Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools

for a Lifetime

July 1993

OTA-SET-550

NTIS order #PB93-218881

GPO stock #052-003-01330-4
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Adult Literacy and New

Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime, OTA-SET-550 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993).

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent 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 translated

into 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 an

effective democracy.

Adult education needs are difficult to define and difficult to meet; what

constitutes adequate literacy changes continually as the demands facing individuals grow more complex. Rapidly changing demographic patterns and rapidly

changing technology mean that the United States today faces a massive problem

in equipping citizens with the skills needed to participate fully in the workplace

and to contribute as members of family and community. (OTA’s examination of

this problem, initiated at the request of the House Committee on Education and

Labor and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, suggests that

technology offers particular capabilities for dealing with this issue. This report

is an attempt to identify those capabilities, along with limitations, and outline

how new information technologies can be marshaled to meet the goal of a fully

literate citizenry.

Throughout this study, the Advisory Panel, workshop participants, and

many others played key roles in defining major issues, providing information,

and championing a broad range of perspectives. OTA thanks them for their substantial commitment of time and energy. Their participation does not necessarily

represent an endorsement of the contents of the report, for which OTA bears

sole responsibility.

Roger C. Herdman, Director
Advisory Panel

Richard Venezky, Chairperson

Unidel Professor of Educational

Studies and

Professor of Computer and

Information Sciences

University of Delaware

Christine Cope

President

South Dakota Literacy Council

Yankton, SD

Sharon Darling

President

National Center for Family

Literacy

Louisville, KY

Allen De Bevoise

President

AND Communications, Inc.

Los Angeles, CA

Ronald Gillum

Director, Adult Extended

Learning Services

Michigan Department of Education

Lansing, MI

Shirley Brice Heath

Department of English

Stanford University

Jim Kadamus

Assistant Commsi sioner

Higher and Continuing Education

New York State Department

of Education

Albany, NY

Irwin Kirsch

Director, Division of Cognitive and

Assessment Research

Educational Testing Service

Princeton, NJ

William Kolberg

President and CEO

National Alliance of Business

Washington, DC

Ray Marshall

Professor of Economics

and Public Affairs

University of Texas at Austin

Austin, TX

Earline McNary

Jamaica Plain, MA

Job Moraido

Law Offices of Public Defender

Child Advocacy Division

San Diego, CA

Richard Mumane

Professor of Economics

Harvard Graduate School

of Education

Reg Murphyl

Executive Vice President

National Geographic Society

Washington, DC

Dale Rezabek

GAIN Coordinator

California Community Colleges

Sacramento, CA

Antonia Stone

Executive Director

Playing to win

New York, NY

Richard Varn

Senator

Iowa State Legislature

Des Moines, IA

George Walker

President

Delta Wire Co.

Clarksdale, MS

NOTE: (ITA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel

members. The psnel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes fidl responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
John Andelin

Assistant Director

Science, Information, and Natural

Resources Division

Nancy Carson

Program Manager

Science, Education, and

Transportation

Nancy Kober

Charlottesville, VA

SL Productions

New York, NY

Center for Literacy Studies

The University of Tennessee,

Knoxville

Juliet Merrifield, principal investigator

. — —— . ——

LINDA ROBERTS

Project Director

Kathleen Fulton

Senior Analyst

Patricia Morison

Analyst

Carol Edwards

Congressional Fellow

Chris Spelius

Research Analyst

Hunter Heyck

Research Assistant

Kristan Mayer

Research Assistant

CONTRACTORS

Preject Staff

OTHER CONTRIBUTING STAFF

Timothy Rogers

Intern

Lynellen Long

In-House Contractor

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Marsha Fenn

Technical Editor

Gay Jackson

PC Specialist

Tamara C. Wand

Administrative Secretary

Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. Joyce Hakansson

and Berkeley Learning Technologies

Wujcik and Associates

Falls Church, VA Stephen Reder

Northwest Regional Educational

Interactive Educational Systems LaboratoryDesign, Inc.

