifetime earnings of persons less than high school, high school diploma, some college, or a baccalaureate degree. See U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Earnings of College Graduates in 1996, available online at: http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/loc_text/employ/3college/article4.htm .

3

In the United States there are a number of terms and acronyms which refer

broadly to adult literacy education and which can have overlapping meanings, often in

ways that are confusing to those outside the field. Federally funded adult literacy

programs encompass a range of educational levels such as Adult Basic Education (ABE),

Adult Secondary Education (ASE), and English as a Second Language (ESL). ASE

programs lead to the high school credential or its equivalent—the General Education

Diploma or GED. Practitioners may employ any of these terms to refer to educational

activities that, broadly speaking, may be grouped together under the heading of adult

literacy activities. Common usages among practitioners include ABE, which may refer to

grade levels 1-8, or adult low-level literacy, which can refer to grade levels 1-4. Some

curricula focus on life skills as opposed to mastery of coding/de-coding skills and also

may be identified as ABE.

As Sparks and Peterson (2000) note, the term adult basic education may also refer

to any fundamental set of skills that are necessary for functioning as an adult. The skills

may not necessarily be those traditionally regarded as skills relating to reading or writing.

Basic skills education may involve literacy skills but may also involve skills required to

perform to some levels, such as operating a computer. It is in this sense that literacy can

be attached to particular tasks as in computer literacy or a particular domain of adult life

as in civic literacy. Literacy in this latter sense is outside the scope of this paper.

2.0 Theoretical Perspectives on Literacy

Education is fundamentally both cultural and ideological. It is cultural in the

sense that it must be meaningful and mesh with the values, norms, traditions that are

meaningful within the social system of the society. It is ideological in that any given

4

policy or program is constituted within a nexus of conflicting interests relating to

purpose, goals, needs, and outcomes. Because debates over adult literacy policy and

programs involve assumptions regarding these elements of policy and programming, it is

vital to understand the theoretical perspectives on literacy to assess current policy and its

impact on service populations and programs. In the following discussion, three views or

models of literacy are presented: the school-based, functional, and socio cultural/

ideological.

2.1 School-based literacy

Following the passage of the 1965 Adult Education Act, federally funded adult

programs generally followed a school-based model. Literacy was understood primarily

in terms of school grade levels. Grade levels one through eight constituted adult basic

education. Adult basic education programs in turn were subdivided into low-level

literacy (grade levels one through four) and midrange literacy (grade levels five through

eight). Grade levels nine through twelve constituted adult secondary or GED. Assessment

instruments used to evaluate literacy levels such as the widely used Test of Adult Basic

Education (TABE) were designed to yield grade level equivalents. The standardized tests

used in adult literacy have been predominantly adult versions of standardized

achievement tests used for children (Askov, 2000).

The assumption on which the school-based model rests is that skills and

competencies assessed in the classroom are directly transferable to other contexts.

Knowing how to read and write is treated as if it were an "autonomous" phenomenon,

independent of the context in which it is used (Street, 1984). In this view, "writing

presents utterance and thought as uninvolved in all else, somehow self-contained,

5

complete" (Ong, 1982, p. 132). A logical extension of this idea is that the meaning of

any given text is assumed to be unambiguous and independent of context or the

subjectivity of the reader or the author. Consequently, school-based literacy assumes that

once literacy skills are mastered in the classroom, learners can apply the skills in any

reading task whether that is in the workplace, the home, or any other settings of public

and private life.

2.2 Competency-based or Functionalist Model

In the 1970s the Adult Performance Level (APL) study was a serious attempt to

define and assess literacy competencies required for adequate functioning of adult roles

in modern society. Another development was the California Assessment of Student

Achievement System (CASAS) that was designed around the knowledge required to

perform in particular life situations. While both approaches garnered wide attention,

neither system achieved universal adoption. Nevertheless, they did have a significant

impact in the way literacy was conceptualized (Merrifield, 1998). Literacy gradually

became understood as context-dependent (Hunter and Harman, 1979).

In this model, literacy is understood as the basic language skills required to meet

the responsibilities of adult life. This concept of literacy is closely associated with the

idea that adults have specific functions or roles to fulfill (Sparks and Peterson, 2000).

Literacy is more than just being able to code and decode text—it is the ability to

comprehend, interpret, analyze, respond, and interact within the variety of complex

situations in which adults encounter various kinds of information. Each context—school,

work, military, civic and family—requires a different kind of literacy competency (Sticht

and Armstrong, 1996). Competency-based literacy is "the possession of, or access to, the

6

competencies and information required to accomplish transactions entailing reading and

writing" (Levine, 1986, p. 43). In any particular context, then, literacy is for the purpose

of performing some accepted social role. Most importantly, it is not assumed that literacy

skills transfer automatically across contexts.

2.3 Socio-Cultural / Ideological Literacies Model

While the functional view of literacy is more context specific than the school-

based model, it nevertheless overlooks the fact that learners come to the educational

setting with different experiences, perspectives, values, and beliefs. It understands

literacy as related to the tasks to be performed in particular settings, but ignores the

subjectivity of the learners themselves. In effect, the cultural background of the learner is

viewed as marginal to the requirements of teaching functional literacy (Guy, 1999).

In this third perspective on literacy, the importance of the social, political, and

ideological context is central to understanding how literacy is practiced. As an example

of this approach, Ferdman (1990) related literacy to identity. He argued that literacy

develops as one masters the communication processes, the symbolic media, the cultural

norms, values, and beliefs of a particular community. Rather than execute a prescribed set

of tasks to perform a particular social role, the socio-cultural model understands literacy

as constituted through particular practices so that individuals construct their identities

based on their acculturation and participation within socio-cultural communities (Gee,

1991; 1996). From this perspective, understanding spoken or written communication,

involves knowing who is reading and who is authoring as well as the context and purpose

of communication (Merrifield, 1998).

7

This view of literacy is “ideological” because it entails sets of power relations

between author and reader, and between speaker and listener. Central to this model of

literacy is the idea that literacies are multiple and are arrayed against each other in terms

of societal relations of power. Dominant literacies are associated with dominant groups

and marginal literacies are associated with marginalized groups (Gee, 1991; 1999).

Learners from marginalized groups that acquire dominant literacy risk compromising or

forsaking their cultural or social identity. On the other hand, there is a certain amount of

social capital to be acquired in acquiring dominant literacy. Building on Freire’s (1970)

view of literacy acquisition as a political act, to acquire dominant literacy is to acquire

knowledge of the world as socially constructed and leads to the realization that one’s

social location influences—but does not determine—one’s worldview (Guy, 1999).

These theories of literacy may be found to influence debates about literacy policy,

program curricula, and outcomes. Most importantly, the competing views raise questions

about the nature of literacy and how best to determine literacy proficiency. Depending on

whether one adopts a school-based, functional, or socio-cultural view of literacy, the task

of assessing literacy changes significantly.

2.4 Measuring Proficiency

No universally accepted definition of literacy exists. In the absence of any clear

policy directive on how to measure literacy, programs used very different systems for

measuring literacy learning. Following the school based model, many programs used

standardized measures such as Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) to initially assess

learners’ literacy levels and, when feasible, to place them in the appropriate curriculum.

Many programs also used it as a means to assess learners’ grade level gains. For

8

advanced learners, the GED test, or sometimes its “practice” versions, also became a

means by which learning gains could be measured. Utilizing these kinds of instruments

was important first because there was no standard curriculum for adult literacy or the

GED and second because many literacy programs did not produce large numbers of GED

completers. But, other cases, following a contextualized view of literacy, life skills

measures such as the Texas Adult Performance Level (APL) and the CASAS were

adopted by a number of states in the attempt to provide a means of measuring literacy

levels.

The push to measure literacy learning and outcomes accelerated following the

election of a Republican House of Representatives in 1994 with its conservative political

ideology, pressures increased to call for accountability in social programs (Hayes, 1999).

Conservatives called for a government that was less intrusive in the lives of citizens

which translated into calls for reduced federal support for domestic social programs. In

order to assess priorities, closer scrutiny was given to all social programs to be

accountable for program outcomes (Beder, 1999; Merrifield, 1998). As a consequence,

adult literacy education has experienced growing pressure to develop systems of

accountability for its programs. Merrifield (1998) cited five factors contributing to the

increased call for accountability.