New York, NY Saul Rockman

San Francisco, CA

Claremont Graduate School

Claremont, CA

J.D. Eveland, principal investigator

v
contents

1 Summary and Policy Options, 1

What Is This Study About? 3

What Is “Literacy’ 3

Who Are the Learners and What Do They Need? 5

What Problems Do Literacy Programs and Providers

Face? 9

What Is the Impact of Federal Efforts? 11

How Could Technology Make a Difference? 14

Policy 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, 29

Findings, 30

What 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, 61

Findings, 61

Literacy in Everyday Life: Adults With Low Literacy

Skills, 62

 Profiles of Diversity, 63

■ Competence and Strength, 65

■ Strategies for Literacy, 69

Learning in Adulthood 69

Adults Seeking Learning Opportunities, 76

,. .

vii
■ The Decision to Participate in Adult Literacy

Education, 78

❑ The Importance of Motivation, 81

■ Why People Do Not Participate, 82

Meeting Adult Learner Needs: The Role of

Technology, 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 of

Programs and Resources, 93

Findings, 93

The 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 Literacy

Education, 127

Findings, 127

Growth 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, 132

Current 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, 153

Coordination 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 for

Technology, 161

Findings, 161

Recruiting, 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, 168

Instructional 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, 181

A Final Note, 188

7 Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise, 189

Findings, 190

#

ix
Access to Technologies for Literacy, 190

Access to Computer Hardware, 190

Access to Other Hardware, 192

Availability of Computer Courseware, 194

Availability of Other Courseware and

Programming, 196

An Untapped Base of Technology, 196

of Technology, 200

General Findings About Technology Use, 200

Benefits and Limitations of Technologies for

Literacy, 204

The 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 Future

With Technology, 223

A Look Into the Future: Three Scenarios, 224

■ Carla King: Moving Ahead With a Changing

Industry, 224

■ Dave Decker: Changing a Life, Starting

a Future, 226

■ Tina Lopez: Family Support Through a

Multipurpose Literacy Center, 228

Questions Raised by the Scenarios: How to Create a

Future 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 Skills

Programs, 246

C Key Coordination Provisions in Literacy Laws and

Regulations, 249
D Glossary, 252

E List of Acronyms, 256

F Workshop Participants, and Reviewers and

Contributors, 258

G Contributing Sites, 265

H Contractor Reports Prepared for

This Assessment, 268

INDEX, 269
Summary

and

Policy

Options 1

A

fter working all day in a chicken processing plant and

cleaning offices until 10:30 pm, Eraclia Benitez has little

time to help her children with their homework. Even in

those 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 school

work. She’s caught in a double bind-she is unable to read or write

in either Spanish or English.1

When the steel mill closed, 48-year-old Howard LeHuquet was

laid off after 18 years as a blast furnace worker. He decided to train

for anew career in computer repair or air conditioning and heating.

When he took the entrance test (almost 30 years after finishing

high school), he failed on the math and was told to try something

else. “Now why do you need so much math . . . to fix an air

conditioner or a refrigerator? I was working all these years, paying

the bills, paying off this house, making car payments. You don’t

realize time goes by and then, bang. It’s gone. Everything is

math, ’ 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 numerous

methods 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, ” The

Washington 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 opened

the 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. ” He

motions toward the computer as he recalls past

efforts: “I tried teaching myself, ordering tapes

and such from the TV and all, and that’s helped

some but not like this. ” When he came to the

Learning 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 hard

to see the pictures, it not completely clear on the

screen. ” This time he’s determined to make it

through, changing jobs so he won’t be on the road

all the time and can stick with the classes. “It

takes time, sure. Just a little stump in the road,

that’s all. ”3

People who seek literacy services come from

many different backgrounds and have many

different motives for wanting to learn. “The

target population [for literacy services] encompasses Americans who are employed, underemployed, and unemployed. ’ They can include:

women who need to reenter the workforce after

a divorce;

teenage mothers who dropped out of school

when they became pregnant;

immigrants with master’s degrees who speak

no English;

children of Hispanic migrant workers whose

itinerant way of life limits their time in school;

recent high school graduates who are having

trouble finding a job;

middle-aged auto workers whose plants recently closed;

full-time homemakers who want to help their

children with their homework;

people who need to improve their mathematics

skills to be promoted at work;

truck drivers who need to pass a federally

mandated written test to keep their jobs; or

prison inmates who want to be employable

when released,

An array of public, community-based, and

private adult literacy programs exist to help

people like Eraclia, Howard, and Siman. Yet the

national approach to adult literacy education falls

short in several critical respects. The vast majority of adults with low literacy skills-perhaps 90

percent--do not receive any literacy services. A

high proportion of those who do enroll in literacy

programs do not stay long. Most of the instruction

is provided by part-time teachers and volunteers,

and the agencies and organizations that provide

literacy services must deal with a host of persistent challenges, including insufficient and unstable funding, complex administrative requirements, multiple funding sources, and inadequate

mechanisms for identifying and sharing effective

practices.

What can be done to improve this situation?

One answer lies in technology. Computer-based

instruction, 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 the

home for busy mothers like Eraclia and link them

with other learners with similar concerns. Multimedia technology can provide a rich palette of

resources for people like Howard. Sound, intriguing graphics, and live action video can bring new

color to the black and white print-based world of

learning. But creative uses of technology are the

exception rather than the rule in most adult

literacy programs today, the dream rather than the

reality.

This study, requested by the House Committee

on Education and Labor and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, seeks to

answer this and other questions. In this report, the

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) considers why technology could make a difference in

adult literacy, how it is used now, and what

should 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 understand the broader issues affecting adult literacy

education in the United States. Therefore, this

study begins by examining America’s “literacy

problem,’ shows how standards and requirements for literacy have increased over time, and

documents the large number of Americans in

need (chapter 2). Next, we show that adult

learners have unique instructional needs (chapter

3) that are only partly being met by the patchwork

of programs that provide adult literacy education

(chapter 4). The study then analyzes how Federal

policies 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 that

technology could help overcome (chapter 6).

Nevertheless, the study shows that the potential of

technology for both learners and programs is not

being exploited, and significant barriers inhibit

wider or more sophisticated uses of technology

(chapter 7). Finally, the study sketches a future

vision in which better applications of technology

make it possible to serve more adults and enable

them 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 United

States was being able to write one’s name.

Throughout this century literacy demands have

become more complex and the standard for what

constitutes literacy has risen (see figure l-l).

Despite considerable progress in raising the

average level of educational attainment (today

more than three-quarters of the adult population

have completed high school), many believe that

these gains have failed to meet the demands of a

technological and global society. Scholars, educators, and policymakers are all struggling with

how to redefine literacy to reflect changes in

society, a global economy, higher educational

standards for all students, and advances in technology. Technology, in all its forms, is having a

profound effect on the ways people communicate

with one another, shop, interact with social

institutions, get information, and do their jobs.

The current but evolving definition of what it

means to be literate goes beyond the basic skills

of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Other important skills being considered are higher order

thinking and problem-solving skills, computer

and other technology-related skills, literacy skills

in the context of the workplace, and literacy skills

as they relate to parenting and family life.

New Federal definitions of literacy incorporate

some of these concepts: The 1991 National Adult

Literacy Act defines literacy as: “. . . an individual’s ability to read, write, and speak in English,

and compute and solve problems at levels of

proficiency necessary to function on the job and

in 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”

1930

Civilian

Conservation

Corps defines

functional

literacy as 3

or more

years of

schooling.

1947 1952 1980 1970

Census Census U.S. Office Many authorities

Bureau Bureau of Education indicate that high

defines raises level adopted 8th school completion

functional to 6 or more grade as the is necessary for

literacy as years of standard. functional literacy.

5 or more schooling.

years of

schooling.

NOTE: This shows “literacy” in terms of years of schooling. OTA does not have data that allow comparison of average skill levels versus amount

of schooling over this time period. The National Adult Uteraq Survey (NALS) Is expected to provkfe the first nationally representative data on the

literacy sHIIs of the Nation’s adults (ages 16 and alder). Data will include types of literacy skills, levels, and how these skills are distributed acmes

the 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-iteraq

in 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 National

Adult Literacy Survey, conducted by the Educational Testing Service for the National Center for

Education Statistics, has adopted the following

definition of literacy: “. . . using printed and

written information to function in society, to

achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential. Clearly, then, being literate

means more than just being able to read.

The way in which literacy is defined affects any

estimates of the Nation’s literacy problem-how

many people lack adequate literacy skills-which

in turn affects how the Nation perceives its

literacy problem. Depending on which definition

is chosen and which measurement method is

employed, the problem can appear bigger or

smaller. Those who want a quick estimate or

simple yardstick are frustrated-literacy is not

something that people either do or do not have,

rather it is a continuum of skills that people

possess in varying amounts. No single test or

indicator can adequately discriminate between

the literate and the nonliterate.

Nevertheless, whether the yardstick includes

the performance of various literacy-related

tasks, self-reported literacy problems, or educational attainment, the data suggest that a

very 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, prepared

for the U.S. Department of Education (Washington, DC: U.S. Governrnent Printing Offke, October 1992), p. 9.
Chapter 1-Summary and Policy Options | 5

As this public service message suggests, literacy teal.zy goes beyond the basic skills of reading, writing, and

arithmetic to include problem-solving and other technology-related skills.

need of improving their literacy skills. OTA

finds that at least 35 million adults have difficulties with common literacy tasks (see box l-A).

Although many of these adults can read at

rudimentary levels, many need higher levels of

literacy in order to function effectively in society,

to find employment, or to be retrained for new

jobs.