First, research into the meaning of literacy has produced changing

conceptualizations of literacy. What it means to be literate may differ across contexts. In

addition, different racial, ethnic, or cultural groups within complex societies may hold

different understandings of literacy. Second, stakeholders are not accountable to each

other. Currently no coherent planning system exists to mediate the interests of different

9

stakeholders. Beder (1999) asks whether conflicting accountability systems, one to adult

learners and the other to society through policy making bodies such as Congress and

State Legislatures can co-exist, and if not, which will take priority. Third, if the

emerging system of literacy is to measure the achievement of literacy for a specified

purpose, a lack of clear objectives, at the individual level and for programs, makes

accountability more difficult to develop. Fourth, there exists a fragmented and incomplete

system of adult literacy education with multiple funding sources that have different

reporting requirements. Fifth, available tools for measuring literacy proficiency are not

up to the task of providing needed data for program improvement. Researchers have

criticized the use of standardized tests, the most widely used tool for measuring learning,

because they don't necessarily demonstrate what has been learned. Standardized tests are

conceptually incompatible with the view of literacy as social practices rather than isolated

skills.

In the end, the key questions in this discussion are: What are the desired outcomes

of adult literacy education? To develop productive workers? Good citizens? Or a more

literate adult population? These issues are taken up most directly in the adult literacy

policy debate.

3.0 Adult Literacy Policy and Federal Legislation

Current adult literacy legislation, Title II of the Workforce Incentive Act

otherwise known as the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), is

administered by the U.S. Department of Education through the Department of Adult

Education and Literacy (DAEL). AEFLA provides funding to states to support adult

literacy and basic education programs. The legislation defines “adult education” as

10

education below the post secondary level for individuals age sixteen and older. It is

estimated that approximately 51 million American adults fall within this target

population.

Over the 30 year period between 1966 and the mid 1990s, changes to federal

policy involved relatively minor adjustments such as: lowering the eligibility age from

eighteen to sixteen (1970); approving funding to non-profit organizations (1984); and

encouraging partnerships among Local Educational Agencies (LEAs), labor unions and

businesses to provide workplace literacy programs. In 1991 the passage of the National

Literacy Act (NLA) replaced the Adult Education Act of 1966 and expanded access to

federal funds for nonprofit education providers (Sticht, 2002). In 1998 Congress passed

AEFLA as Title II of the Workforce Investment Act (United Department Employment

and Training Administration, 1998). As indicated in Section 202 of the Act, this new

legislation represented a major redirection in federal policy with regard to adult literacy.

Its purpose is:

to create a partnership among the Federal Government, States, and localities to

provide, on a voluntary basis, adult education and literacy services, in order to—

(1) assist adults to become literate and obtain the knowledge and skills

necessary for employment and self-sufficiency;

(2) assist adults who are parents to obtain the educational skills necessary

to become full partners in the educational development of their children;

and

(3) assist adults in the completion of a secondary school education.

(United States Employment and Training Administration, p. ??)

11

With the primary emphasis on literacy for employment, the AEFLA mandated

new performance measures for all federally funded adult education programs and

services. Another significant provision of the Act provided for the creation of the

National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) whose mission is to provide national leadership for

coordinating literacy services and policy and to serve as a national resource for adult

education and literacy programs by disseminating information on literacy to the field

(Tracy-Mumford, 2000).

States are also now required to develop five year plans for improving literacy and

to develop systems of assessment and evaluation to determine progress toward goals. In

particular, new performance measures focus on job readiness and placement as opposed

to other program or individual goals—such as personal development. Other provisions of

the AEFLA specify eligibility for participation in programs, qualified providers of

programs, how educational agencies should develop strategic plans, and how state

agencies should monitor local programs in order to assure quality improvement and

accountability (Sticht 2002).

The AEFLA provides states with a base allotment of $250,000. Additional funds

are distributed on the basis of each state’s relative proportion of adults between the ages

of 16 and 60 and who lack a high school diploma or equivalent, who are not also enrolled

in secondary school, and who are beyond the age of compulsory school attendance. State

plans must address how they intend to reach hard to serve populations such as low-

income persons, individuals with disabilities, single parents, displaced homemakers, and

individuals with multiple barriers to educational enhancement such as limited English

12

proficiency. State plans must also provide for coordination of services with other

appropriate agencies.

3.1 The Policy Shift towards Workforce Development: The Political Context for the

Passage of the AEFLA

Inasmuch as the AEFLA represented a major turn in federal literacy policy, it will

be useful to situate its adoption into a broader federal policy context. In the years

immediately prior to the passage of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Congress

passed major reform of the nation’s public welfare system. The Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and the 1997

Welfare–to–Work Program established new requirements for welfare recipients and

limited their eligibility to receive welfare. This legislation reformed federal welfare law

and instituted the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (Hayes,

1999). In order for states to continue to receive full welfare funding a certain percentage

of welfare recipients must be placed into jobs or engaged in an allowable work activity

for a prescribed number of hours per week. PRWORA also specified eligible education or

training activities that count towards work participation. These activities include areas

such as job skills training, education leading to employment, and adult secondary

education for those who lack a high school diploma. While the primary goal of welfare

reform was to move families off welfare, adult literacy education was identified as an

important bridge to employment. With welfare reform in place by 1996, the link between

adult literacy education and workforce development became the central focus of adult

literacy policy.

13

A second development was the emergence of legislative efforts to define

acceptable research models for supporting federally funded reading programs for

elementary and secondary schools (Eisenhart and Towne, 2003). The Reading Excellence

Act of 1999 defined acceptable research as:

A. the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain

valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and

reading difficulties; and

B. shall include research that —

i. employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or

experiment

ii. involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated

hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;

iii. relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid

data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements

and observations; and has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or

approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably

rigorous, objective, and scientific review. (Title VIII, Section 2252,

Reading Research Act cited in Kruidenier, 2002, p. 129)

The purpose of this language was “to ensure that federal funds used for reading education

be used in ways that reflected the best available scientific evidence” (Eisenhart and

Towne, p. 31). While there has been significant debate over the definition and value of

scientifically based research, the direction of federal legislation and policy seems to

14

provide for a narrower (rather than broader) view of acceptable research, and to give

priority (if not exclusivity) to experimental, quantitative research designs.

The underlying concern in all this would appear to be that federal funds for

education are expended for educational programs that meet quantifiable, workforce-

related objectives. While some would argue that these developments represent a positive

step in federal policy (e.g., Slavin, 2002), others have worried that such developments too

narrowly focus federal adult education policy.

In an insightful analysis of the ideological influences that have supported the

development of education policy in North America, Quigley (2000) described three basic

approaches to formulating social policy: the market model, the liberal-welfare state

model and the social redistribution model. The market model sees educational issues at

the macro-level and as related to economic impacts and outcomes. Education is seen as

producing individuals with the requisite skills, values, and attitudes to assume roles in the

workforce. The liberal-welfare state model views society’s institutions as playing an

important role in increasing access and expanding opportunity, particularly for the least

educated and most economically dependent sectors of the society. The focus of policy is

to identify barriers to access that prevent individuals from fully participating in the

resources provided by society. The social redistribution model understands policy as

resulting from the standpoint of conflict of interest among various sectors of society.

Social redistribution is informed by a more progressive/radical perspective on societal

change where social and economic inequality is seen as a byproduct of capitalist

development. Given current directions of federal education policy, generally, and adult

literacy policy in particular, the market model is clearly in the ascendancy.

15

Nevertheless, in a passionate appeal to adult literacy educators, Quigley (2000)

questioned adult education’s ability to “mould a world”, that is to play a role in shaping

the quality and responsiveness of adult education programs and services to improve the

lives of adult learners. Adult educators’ role in shaping adult literacy policy is

increasingly questioned, especially in light of clearly pressing social and economic

issues. The sharp decline in jobs in the nation’s major urban centers coupled with the

poor schools and low educational levels of African-Americans and Hispanics who most

often reside in these areas gives rise to difficult to solve urban poverty and its attendant

ills of crime, drug use, and homelessness. While studies have shown the level of literacy

and degree of success in the labor market are closely linked (Barton & Jenkins, 1995), for

the poor who live in rural areas and the central cities the emergence of the market model

of adult literacy education ignores the realities faced by these communities (Demetrion,

2005).