From all indications, only a small proportion of

those in need of literacy education are receiving

it. Government-sponsored literacy programs—

the largest sector of literacy providers---currently

serve about 4 million people.

OTA finds that the problem of inadequate

literacy skills among adults is likely to grow over

the next several decades. High rates of immigration and rising rates of poverty indicate that the

number of children and families who are educationally at risk will continue to rise. These and

other indicators suggest that literacy can be most

effectively addressed through a “life-span’ perspective that embraces both remediation and

prevention. Literacy levels cannot be raised for

the long term solely by remediation. Educational

efforts aimed at adults with low literacy skills

today, however, can have important intergenerational effects; in addition to improving the

life chances of the adult, they can increase the

likelihood of positive educational outcomes for

that adult’s children.

WHO ARE THE LEARNERS AND

WHAT DO THEY NEED?

Adults do not stop learning when they end their

formal schooling. Whether they finish high

school or college, or drop out somewhere along

the way, adults face changing roles and life

choices, and as a result, continue to acquire new

skills and knowledge throughout their lives. More

and more adults are choosing or being required to

return to formal education-to relearn skills they

have lost, to acquire skills they never obtained, or

to learn new skills that were not taught when they

attended school.

Learning and going to school have most often

been associated with childhood and youth; most

current ideas about learning and teaching are

based on educating children. Educating adults is

very different from educating children, however.

Adults bring a wealth of knowledge and experience that can serve as a foundation for new

learning. At the same time, adults have many

competing demands in their lives that reduce the

time available for education. And while most
6 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

adults participate in literacy programs voluntar- bring, what skills they may need or want, how

ily, 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 learn

include becoming more independent or being able more.

to help one’s children. Addressing the literacy Adults with low literacy skills form a very

needs of the Nation must begin, therefore, with diverse group; few fit common stereotypes. For

the 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 found

alternative strategies for learning and surviving in

a print-based culture. Often their lack of literacy

skills is masked by other competencies, so that

colleagues and peers remain unaware of their

hidden problem. For others, low literacy skills go

hand in hand with poverty, unemployment, poor

health, and educational failure, creating roadblocks to productive, satisfying lives. People like

Eraclia spend much of their lives getting by. But

they are survivors, self-reliant and determined to

be independent. While society may label them

‘‘ illiterate, each has developed sophisticated

coping skills. They are also motivated by a desire

to learn and the hope that becoming literate will

help them guide their children toward a richer life

than they have known.

People use literacy in their lives for many

different reasons. Moreover, a person’s literacy

skills may vary depending on the context. For

.

example, a carpenter might be able to read and

comprehend much more difficult material in a

job-related manual than on a reading test. OTA

finds that no one set of skills can be used to

‘‘certify ‘‘ a person as literate, and no ‘ b

necessary ” amounts can be established. Needs vary

and change according to the circumstances people

face. These characteristics of adult learners suggest that the Nation needs a system of adult

education that provides all adults with opportunities for lifelong learning as the world and their

personal circumstances change, and that particularly encourages those whose limited literacy

skills pose the greatest challenge.

Literacy programs should also recognize that

people learn best when they are active participants in the learnin g process, when they are

motivated by their own goals and interests, and

when knowledge is presented in a context that is

meaningful 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 to

increase their chances of success following release.

for voluntary learners who come for assistance

when they are ready. However, this segment of

the population represents a very small proportion

of those who could benefit from improved levels

of literacy. The growing number of workplace

and family literacy programs may be a way to

bring more adults into literacy programs, by

linking instruction and skills to immediate concerns and real life contexts.

There is a trend toward mandating participation

of certain populations in literacy services (e.g.,

programs targeted at mothers on welfare and

those in prison). This fundamental change may

call for new instructional paradigms, but there is

not enough data yet to know how these populations challenge traditional approaches to learning

and measures of success. With an even more

diverse learner population, research must focus

on the learning strategies of adults, motivation

and incentives, and development of approaches,

learning materials, and technology tools.7

Adult learners also face special external and

internal obstacles. Competing roles and responsibilities, situational barriers such as childcare or

transportation, prior negative educational experiT The newly created National Institute for Literacy is expected to play a major role in research. By taw, the Institute is charged with providing

a

66

. . . focal point for rescarchj technical assistance and research disserninatio% poticy anatysis and program evacuation in the area of

literacy. . . .“ Public Law 102-73, Title I, Sec. 102, National Institute for Literacy.
8 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

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 attending a

 Pm -

Using Learning Time Efficiently

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

their 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.

● Material 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 all

but 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 some

flexible systems that match their schedules, pace, barriers to participation and address some of the

and learning style. Finding better ways to match unique needs of adult learners (see box l-B), but

adult learners to services, removing barriers to the current uses of technology in adult literacy

participation, creating incentives for attending programs have barely scratched the surface.

programs, and designing new strategies to
Chapter l-Summary and Policy Options | 9

Figure 1-2—Adult Literacy Programs,

I

What Programs Are Offered?

●

●

●

■

●

●

m

9

Adult basic education

Adult secondary education

GED preparation

English as a second language

Workplace literacy and skills

Computer skills

Family literacy

Combinations 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

● Prisons

D Labor unions

■ Business/industry

● Preschool and Head Start programs

= Coalitions of the above

I

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

WHAT PROBLEMS DO LITERACY

PROGRAMS AND PROVIDERS FACE?

The numbers of adult literacy programs and

providers are growing, prompted by increased

Federal, State, community, and philanthropic

awareness of literacy as an economic and social

issue. Public programs are the largest sector,

serving an estimated 80 to 90 percent of those

who sign up for adult literacy instruction. Although data on total funding for literacy are not

available, statistics from the U.S. Department of

Education indicate that State and local support for

adult literacy has grown more than eightfold since

1980, and Federal funding has doubled.8 These

What Technologies Are Used?

Stand-alone and networked computers

Integrated learning systems

Multimedia systems

Videotape, videodisc

Hand-held and portable devices

Consumer electronics

Broadcast and cable television

Closed captioning

Distance learning networks

increases have spurred the expansion of programs

and services. But despite this growth, adult

literacy education operates at the margin.

Unlike elementary and secondary education, with

a clearly defined and long-established tradition of

control by State departments of education and

local school districts, adult education has no

‘‘system. ” A patchwork of adult literacy services

is provided in schools, community colleges,

libraries, community centers, churches, housing

projects, workplaces, and prisons (see figure 1-2).

Although local school districts continue to be

primary providers of adult literacy education,

programs operated by community-based organi8 See chs. 4 and 5 for further &tails.
10 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

zations have expanded and there has been a slight

shift away from school-based programs. Even so,

much of the content is remarkably similar across

the variety of sponsors. Adult basic education,

general equivalency diploma (GED) preparation,

and English as a second language (ESL) are

among the most popular offerings, but interest is

growing in family and workplace literacy. The

availability of services to learners is not uniform,

however; it is a function of where the learner lives

and works, more than of what his or her needs are.

Just as the definition of adult literacy is

complicated by the multiple needs of learners at

various points in their lives, so too is the web of

services complicated by multiple funding sources,

administering agencies, and service providers.

While this diversity may have advantages, it

makes it difficult to address critical but common

issues that plague many programs. The lack of

coherent referral among programs, problems with

recruitment and retention, a high dependence on

volunteers and part-time teachers (and consequently high turnover of staff), and a lack of

adequate tools to measure program effectiveness

cut across all programs and providers.

OTA finds that funding is a constant concern

that affects all of the above. Many programs have

waiting lists, especially for such popular services

as ESL. For most programs, unstable and shortterm funding patterns make it difficult to plan,

purchase necessary materials or equipment, or

develop professional staffing ladders.

Fragmentation of effort is another ongoing

problem. At least seven Federal agencies, and

often many more State offices, admin“ ister adult

literacy programs; each has its own rules, reporting requirements, and funding channels. Some

States and localities have sought to overcome

fragmentation and make the most of limited

resources by improving coordination among education, training, and social and employment

services and eliminating duplication of effort.

Adult literacy services have changed dramatically

since the Federal Government’s 1930s efforts to

supply books to Work Progress Administration

employees. Today, government is entering into joint

ventures with private industry to provide computerbased literacy programs to employees at work, like

this one at General Electric’s Aircraft Engine

Factory (right).
Chapter 1-Summary and Policy Options | 11

Some have also encouraged partnerships across

local communities that link schools, businesses,

churches, libraries, or other institutions to increase the level of support and marshal every

available resource.9 Such efforts are not easily

accomplished, however-programs need information on what is available in their communities

so they can fill in gaps; they need help with

administration and accounting; and they need

long-term funding to overcome the high turnover

of staff and learners.

Key and critical resources in every program are

the people who work with learners and manage

programs. The dedication and involvement of

staff-whether paid or volunteer, full or part

time-are extraordinary in most cases. But the

demands placed on staff are also extremely high,

and turnover is persistent. Most programs rely on

volunteers to carry a heavy burden of instruction—

one-on-one tutoring is the most common instructional format-and the majority of paid teachers

are part time. Specific training in teaching literacy

for adults is limited. Volunteers, while dedicated,

may not have the grounding necessary for effective teaching, diagnosing learning disabilities,

and helping learners find critical auxiliary services. Even licensed teachers need more training

since few are specialists in adult literacy. Furthermore, teachers, administrators, and volunteers

would gain from professional standards, graduatelevel programs, certification guidelines, and career ladders similar to those found in other

educational environments.