In short, while literacy research and theory has evolved from understanding

literacy as moving from primarily school-based definitions of literacy to functionalist to

socio cultural / ideological definitions (Askov, 2000; Merrifield, 1998), current federal

policy is based on a more restrictive view consistent with the school-based conception of

literacy supported by educational research that is clearly informed by scientific based

research models. Nevertheless, it is important not to oversimplify the policy picture. It

can be argued that within the arenas of literacy policy and practice, all three conceptions

of literacy are extant and that, to some degree, the theoretical and ideological frameworks

within which each definitions exists continue to be in conflict. It is worth bearing in mind

16

that literacy policy formation is fundamentally a political—and therefore ever-changing

process.

3.2 Impact on States and Local Programs

The organization and delivery of adult literacy services is complex and

multifaceted owing to multiple funding sources, level of funding, institutional delivery,

target populations, and goals of local educational and civic leaders. It will be helpful to

review a few of the variations and complexities of adult literacy services at the state and

local levels. In so doing, it is important to clarify that the states—not the federal

government—have primary responsibility for education funding and policy. In fact, state

and local governments provide the lion’s share of funding and regulation of public

education. I called a source at the Literacy Office in Georgia and learned that the Georgia

legislature provides $11 million for adult literacy programming; neighboring Alabama

provides just over $6 million, and Florida provides more than $300 million—a very large

sum indeed, approaching the federal allocation for all of the United States. State

allocations for adult literacy can vary widely. Belzer, Drennon and Smith (1999) present

data from five states showing funding for adult basic education and enrollments.

Although dated, these data are presented to provide the reader a perspective on the

variation among states with respect to funding and enrollments in adult literacy.

Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive state-by-state analysis of adult literacy

education.

State and local jurisdictions, such as counties or municipalities, provide for local

governing bodies that establish policies and procedures for schooling. But these state and

local educational agencies must respond to federal mandates that are the condition for

17

18

receipt of federal funding. In the state of Georgia, for example, the 32 technical colleges

have primary responsibility to provide adult literacy services. They are the designated

19

Table 1 A Comparison Funding and Enrollment of Five States, FY 1998

State 1998 Federal and State Allocation Total Enrolled

Idaho Federal: 1,334,468State: 496,400 Total: 1,830,868

10,472

Massachusetts Federal: 6,758,226 State: 19,545,465 Total: 26,303,691

13,295

Ohio Federal: 14,103,969 State: 9,151,480 Total: 23,255,449

107,701

Pennsylvania Federal: 15,898,856 State: 12,059,000 Total: 27,957,856

51,938

Virginia Federal: 8,255,055 State: 3,500,000 Total: 11,755,055

25,410

Source: Adapted from Belzer, Drennon & Smith, 1999, p. 158.

local educational agency (LEA) to receive state and federal adult education funds. Local

adult education administrators may also seek supplementary grants from foundations, the

business community, or other source to support targeted adult education services such as

family literacy or welfare to work training. At the LEA level, then, adult literacy services

may involve a range of funding sources and services depending on local needs and the

enterprise of adult education staff.

Local public school districts may also provide adult literacy services. Often these

services to adults support the primary mission of schools to teach children. Family

literacy or life skills programs that serve adults with the idea of supporting youth

education are the primary aims of such programs. The organization and structure of these

services can dramatically vary from school to school or from community to community.

With the increase in federal regulations and requirements, states increasingly are

under pressure to perform in order to continue receiving federal funding support for adult

literacy. As a consequence of the WIA’s emphasis on linking adult literacy education and

labor force development, the Department of Education established the National Reporting

System Implementation Guidelines (U.S. Department of Education, 2001) in order to

provide accountability for federal programs.

The National Reporting System (NRS) provides for measuring primary core

indicators of program effectiveness: a) helping adults acquire basic literacy skills, b)

helping adults obtain the knowledge and skills necessary for employment and self

sufficiency, c) complete high school diploma or equivalent or entry into postsecondary

education (Hayes, 1999). Among the challenges faced by state programs is the ability to

document student outcomes that address the requirements of the AEFLA. Jobs are an

20

indicator. Documenting learner achievements—particularly b) and c)—can be difficult.

Knowing whether students obtain a job or not after leaving an adult education program

requires staff to conduct follow up surveys. Because the adult education student

population has historically been mobile, it can be difficult to locate students once they

leave a program.

A long standing issue for many programs, now exacerbated by the new reporting

requirements, concerns documenting that students enrolled complete the high school

credential or its equivalent, the GED. GED testing center data bases and adult education

program student information systems are not linked with the consequence that adult

education administrators have difficulty confirming when students pass the GED test,

unless students bring in their scores to adult education program officials. Furthermore,

many programs no longer use federally issued social security numbers to identify

students which can present difficulties in tracking students through and across programs.

Inadequate student follow up is widely acknowledged as a significant barrier to obtaining

information addressing program reporting requirements (Merrifield, 1998).

Smaller programs, in particular, are at risk of being identified as failing since

resources required to implement the data management systems necessary to document

success are scarce. Demetrion (2005) has argued that the reductive cost – benefit analysis

system of program assessment often hurts small, community based programs precisely

because their effectiveness is the ability to respond rapidly to individual learner needs

rather than developing the bureaucratic systems necessary to meet state or federal

reporting requirements. In any case, supplementary federal funding to support the

21

development of state data management systems has been lacking and a number of states

are struggling to meet the new reporting requirements.

Despite these difficulties, in a 2003 report to Congress, the U.S. Department of

Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education reported that most states had

achieved learner goals as outlined in their state plans. In fact, in program year 2001-2002,

46 of the 50 states met their learner goals. It was reported that 37% of learners enrolled

in adult literacy progressed by at least one educational level2 (U.S. Department of

Education, 2003). In other words, just over a third of participants in ABE/ASE programs

advanced by an educational level during that program year. For participants enrolled in

English language acquisition skills programs (typically ESL), the report said that 34%

had advanced by at least one educational level. Of those participants who had a goal of

completing the GED, 42% actually passed the GED in 2001-2002; this represented a 27%

increase over the previous year. So, given this data reported to Congress, it would appear

that significant progress is being made in documenting learner gains. Nevertheless, while

states are moving towards better reporting systems to monitor program and learner

progress, it remains to be seen that programs can effectively move students across

multiple educational levels to achieve a high school equivalent credential or

postsecondary education.

Another issue concerns how to manage enrollment. Many programs employ an

open entry- open exit model of enrollment. Given the need to document individual

learning gains, some programs are beginning to consider managed enrollment. Under this

model, students would be required to enroll at predetermined times, and attend scheduled

2 Educational level is defined at the state and local level but typically refers to grade level as measured on a qualified test instrument such as the Test of Adult Basic Education.

22

classes rather than at times that are convenient to their schedules. Given the likelihood of

sharp budget cuts in FY 2006, programs may be forced to “cream”, i.e., select students

who are most likely to achieve the goal of getting a job or continuing with postsecondary

schooling. Suggested evidence of this would be appear to be in the reported enrollment

data that shows a decline between 1998 and 2003. However, further analysis is required

to determine if programs are in fact “creaming”.

A final issue concerns how best to serve the burgeoning limited English

proficiency population in adult literacy programs. Many participants pursue ESL to

acquire language proficiency sufficient enough to get or perform on the job. In addition,

in some areas this population can be highly mobile. However, when programs cannot

document student progress, or when students are excessively absent, they can be dropped.

3.3 Research on the Social Impact of Adult Literacy Education

In this climate of increasing accountability and policy that focuses on work

related literacy education outcomes, program directors as well as researchers have taken

interest in documenting the qualitative as well as quantitative impacts of adult literacy

education. A primary motivation for these studies has been to document outcomes in

response to criticisms of lack of results. Researchers have looked broadly at outcomes.