Technology could help alleviate some of the

problems of administration, fragmented service

delivery, recruitment and retention of clients, and

high turnover of staff and volunteers (see box

l-C). Electronic databases could help maintain

information, track funds, and match learners to

support services. Programs could use telecommunications technology to train volunteers and staff

and connect them with one another to share

information and reduce isolation. And technology

could help programs move their resources beyond

their physical location to reach learners wherever

they are.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF

FEDERAL EFFORTS?

Since the founding of the Republic, the literacy

of adult Americans has been an abiding Federal

concern. Up until the mid- 1960s the Federal

response was very limited. The passage of the

Adult Education Act in 1%6 changed the Federal

role, creating a categorical grant program for

adult literacy and basic skills education. This act

and subsequent legislative initiatives have helped

build and define key features of the delivery

system today.

Legislation enacted since 1986 has expanded

and transformed the Federal role in adult literacy,

increasing appropriations, creating new programs,

attempting to build capacity and coordination

among existing programs, and assigning new

literacy-related missions to programs with broader

goals, such as welfare reform, immigration reform, and job training. The Federal Government currently spends at least $362 million for

adult literacy and basic skills education, more

than double the amount of 5 years ago. 10

Federal dollars have an important leveraging

effect 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 on

existing 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 Assistance

Grants, Refugee Resettlement and Even Start-have been omitted because the data needed to make a reasonable estimate of expenditures on

adult basic skills is not available. The $362 million was calcula~ by totaling appropriations for programs with identifiable adult education

and litemcy obligations in 19 of the 29 “core” programs on which OZ4 focused. Almost 90 percent of this total comes from Department of

Education programs. For more detail see ch 5 and app. B.
12 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

many State and local efforts. Still the Federal large-scale, coordinated Federal offensive that

literacy expenditure is small in comparison with

overall State expenditures for literacy and for

other major Federal education programs (see

figure 1-3), meager in terms of the total population in need, and low as a national priority (see

figure 1-4). There has been a proliferation of

categorical grant programs with literacy-related

missions. All this is at odds with the sort of

some feel is necessary to address the literacy

challenge.

Among the new Federal emphases since 1991

is a focus on workplace literacy programs for

employed adults. These programs are intended to

meet the literacy demands of the job market and

create new workplace/education partnerships that

stimulate private sector literacy efforts. While
Chapter l-Summary and Policy Options | 13

many leaders in business, labor, and local and

State government support this direction for literacy, current efforts (both public and private) reach

a very small number of workers. Thus far, Federal

dollars have supported demonstration projects

and limited ‘‘seed’ development. Further expansion of the system of education and training has

been proposed; how to accomplish the expansion

is controversial,ll

Another important emphasis has been on creating intergenerational family literacy programs.

With their focus on prevention and remediation,

they represent a small but significant shift in the

Federal approach to the problem of literacy.

Congress has begun to link family literacy

initiatives with Federal Head Start and Even Start

programs, as well as Chapter I. Effective parenting strategies that foster young children’s language development and school readiness are

common concerns of all these programs. Similarly, expertise in adult learning is something that

Figure 1-3-Funding for Adult Education

Compared With Other Federal Education

Initiatives, Fiscal Year 1992

$ billions

8 7 — —

,--7 6.9

6

4

2

0.27

o--z/’/zA

u./

1.2

m

2.9

Adult Vocational Special Chapter 1 Student

Education education education ~

Act

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

Figure 1-4-Funding for Select Federal Domestic

Priorities, Fiscal Year 1992

$ bllions

2’~ 22

Adult Substance Highway Food

literacy abuse aid stamps

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

teachers need whether they are in Head Start or

adult education programs.

Targeted Federal programs have encouraged

States and local providers to reach out to groups

of adults, such as the homeless and welfare

mothers, whose access to basic education has

been limited. By channeling more funding

through programs with restricted eligibility, however, the Federal Government may be limiting

opportunities for the millions of adult learners,

including many limited English proficient adults

who do not meet special criteria but have the

potential to quickly become functionally literate,

self-supporting citizens.