Quigley (1997) identified four purposes for literacy education: to combat poverty, to

acculturate immigrants, to promote morality, to reduce crime and to promote economic

growth. Bingman, Ebert, and Bell (2000) observed that while these outcomes of literacy

education were important, they were not used to evaluate programs. In an effort to inform

policy makers about the multiplicity of purposes for literacy education, researchers began

to study the various outcomes of literacy education.

23

In a major study, commissioned by the National Center for the Study of Adult

Learning and Literacy (NCSALL), Beder (1999) reviewed 23 studies deemed rigorous3

enough upon which to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the outcomes and impacts

of adult literacy programs in the United States. Eleven conclusions were drawn based on

a review of these 23 studies.

1. In general, it is likely that participants in adult literacy receive gains in

employment.

2. In general, participants in adult literacy education believe their jobs improve over

time. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that participation in

adult literacy education causes job improvement.

3. In general, it is likely that participation in adult literacy education results in

earnings gains.

4. In general, adult literacy education has a positive influence on participants

continued education.

5. Although the evidence suggests that participants in welfare sponsored (JOBS

Program) adult literacy education do experience a reduction in welfare

dependence, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether adult literacy education in

general reduces welfare dependence for participants.

3 Beder reviewed 68 outcomes studies of adult literacy education and identified 23 that were deemed most credible using the following criteria: study included an outcome/impact component; research design was adequately described; sample included an adequate number of cases; sampling plan was adequate; data collection procedures were adequate objectives measures were used to measure outcomes; measures were valid and reliable; research design included a control group; and inferences were sound.

24

6. Learners perceive that participation in adult literacy education improves their

skills in reading, writing, and mathematics.

7. As measured by tests, the evidence is insufficient to determine whether or not

participants in adult literacy education gain in basic skills.

8. In general, adult literacy education provides gains in GED acquisition for

participants entering oat the adult secondary education (ASE) level.

9. Participation in adult literacy education has a positive impact on learners self

image.

10. According to learners self reports, participation in adult literacy education has a

positive impact on parents’ involvement in their children’s education.

11. Learners perceive that their personal goals are achieved through participation in

adult literacy education.

Bingman, Ebert and Bell (2000) report on two Tennessee studies that identified a

variety of learner outcomes. The Tennessee Longitudinal Study, conducted between 1992

and 1995, focused on four areas: socio economic well being; social well being; personal

well being; and physical well being. In another study, Bingman and Ebert (2000)

examined how ten adult literacy students in Tennessee defined the meaning and outcomes

of their participation in adult education programs. Nine participants reported acquiring

new literacy skills; new skills in reading, writing, and computation led to changes in the

ways they used literacy in their lives. Changes were in a practical everyday activities;

increased access to an understanding of expository text; and more extensive reading.

25

Participants described positive changes in their sense of self, a strong sense of

accomplishment, and a new and stronger voice or new opportunities to express

themselves.

An important part of their theoretical discussion had to do with learners’ self-

esteem. While prior research had shown that self-esteem was often found as an outcome

of adult basic education, Bingman and Ebert (2000) observed that even while an adult

might have a positive overall self concept, he or she might still feel low self-esteem with

regard to schooling or literacy proficiency. Though not generalizable, the findings

suggest that participation in adult literacy education may have as much to do with

psychological development as with more "tangible" outcomes as employment. Their

findings are consistent with other studies of literacy outcomes (Fingeret and Drennon,

1997; Foster, 1989; Beder 1999).

In a study of ABE students in a number of geographically dispersed sites across

several states, Purcell- Gates, Degener, Jacobson, and Soler (2000) conceptualized

literacy as a set of social practices. The findings from this mixed-methods study of

literacy outcomes found that adult literacy students report change in frequency and/or

type of out school literacy practices if materials used in instruction were drawn from their

real life contexts as opposed to school-based texts. In summary, these and similar studies

provide documentation of meaningful learning outcomes that are not limited to

employment or the pursuit of postsecondary education.

4.0 Providers

In this section, I present a brief description of the agencies that provide adult

literacy education services through the federal funded system. Over 4000 agencies

26

receive federal funds to support programs in adult literacy. Almost sixty percent were

public school districts, 15 percent were two-year institutions such as community colleges

or technical institutes, 14 percent were community based agencies, four percent were

correctional institutions with the remaining seven percent a variety of other types of

agencies (Sticht 2002). The particular configuration of providers—public LEAs, public

agencies, and private non-profits—will vary widely from state to state. Public LEAs

typically include public schools, two year technical or community colleges; public

agencies may include public libraries and correctional institutions; and private not for

profits include a range of community-based organizations, churches, synagogues or

temples, or national organizations that sponsor literacy. The types of institutions can be

roughly grouped into two categories: public, formal institutions of education, and private

non-profits. Federal funds flow to the states and are administered through a designated

state office of education. In turn, the states allocate funds to local educational agencies

(LEAs) located in the various counties and municipalities.

4.1 Public Agencies and Institutions

Although the range of services across these institutions and agencies varies

widely, some common patterns exist. Many programs, particular those housed in LEAs

employ a traditional classroom format while others may use individualized instruction

such as tutoring or computer-based instruction (Comings, Reder, and Sum, 2001). Many

programs offer combinations of instructional formats to accommodate adults varying

needs. Classes may be offered throughout the day as well as in the evenings and on

weekends. Variations in scheduling and curricula relate to funding levels and

accessibility to target populations.

27

A major issue facing formal education institutions is scheduling classes and

services to suit adult lifestyles. Working adults typically find it difficult to attend classes

during the day. Given sufficient resources, many programs provide for open enrollment

to permit adults to enter instruction when they are ready rather than having to wait for a

new class to be scheduled. Women, especially unwed mothers, find it difficult to attend

without child care services. Regular attendance can be problematic if classes are not

accessible by public transportation.

4.2 Non-profit Literacy Providers

Not for profit organizations such as Laubach Literacy and Literacy Volunteers of

America play an important role in the provision of literacy services throughout America

(Sticht, 2004). Despite their history of working in the area of adult literacy, not-for-profit

community organizations were originally ineligible to receive federal dollars. Non-profits

were required to partner with LEAs that had the option of providing funds to not for

profits. Community-based organizations often serve the least educated and hardest to

reach adults. The coming together of community organizations was the result of a

multiyear effort that had its roots in Chicago, Illinois in the early 1980s. In 1984, a

national coalition of community organizations emerged in support of the National

Literacy Act. The Act provided for increased access of community based organizations to

literacy funds.

A major development in the non-profit sector was the merger in 2001 of two of

the largest literacy volunteer organizations in the United States—Laubach Literacy

International and Literacy Volunteers of America. They joined to form a new

organization named ProLiteracy Worldwide. The new organization provides services for

28

almost 250,000 adult learners through a national network of more than 150,000

volunteers and almost 1500 local, state, and regional literacy providers (Sticht, 2004).

A comprehensive study of not-for-profit organizations that provide adult literacy

services is yet to be conducted, a few examples will give the reader a general sense of the

work they do. In New York City, the El Barrio Popular education program serves

women primarily from the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. Most participants are

mothers receiving welfare and many are displaced workers from the garment industry.

The program employs both Spanish-language and English as a Second Language teachers

who are bilingual. The curriculum is bilingual and bi-literate incorporating dialogue,

reading and writing in both English and Spanish (D’Amico, 2004). In a similar vein,

Universidad Popular provides literacy and English-language instruction to Spanish-

speaking adults (Jeria, 1999). In North Carolina, Literacy South is a nonprofit

organization that provides referral and clearinghouse services for adults seeking literacy

education programs. Literacy South also works with nonprofits in coordinating services

and in providing information to improve the quality of service (D’Amico, 2004).

Lockard (1999) describes an adult literacy education program for Navajo Indians

in Arizona and Colorado. While the focus of this program is the preservation of Navajo

language and culture, English language literacy is taught in conjunction with Navajo

literacy. The curriculum is designed to help Navajo adults and adolescents reclaim their

cultural identity and to develop a sharp awareness of the relationship between their

experiences as Native Americans on a reservation and the educational and economic

policies of the Bureau of Indian Affairs that sets policy for education and other services

they receive.

29

Sheared (1994, 1999) discusses a culturally relevant approach to literacy in an

adult basic education class in San Francisco, California. The program serves primarily

African American participants and is designed to help them acquire literacy skills by

using culturally appropriate communication. She identifies how African American

learners often prefer to communicate in a collective, participatory voice instead of sitting

in a traditional classroom where students must wait their turn to be called upon.

Finally, religious organizations such as churches, synagogues, and mosques may

also provide literacy services although many do not qualify for and are not interested in

receiving state funding for the programs they administer. Under the Bush

administration’s faith-based initiative4, such programs may, in the future, qualify for

funding and become subject to government oversight. These examples illustrate the

some of the ways in which community based and non profit agencies provide literacy

services by assisting adults to “read the word and the world” and using literacy to

respond to issues they face in the context of the communities in which they live.

4 The phrase "faith-based programs" refers to the policy initiative by the Bush administration to

make federal funding available to religious organizations. The policy implication of the principle of the

separation of church and state has historically restricted the eligibility of faith-based organizations such as

churches, mosques, and synagogues to receive federal government grants. The Bush administration has

argued that religious organizations are often more effective than government funded social service agencies

because they integrate spirituality and religious faith with the provision of social services. This policy is

very controversial because of the way that the separation of church and state has been interpreted by the

federal courts. (See Kathryn Tenpas, Can an office change a country? The White House office on faith-

based and community initiatives, a year of review, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Washington,

DC: Pew Research Center, 2002, http://pewforum.org/events/022002/tenpas.pdf).

30

5.0 Federal Funding

A number of researchers have concluded that adult literacy programs historically

have been under funded and understaffed (Sheared 1994; Amstutz, 2001; Sparks &

Peterson, 2000). Despite growing enrollments in adult literacy since 1966, growth in

funding has been intermittent. For example, in the mid 1980s, during the Reagan

administration, federal funding for adult literacy actually declined and then remained

level while enrollments were growing at a dramatic rate primarily due to the increase in

English as a Second Language instruction. In the early 1990s, First Lady Barbara Bush,

an avid supporter of adult literacy education, promoted literacy education and funding

grew at a dramatic rate. During the first Clinton administration, funding again leveled off

and actually declined before jumping sharply in 1996 and 1997.

From 2001 to 2005 federal funding was fairly level—right at 500 million dollars.

At the time of this writing, the Bush administration has proposed deep cuts of nearly 75

% in federal funding support for adult literacy education. It is noteworthy that that

proposed budget for FY 2006 will be approximately the level that was allocated twenty

years ago (FY 1986 and 1987). While major policy initiatives such as the Iraq war effort

and the growing concern over homeland security have caused a shift in priorities away

from domestic to international policy, adult education—along with other domestic social

programs—risks sharp cutbacks that will severely affect not only the level but also the

scope of service.

Figure 1 Annual AEFLA Funding, 1985 to 20065

5 Figures for 2005 are estimates based on projected expenditures; figures for 2006 are projections

based on President’s Bush’s budget which has not yet attained congressional approval.

31

Federal Funding for Adult Education 1985 to 2006

050

100150200250300350400450500550

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Year

Amou

nt ($

) Mill

ions

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal year 1985 – 2006 State Tables for the U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved online: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html

If the proposed cutbacks in funding are signed into law, states will face difficult

choices regarding the organization and delivery of adult literacy services. States can

choose to replace lost federal dollars with state tax dollars thereby increasing pressure on

already stretched state budgets; or they can scale back services in terms of numbers or

types of students served. One possible consequence of the latter choice would be to limit

service to those students likely to transition into employment or postsecondary education

within a short period of time. The effect of this would be to reduce or eliminate services

to those adults who are most in need such as the poor, under educated, disabled, or

unskilled.

32

33

6.0 Participation in Adult Literacy Programs

The U.S. Department of Education periodically determines the target population

for adult literacy and basic education services. This determination is made by counting

the number of persons, age 16 and older, not having a high school diploma or its

equivalent. Based on the 2000 census, it was estimated that more than 51 million adults,

or approximately 23 percent of the adult population, possess limited literacy skills. The

number is almost evenly divided between males and females. Table 2 breaks this number

down by gender by level of schooling completed. The majority of adults who lack a high

school diploma have between nine and twelve years of schooling. However, a large

number—more than 15 million adults—have eight or fewer years of schooling.

Table 3 presents the percentage of the number of adults without a high school

diploma by race/ethnicity. Whites comprise the majority of the target population (66

percent) while 15 percent are African American, three percent Asian, and three percent

are members of two or more major race groups, one percent are American Indian and

Table 2

Adult Education Target Population by Number of Years of Schooling and Gender

Level of Educational Attainment Number in Target Population

Male

Female

Total 51,360,337 25,811,060 25,549,277

0 to 4 Years of Schooling 4,618,949 2,295,193 2,323,756

5 to 8 years of schooling 11,325,982 5,635,805 5,690,177

9 to 12 years of schooling 35,415,406 17,880,062 17,535,344

Source: Lasater and Elliott, 2004.

34

35

Table 3

Adult Education Target Population by Race/Ethnicity6

Race/ethnicity Percent

White 65.9

African American 15.4

Asian American 3

Native American 3

Bi racial and other groups 14

Hispanic 26

Source: Lasater and Eliott, 2004.

6 Figures do not add to 100% because Hispanics can be of any racial category.

Alaska Native (Lasater and Elliott, 2004). Twenty six percent of the target population is

of Hispanic descent. Of the 51+ million adults with less than twelve years of schooling,

nearly a third, more than 16 million persons, speaks a first language other than English.

The largest language sub group is comprised of those persons whose first language is

Spanish. This has been the fastest growing sub group with adult literacy over the past 20

years.

Although census reports of adults with less than a high school credential identify

the number who are eligible for adult literacy programs, this measure does not provide an

indication of literacy proficiency. The National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), first

conducted in 1992, employed a broad definition literacy proficiency which was defined

as “using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals,

and to develop one’s knowledge and potential” (National Center for Education Statistics,

Defining and Measuring Literacy, available online:

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/defining/defining.asp). The de facto norm for literacy proficiency

is competence in the English language. The NALS provides one of the most detailed

estimates of English literacy currently in use. Literacy skills are documented along three

dimensions: document, prose, and quantitative literacy. Five literacy proficiency levels

are indicated based on scores that range from 225 and below (the lowest level) to 375 and

higher (the highest level).

For the 1992 NALS, more than 13,000 adults across the country were

interviewed. Participants were randomly selected to represent the adult population of the

country as a whole. Another 1,000 adults were interviewed in each of 11 states that

chose to participate in a concurrent survey designed to provide results that are

36

comparable to the national data. Based upon a random selection of prison locations 1100

inmates in 80 federal and state prisons were also surveyed. Altogether a total of 26,000

adults participated in the survey (Kaestle, Campbell, Finn, Johnson, Mikulecky, 2001).

An analysis of the 1992 NALS data revealed that literacy proficiency was most

strongly related to level of formal schooling. High school graduates had an average score

of 270 compared with 231 for non high school completers on the prose literacy scale. An

analysis of literacy proficiency in terms of race/ethnicity found that Hispanic adults

averaged 216 compared to 237 for African American and 287 for Whites. The authors

reasoned that the correlation between racial/ethnic groups and literacy proficiency is

partly explained by the differing levels of education attainment, parental education,

income or other variables that differ by race (Kaestle et al., 2001).

A third finding from this study revealed that average literacy proficiency rises in

relationship to cohort age up to the cohort in their forties. Scores tend to decline for

cohorts in their fifties and beyond. What this means, according to the report, is that

literacy is most strongly associated with years of formal schooling. Age cohorts from the

20 to the 40s tend to continue to pursue formal education. Age cohorts in their 50s and

older have not pursued formal education to the same extent. The conclusion is therefore

drawn that literacy proficiency levels increase as level of formal schooling increases.

Nevertheless, it is important to understand that literacy is very complex and no simple

relationship drawn between two variables can account for the variation in literacy levels

across socioeconomic, racial, and gender lines because not all groups benefit equally

from formal education. Not only is there a relationship between formal education and

37

38

literacy proficiency, but also between race and ethnicity, educational attainment, race and

ethnicity and literacy proficiency.