New Federal requirements and policies are

shaping State and local responses. For example

mandatory participation and minimum hours of

instruction in the Job Opportunities and Basic

Skills (JOBS) training program and the literacy

program for Federal prisoners represent a marked

shift away from the traditional model of voluntary, open-entry, open-exit programs. Other pol1 I F~eral and State tax incentives to business, a national levy for education and trtig,md otitimec~ could be utilized. See U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessmen4 Worker Training: Competing in the New International Economy, OTA-1TE457 (WaSbingtOIL

DC: U.S. Government Printing Offke, September 1990).
14 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

In North Carolina at the Carver Family Literacy

Program, an intergenerational approach to literacy

seeks to provide the parent with literacy and parenting

skills, and enhance the child’s learning opportunities.

icy directives include efforts to improve the

quality of services for learners through better

coordination across programs, requirements for

training and professional development of educational staff and volunteers, and moving toward

learning assessments that are outcome-based. It is

too soon to know how these “new requirements’

for literacy programs will affect what is offered

and 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 major

Federal adult literacy laws12 contain no provisions 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, no

programs contain capital budgets for equipment

purchase or explicit funding for teacher training

in technology. Most statutory and regulatory

provisions regarding use of technology are options, not mandates.13 The Department of Labor,

the Department of Education, and the Small

Business Innovation Research program have supported a handful of literacy-related technology

demonstrations with discretionary money. The

newly created National Institute for Literacy

funded only three technology projects in its first

round of awards. Taken together, the message

about use of technology in adult literacy and basic

skills programs from the Federal establishment,

with the exception of the Department of Defense,

has been “go slowly, if at all.”

HOW COULD TECHNOLOGY

MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

Today’s technology offers enormous potential for substantially changing the field of adult

literacy. It could provide an alternative to the

labor-intensive, tutorial-based teaching that makes

up the bulk of today’s literacy training. For

instance, multimedia technologies with speech,

video, and graphics could offer a new hope for

those who have experienced repeated failures in

paper-and-pencil-based educational activities.

Computer-assisted instruction could enable learners to proceed at their own sped with materials

relevant to their lives, tailored to their personal

interests, and compatible with their individual

1earning styles. Hand-held electronics, such as

pocket language translators, could allow adults to

learn on the bus or during coffee breakswhenever they are able to study. Electronic

networks could remove the isolation and stigma

of low literacy by enabling adults to share

experiences in small group discussions. With

closed captioning as a standard feature, learners

will be able to see and hear the words on broadcast

or 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 Literacy

Collaborative, gcmmlly affect decisions at the Federal level, not programs in the field
Chapter l-Summary and Policy Options I 15

reading development. 14 Interactive telecommunications networks could bring the best teachers

from around the country to the most remote

learners (see box l-D). All this is possible in

technologies available today; much more will be

possible in the next decade.

Yet the full range of capabilities has hardly

been touched, OTA finds that technology is not

a central consideration for most 1iteracy programs. By the same token, adult literacy

applications are not high priorities for most

vendors and developers in the technology

industry.

Computers are the most prevalent technology

for literacy, but no more than 15 percent of

1iteracy providers use them regularly for instruction, and many do not use them at all. Much of the

av a il able software provides drill and practice, not

problem solving: many choices are geared for

children. not adults. Advanced capabilities, such

as speech recognition, speech generation, or

interactive multimedia, are only beginning to be

tested. Few literacy providers have sufficient

technology for broad usage, or awareness of

available software. More serious is the limited

knowledge and training among staff and volunteers in the use of technology as a teaching tool.

Despite an explosion in cable, public, and

commercial television channels and widespread

ownership of television sets, there are only a

handful of instructional television programs targeted to adult literacy that harness the power of

the media. In fact, video technologies are surprisingly underused given their familiarity and availability.

A significant amount of hardware and software

in businesses, homes, schools, and colleges is

underutilized for literacy education. For example,

common electronic devices, such as home video

game machines, are largely ignored as technologies for literacy.

Box l-D-Distance Learning

in Vermont

In Vermont, where icy roads can cancel classes and

long distances can keep others away, learners from

across the State have been working toward their

general equivalency diploma (GED) through a series

of courses held over Vermont Interactive Television

(VIT). The Lou & Dave Show, a 10-week GED

mathematics course, enrolled 30 learners gathered at

local sites throughout the State. They had a great time

le arning mathematics, thanks to a blend of show

business and team teaching from two of the best adult

education instructors in the State, Lou Dorwaldt at one

site and Dave Shapiro at another. They use video and

on-the-air high jinks to bring mathematics to life,

using real-life Vermont situations and people the

students know as subjects for mathematics problems,

playing custom-made videos that present problemsolving activities in entertainingg ways, and even

having ‘‘the spirit of Pythagoras’ make an appearance

to talk about his renowned mathematical theories.