6.1 Participation in Adult Literacy and the Unequal Distribution of Literacy Proficiency

Participation in adult literacy education programs funded by the federal

government show that Hispanics and African Americans together account for more than

one half of all learners served. Compared to the population as a whole, Whites make up

75% of the population, Hispanics make up 12.5%, and African Americans are 12.3% of

the population. And Asians, Native Americans or Alaska natives, and native Hawaiians

and Pacific Islanders account for another 4.5%. In comparing the participation rates in

adult literacy with the population as a whole, it can be seen that people of color are

disproportionately represented (D’Amico, 2004).

Table 4 shows that, over the six year period from 1998 to 2003, Blacks and

Hispanics accounted for more than half of enrollments in adult literacy. However, over

the six year period, overall enrollments declined despite increases in federal funding.

Traditionally, adult literacy programs have served the economically marginalized.

Persons who were severely economically disadvantaged by virtue of income,

employment, welfare, or homeless status accounted for a third of adult literacy

enrollments during the 1995 to 1998 period (Table 5). Sticht (2002) noted that from 1992

to 1999 federal ABE program served nearly 8 million working poor, 3.3 million welfare

recipients, and more than nine million who were unemployed.

39

Table 4

Enrollment in ABE by Race/Ethnicity, 1998 to 20037

Year AmericanIndian/ Alaskan Native

Asian/Pacific Islander

Black, not of Hispanic

origin

Hispanic White, notof Hispanic

origin

Total

1998 42,333 481,037 662,109 1,663,984 1,171,090 4,020,553

1999

51,466 384,975 621,914 1,469,218 1,078,817 3,606,390

2000 48,532 214,698 614,475 1,029,608 984,594 2,891,907

2001 43,680 211,736 548,562 1,033,442 835,431 2,928,815

2002 41,210 243,874 559,247 1,112,803 830,282 2,887,416

2003 35,996 227,193 540,200 1,143,000 787,797 2,734,186

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy, adapted from D’Amico, 2004, p. 22. Available online: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/aefacts.html

7 2003 was the last year that enrollment data were available as of this writing.

Table 5

Number of adults in economically disadvantaged categories served by ABE

Year Working poor

Unemployed Welfare recipients

Homeless Yearly total served

1995-96 1,017,268 1,196,866 436,212 38,113 4,042,172

1996-97 1,026,395 1,103,475 383,116 30,326 4,017,272

1997-98 957,490 934,559 362,349 20,534 4,020,500

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy. Cited in D’Amico, 2004, p. 20. In addition to the link between economic status and literacy, there exists a strong

relationship between race/ethnicity and literacy proficiency. An even more telling finding

can be discerned by analyzing the data from the NALS household survey that reported

the mean proficiency scores of adults by race/ethnicity and proficiency level. The

distribution of literacy proficiency among adults in the American population clearly

reflects the structure of economic, political, and social inequality in American society. As

noted by Sum, Kirsch, and Taggart (2002):

The continued high levels of inequality in literacy, math, and science knowledge

among elementary and secondary students, young adults, and the entire adult

population of the U.S. do not bode well for the future outlook on inequality in the

schools, the economy, the labor markets, and our social and civic life. If we fail to

reduce the degree of inequality in literacy skills over the coming decade, then the

cognitive demands for access to most high-skilled, high-wage jobs in U.S. labor

markets and for active participation in civic and political life will create a

bifurcated distribution of economic and political rewards in the future. These data

40

41

should serve as a call to action by all who care about achieving a more egalitarian

set of economic, political, and social outcomes for the nation in the first decade of

the 21st century. (p. 30)

As D’Amico (2004) reports people of color—Hispanics and African Americans—

are over-represented at the lowest literacy proficiency levels (Tables 6 and 7). This

condition is unlikely to change unless fundamental change in policy towards adult

literacy education is achieved to expand opportunities for low literate adult to acquire the

skills and social capital necessary to participate in the economic, civic, and political life

of the nation.

42

Table 6 Mean Prose, Document and Numeracy Proficiency Scores by Race/Ethnicity

Scale White Black Hispanic

Prose 280 237 208

Document

280 230 213

Quantitative 287 224 212

Source: Sum, Kirsch, and Taggart, 2002, p. 23.

Table 7 Percentage of Adults at Lowest Level of Literacy by Race/Ethnicity, NALS, 1996 Ethnic Group % of All

U.S. Adults % of Adults in Prose Level I

% of Adults in Document

Level I

% of Adults in Quantitative

Level I White 76 51 54 50

Black

11 20 20 23

Hispanic 10 23 21 22

Asian/ Pacific Islander

2 4 3 3

Source: D’Amico, 2004.

6.2 The International Adult Literacy Survey

How does literacy proficiency among U.S. adults compare with that of other

countries? The answer to the question may be found in results of the International Adult

Literacy Survey (IALS). First conducted in the fall of 1994 the IALS surveyed literacy

proficiency in seven countries. A second survey of twenty-two countries was completed

in 1998 with a report published in 2001 entitled, Literacy in the Information Age: Final

Report of the International Adult Literacy Survey published by the Organization of

Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and Statistics Canada (2001). The

goal of these studies was to create comparable literacy profiles across national, linguistic

and cultural boundaries.

On the prose literacy and document literacy scales, the United States ranks ninth

on the prose literacy scale and fourteenth on the document literacy scale. Except for the

bottom five countries (Hungary, Slovenia, Chile, Portugal, and Poland), the United States

has one of the highest proportion of its population at the lowest level of literacy, levels 1

and 2 for both document and prose literacy. In the comparisons of quantitative literacy,

the United States ranks in the lower half of the nations compared. Among the significant

findings of the report is that there is a close association between higher level literacy

skills and participation in the labor force signaling that the United States risks a work

force that is lagging in basic literacy skills.

An even more telling finding is that when nations are compared in terms of adult

who have not completed high school, the scores of American adults are among the lowest

of all countries in the sample ranking ahead of only Slovenia, Chile, and Portugal. This

43

is significant since this population represents the target population of adult literacy and

basic education programs under the auspices of the Adult Education and Family Literacy

Act, Title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. While international comparisons

should be made with caution, the picture emerges that the United States is lagging behind

most nations in the survey in terms of addressing the lack of literacy skills of the most

under educated segments of the population.

7.0 Looking to the Future

A number of challenges as well as opportunities face the adult educators in the

United States. While federal policy changes of the past 10 years have signaled the need

for important shifts in the current system, other more recent developments have changed

the national climate with respect to education’s place among the nation’s priorities.

Chief among these were the events of September 11, 2001 and, in their aftermath, the

nation’s struggle to fight the war on terror. Nevertheless, as literacy advocates have

increasingly made clear, the continued strength of the nation’s economic and political

systems may be at risk if policy makers fail to recognize the importance of high literacy

proficiency across all segments of the population.

7.1 Funding

A number of challenges face the adult literacy education community in the United

States. Most immediate is the draconian budget cut proposed by the Bush administration

and adopted by Congress8 for fiscal year 2006. Many states are unlikely to make up the

difference because of their own budget circumstances. As of this writing, Congress has

8 As of this writing, Congress has adopted a Bush administration budget that retains the budget cuts despite intensive lobbying efforts on the part of the adult education and literacy community. Lobbying efforts continue within the literacy advocacy community.

44

adopted a Bush administration budget that retains the budget cuts despite intensive

lobbying efforts on the part of the adult literacy advocates. If the federal budget

reductions are enacted, adult literacy education will look drastically different over the

next several years as states respond to the severe reductions in budget allocation. Factors

contributing to the challenges faced by states are the pressure on the federal budget to

adequately finance the military effort in Iraq, enhancing homeland security, and

managing the record setting federal budget deficits of the past several years9.

7.2 Literacy Policy Agenda

For years, appeals have been made from various corners for literacy leaders and

practitioners to become proactive in the policy setting process (Quigley, 2000). In

September, 2000 members of the National Coalition for Literacy and representatives of

other groups met in Washington to discuss an agenda for adult literacy. The report From

Margins to the Mainstream: an Action Agenda for Literacy (National Institute for

Literacy, 2001) outlined 76 recommendations aimed at improving adult literacy in

America. A major goal was to achieve a funding level of one billion dollars by 2010

(Sticht, 2004).

7.3 Research Developments in Adult Literacy

As part of its agenda for education reform at the primary and secondary levels, the

Bush administration Department of Education in 2001 announced that policy should be

based on “credible” research. This was as much an ideological and policy shift as it was

a rhetorical. In effect, non-statistical, criterion-based sampling procedures (as opposed to

9 The federal budget deficit has been running in the 200 to 300 million dollar range and is expected to approach 400 million dollars in the current fiscal year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

45

random sampling) research that was not based on positivist principles of knowledge

production would be discounted in any policy discussion. Termed evidence-based

research (Demetrion, 2005), this new approach to research and policy development

signaled that the literacy research community would struggle to find a way to represent

the full range of literacy practice in a fairly narrow range of methods to produce

knowledge. This disjuncture between the range and richness of literacy practice and

learning and federal policy governing acceptable research further served to undermine a

view of literacy not based on universal standards and statistically documentable

outcomes.

This represented a significant challenge to adult literacy since in the years just

prior to 2001, several reports (several are discussed in the Social Impact of Literacy

section of this paper) were developed to show the significance of literacy learning in a

variety of areas of adult life. These studies either incorporated or employed exclusively

qualitative methods (Quigley, 1990; Sheared, 1994; Bingman & Ebert, 2000; Bingman,

Ebert & Bell, 2000; Purcell-Gates, Degener, Jacobson, & Soler, 2000). The implication

is that the findings of such studies would be either disregarded or discounted in informing

policy makers about promising literacy practices.

7.4 Practitioner and Learner Groups

One promising set of developments has been the emergence of national learner

organizations and practitioner summit to address literacy education needs. The Voice for

Adult Literacy United for Education (VALUE) is a national organization of students in

literacy. A national leadership was held in Columbus, Ohio in 2001. The organization

recognizes learners who have taken leadership roles to advocate for adult literacy

46

education. A former student president of the organization said: “As taxpayers and voters,

let’s see that the Adult Education and Literacy System of the United States is properly

funded and that it is regarded as an important part of our education system” (cited in

Sticht, 2004, p. 6).

Growing out of the National Literacy Summit, NCSALL developed a facilitator

guide for focus group discussion and planning sessions of adult literacy educators. This

was a significant step toward promoting dialogue among literacy educators who,

typically, work in isolation from each other. The guide is intended to facilitate

conversations among providers and practitioners about moving forward with a broad

national agenda for adult literacy education. The discussions are aimed at bringing

together program staff, Workforce Investment Boards, state-level ABE staff and other

stakeholders in adult literacy education (Nash & Smith, 2000). Furthermore, these efforts

are consistent with research-based recommendations (Quigley, 1997) that propose that

literacy practitioners find ways to dialogue about common problems and to use state level

organizations and institutions to facilitate this. These efforts, tentative as they are, signal

an increasing awareness among learners and practitioners that concerted action is

required in order to improve the status and visibility of adult literacy education. While it

may be too hasty to speak of an adult literacy movement in the United States, the

elements are present for one to develop.

7.5 Leveling the Playing Field

Despite efforts to organize and create constructive dialogue around policy issues

affecting programs, many adult literacy practitioners often say they feel like the poor

cousin in the field of education. The fact is that in the adult literacy education system,

47

relatively few programs are housed in exclusively adult education agencies whose leaders

fully understand and are committed to adult education and literacy. Comings, Reder, and

Sum (2001) have recommended that “the adult education and literacy system should be

part of a national lifelong learning system (p.23)” to fully address the literacy needs of

learners in work and other areas of adult life. They argue that the system should be

valued for its ability to achieve specific economic benefits and not be “seen as another

social program” (p.23). They ground their analysis in the prediction that unless the

problems of adult under education and illiteracy, especially for those persons at the

lowest level of the NALS scale, are fully addressed, America will develop:

two very different populations: one with an education sufficient to do well in the

new economy, help their children succeed in school, and play a leadership role in

their communities, and the other whose lack of language proficiency, education,

or basic skills leaves them and their families beyond the reach of opportunity and

on the margins of civic and social life. (p. 24)

Even as the authors here frame their argument on terms familiar to policy makers

concerned about America’s economic competitiveness, they are also concerned about the

social impacts of literacy. These comments are brought into even clearer focus by Sum,

Kirsch, and Taggart (2002) who argue that significant improvement in U.S. international

educational standing,

will require substantial improvements in the literacy proficiencies of Blacks,

Hispanics, and the foreign born from all racial/ethnic groups. The applauded

multicultural diversity of the U.S. population needs to be accompanied by much

48

greater multicultural uniformity in literacy proficiencies if the national goals of

racial/ethnic economic and educational equality are to be achieved. (p. 22)

These are important challenges facing literacy educators—indeed all Americans—in the

coming decade. It remains to be seen whether adult literacy educators can, to borrow

Quigley’s phrase, “mould a world.”

49

References

Amstutz, D. (2001). Adult basic education: Equipped for the future or for failure? In P.

A. Sissel (Ed.), Making space: Merging theory and practice in adult education

(pp. 182-194). Westport: Bergin and Garvey Publishers.

Askov, E. N. (2000). Adult Literacy. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of

Adult and Continuing Education (pp. 247-262). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Barton, P. E., & Jenkins, L. (1995). Literacy and dependency: the literacy skills of

welfare recipients in the United States. Princeton, NJ: ETS Policy Information

Center.

Beder, H. (1999). The outcomes and impacts of adult literacy education in the United

States (Vol. 6). Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning

and Literacy.

Belzer, A., Drennon, C., & Smith, C. (1999). Building professional development systems

in adult basic education: lessons from the field. In J. Comings & B. Garner & C.

Smith (Eds.), Annual review of adult learning and literacy (Vol. 2). San

Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Bingman, M. B., & Ebert, O. (2000). "I've come a long way": Learner-identified

outcomes of participation in adult literacy programs. Cambridge, MA.: National

Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy Harvard Graduate School of

Education.

50

Bingman, M. B., Ebert, O., & Bell, B. (2000). Outcomes of participation in adult basic

education the importance of learners' perspectives. Cambridge, MA: National

Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy Harvard Graduate School of

Education.

Comings, J. P., Reder, S. M., & Sum, A. (2001). Building a level playing field the need to

expand and improve the national and state adult education and literacy systems.

Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy,

Harvard Graduate School of Education.

D'Amico, D. (2004). Race, Class, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in Adult Literacy:

Power, Pedagogy, and Programs. In J. P. Comings & B. Garner & C. Smith

(Eds.), Review of Adult Learning and Literacy (Vol. 4, pp. 17-69). Mahwah, New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Demetrion, G. (2005). Conflicting Paradigms in Adult Literacy Education: In Quest of a

U. S. Democratic Politics of Literacy. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Eisenhart, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on

"Scientifically Based Research". Educational Researcher, 32(7), 31-38.

Ferdman, B. M. (1990). Literacy and Cultural Identity. Harvard Educational Review,

60(2), 204.

Fingeret, A., & Drennon, C. (1997). Literacy for Life: New Learners, New Practices.

New York: Teachers College Press.

51

Foster, L. (1989). Self-esteem and Mental Imagery in the ABE Classroom: A Holistic

Perspective, Unpublished Master's Qualifying Paper. Raleigh: North Carolina

State University.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Gee, J. P. (1991). Socio-Cultural Approaches to Literacy (Literacies). Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 12, 31-48.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses (2nd ed.).

London: Taylor & Francis.

Gee, J. P. (1999). The New Literacy Studies and the "Social Turn." U.S.; Wisconsin.

Guy, T. C. (1999). Culturally relevant instruction for African American adult literacy

learners. Models for Adult and Lifelong Learning, Volume 2(Pedagogy for Adult

Learners: Methods and Strategies), 117-159.

Hayes, E. (1999). Policy issues that drive the transformation of adult literacy. In L. G.

Martin & J. C. Fisher (Eds.), The Welfare-to-Work Challenge for Adult Literacy

Educators (Vol. 83, pp. 3-14). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Hunter, C. S. J., & Harman, D. (1979). Adult illiteracy in the United States: a report to

the Ford Foundation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jeria, J. (1999). The quest for visibility in adult education: the hispanic experience. In T.

C. Guy (Ed.), Providing Culturally Relevant Adult Education: A Challenge for the

21st Century (Vol. 82, pp. 49-65). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

52

Kaestle, C. F., Campbell, A., Finn, J. D., Johnson, S. T., & Mikulecky, L. (2001). Adult

literacy and education in America. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Kruidenier, J. (2002). Research based principles for adult basic education reading

instruction. Portsmouth, NH.: Partnership for Literacy.

Lasater, B., & Elliott, B. (2004). Profiles of the Adult Education Target Population:

Information from the 2000 Census. Research Park Triangle, NC.: Center for

Research in Education.

Levine, K. (1986). The social context of literacy. London ; Boston: Routledge & Kegan

Paul.

Lockard, L. (1999). Navajo language and culture in adult education. In T. C. Guy (Ed.),

Culturally relevant adult education: a challenge for the 21st century (Vol. 82, pp.

67-78). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Merrifield, J. (1998). Contested ground: performance accountability in adult basic

education. Cambridge, MA.: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and

Literacy Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Nash, A., & Smith, C. (2000). From the margins to the mainstream: An action agenda

for literacy : guide for a two- or three-hour group discussion and planning

meeting. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education Office of Educational

Research and Improvement Educational Resources Information Center.

53

National Institute for Literacy (2001). A national plan for research and development in

adult education and literacy. Washington, D.C.

OECD & Statistics Canada. (2001). Literacy in the information age: final report of the

international adult literacy survey. Paris: Organization for Economic Co

Operation and Development and the Minister for Statistics, Canada.

Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London ; New

York: Methuen.

Purcell-Gates, V., Degener, S., Jacobson, E., & Soler, M. (2000). Affecting change in

literacy practices of adult learners impact of two dimensions of instruction.

Cambridge, MA.

Quigley, B. A. (1997). Rethinking literacy education: The critical need for practice-

based change (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Quigley, B. A. (2000). Adult Education and Democracy: Reclaiming our Voice through

Social Policy. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of Adult and

Continuing Education (pp. 208-223). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Senge, P. M. (1994). The Fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a

learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Sheared, V. (1994). Giving voice: An inclusive model of instruction - A womanist

perspective. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 61(Spring), 27-

38.

54

Sheared, V. (1999). Giving Voice: Inclusion of African American Students' Polyrhythmic

Realities in Adult Basic Education. In T. C. Guy (Ed.), Providing Culturally

Relevant Adult Education: A Challenge for the 21st Century (Vol. 82, pp. 33-48).

San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Sparks, B., & Peterson, E. A. (2000). Adult Basic Education and the Crisis of

Accountability. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of Adult and

Continuing Education (pp. 263-277). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Slavin, R. (2002). Evidence-based educational policies: transforming educational practice

and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21.

Sticht, T. G. (2002). The Rise of the Adult Education and Literacy System in the United

States: 1600-2000. In J. P. Comings & B. Garner & C. Smith (Eds.), The Annual

Review of Adult Learning and Literacy (Vol. 3, pp. 10-43). San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.

Sticht, T. G. (2004). The Year 2001 in Review. In J. P. Comings & B. Garner & C. Smith

(Eds.), Review of Adult Learning and Literacy: Connecting Research, Policy and

Practice (Vol. 4, pp. 1-16). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Sticht, T. G., & Armstrong, W. (1996). Understanding Adult Literacy: Insights from 75

Years of Quantitative Data. Eljon, CA: Applied Behavioral and Cognitive

Sciences, Inc.

Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

55

Sum, A., Kirsch, I., & Taggart, R. (2002). The twin challenges of mediocrity and

inequality: Literacy in the U.S. from an international perspective. Princeton, N.J.:

Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.

Tracy-Mumford, F. (2000). The Year 1998 in Review. In J. P. Comings & B. Garner &

C. Smith (Eds.), The Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy (Vol. 1, pp.

1-24). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

United States. Employment and Training Administration. (1998). Workforce Investment

Act of 1998. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Labor Employment and Training

Administration.

United States. Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education.

(2001). National reporting system for adult education: implementation guidelines.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult

Education and Literacy.

United States. Department of Education. Office of Vocational and Adult Education.

(2003). Adult education and family literacy act, program year 2001-2002; Report

to Congress on State Performance. Washington, DC:

56

Table 1A Comparison Funding and Enrollment of Five States, FY 1998

State 1998 Federal and State Allocation

Total Enrolled

Idaho Federal: 1 334 468 10 472State: 496 400Total: 1 830 868

Massachusetts Federal: 6 758 226 13 295State: 19 545 465Total: 26 303 691

Ohio Federal: 14 103 969 107 701State: 9 151 480Total: 23 255 449

Pennsylvania Federal: 15 898 856 51 938State: 12 059 000Total: 27 957 856

Virginia Federal: 8 255 055 25 410State: 3 500 000Total: 11 755 055

Source: Adapted from Belzer, Drennon & Smith, 1999, p. 158.

Table 2Adult Education Target Population by Number of Years of Schooling and GenderLevel of Educational Attainment Number in Target

Population Male Female

Total 51 360 337 25 811 060 25 549 277

0 to 4 Years of schooling 4 618 949 2 295 193 2 323 756

5 to 8 years of schooling 11 325 982 5 635 805 5 690 177

9 to 12 years of schooling 35 415 406 17 880 062 17 535 344

Source: Lasater and Elliott, 2004

Table 3Adult Education Target Population by Race/Ethnicity [6]

Race/ethnicity PercentWhite 65,9

African American 15,4

Asian American 3

Native American 3

Bi racial and other groups

14

Hispanic 26

Source: Lasater and Eliott, 2004.

[6] Figures do not add to 100% because Hispanics can be of any racial category.

Table 4Enrollment in ABE by Race/Ethnicity, 1998 to 2003 [7]Year American

Indian/ Alaskan Native

Asian/ Pacific Islander

Black, not of Hispanic

origin

Hispanic White, not of Hispanic

origin

Total

1998 42 333 481 037 662 109 1 663 984 1 171 090 4 020 5531999 51 466 384 975 621 914 1 469 218 1 078 817 3 606 3902000 48 532 214 698 614 475 1 029 608 984 594 2 891 9072001 43 680 211 736 548 562 1 033 442 835 431 2 928 8152002 41 210 243 874 559 247 1 112 803 830 282 2 887 4162003 35 996 227 193 540 200 1 143 000 787 797 2 734 186Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy, adapted from D’Amico, 2004, p. 22.Available online: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/aefacts.html

[7] 2003 was the last year that enrollment data were available as of this writing.

Table 5Number of adults in economically disadvantaged categories served by ABEYear Working

poorUnemployed Welfare

recipientsHomeless Yearly total

served1995-96 1,017,268 1,196,866 436,212 38,113 4,042,1721996-97 1,026,395 1,103,475 383,116 30,326 4,017,2721997-98 957,490 934,559 362,349 20,534 4,020,500Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy. Cited in D’Amico, 2004, p. 20.

Table 6Mean Prose, Document and Numeracy Proficiency Scores by Race/EthnicityScale White Black Hispanic

Prose 280 237 208

Document 280 230 213

Quantitative 287 224 212

Source: Sum, Kirsch, and Taggart, 2002, p. 23.

Table 7Percentage of Adults at Lowest Level of Literacy by Race/Ethnicity, NALS, 1996Ethnic Group % of All U.S.

Adults% of Adults in Prose Level I

% of Adults in Document

Level I

% of Adults in Quantitative

Level I

White 76 51 54 50Black 11 20 20 23Hispanic 10 23 21 22Asian/ Pacific Islander

2 4 3 3

Source: D’Amico, 2004.

Figure 1 Annual AEFLA Funding, 1985 to 2006[5]

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal year 1985 – 2006 State Tables for the U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved online: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html

[5] Figures for 2005 are estimates based on projected expenditures; figures for 2006 are projections based on President’s Bush’s budget which has not yet attained congressional approval.

Federal Funding for Adult Education 1985 to 2006

050

100150200250300350400450500550

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Year

Am

ount

($) M

illio

ns