Learners in remote locations who feel isolated by their

low literacy skills found interacting with other adult

learners across the State an important psychological

boost. The program coordinator suggests some of the

other benefits of doing courses over VIT: “It cuts

down on the tutors’ regular work time and also frees

up more money, not only from the tutors’ workload

but by creating our own texts. Students found themselves working in large groups, becoming more

self-reliant, while learning how to work and help each

other. These are important skills for all adults hoping

to 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 practice

and promise? While the barriers to more effective

use of technology are similar to those faced in

other arenas (most specifically elementary and

secondary education), they are more severe in

adult literacy programs. These barriers include

needs for an expanded technology base, appropri14 me Television Dmoder Circuitry Act of 1990 re@res that all television sets with screen sizes 13 inches or larger, whether manufactured

or imported for use in the United States after June 30, 1993, will have captioning capability built directly into the television receiver.
16 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

In this Vanderbilt University multimedia project, researchers are exploring how video, graphics, audio, and text

can support the acquisition of reading skills.

ate software, staff training, and stable funding and

continuing support. In addition, the literacy

market is fragmented and underdeveloped; not

particularly attractive to vendors and software

developers. Even so, there are encouraging signs

on the horizon as the technology infrastructure

expands, investment in literacy education increases, and recognition of the importance of

lifelong learning grows.

POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS

The Federal Government has attempted to

attack the large, multifaceted problem of low

adult literacy skills in a piecemeal fashion. The

current array of modest to small programs provides something for almost every type of literacy

need but not very much for any, with inefficiencies for all.

Although existing literacy programs have

helped millions of adults lead richer lives, there

are many steps that would expand and improve

services for adults with limited literacy skills and

lead toward an integrated national strategy for

adult literacy. These steps include both major

initiatives and smaller, short-term strategies.

The first approach is a dramatic refashioning of

the Federal role into a new scale of effort with

greatly increased funding and higher visibility.

The new program would expand, subsume, or

replace existing piecemeal efforts. If Congress

wants to bring adult literacy up to the level of

other Federal programs that offer equal educational 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 more

comprehensive service delivery system will be

necessary. This option is discussed at the conclusion of this section.

A more immediate strategy focuses on options

for working within the existing system, while

giving special attention to technology as a lever
Chapter l-Summary and Policy Options | 17

for change and as a resource to benefit learners

and programs. OTA has identified three major

areas in which congressional action would make

a

■

■

■

real difference:

building the base of technology (hardware and

software) for literacy,

improving the system of literacy programs and

services, and

experimenting with new alternatives, both within

and outside of the current system to reach more

learners.

Building a Base of Technology for Literacy

To accomplish this goal, two broad strategies

are considered: increasing access to technologies

and stimulating development of literacy software

and programming.

Increase Access to Technologles

Having access to hardware is the first, most

obvious gateway to using technology. If there is

to be more technology use in adult literacy

programs, the Federal Government must take

legislative and regulatory steps that will stimulate

and legitimize the use of technology in adult

literacy programs and eliminate provisions that

inhibit it. This can be done deliberately as Federal

program reauthorizations come up, by taking

special care to eliminate impediments to use of

technology in existing laws and regulations,

adding new provisions explicitly encouraging

technology, and enacting directives for interagency cooperation on technology in literacyrelated programs. The sooner this is done, the

sooner the benefits will appear.

Remove Legislative and Administratlve Barriers. OTA’s analysis suggests that while there are

few if any direct prohibitions against technology

in literacy programs (e.g., legislative language

prohibiting use of funds to acquire technology),

there are several “indirect” but real impediments. Among them are antisupplanting and

eligibility requirements that restrict the use of

equipment to a single target group, such as

legalized aliens, even though a program might be

providing instruction to a mix of clients including

displaced workers, recent immigrants, welfare

recipients, or high school dropouts. In addition,

separate funding streams and accountability requirements discourage integrated planning, purchase, and use of technology. In some cases,

technology is underutilized and certain learners

are unable to benefit because courses of instruction or equipment purchases were funded by a

program that will not or cannot share these

resources with other programs (see box l-E).

Other barriers include evaluation or performance standards that emphasize immediate learning gains or employment outcomes, subtly discouraging long-term equipment investments or

experimentation with technology-based instruction. Investment in technology is further inhibited

by the absence of multiyear contracts in some

Federal programs, the small size of most Federal

discretionary grants, and a general suspicion

among Federal policymakers and program administrators about the use of Federal funds for

capital expenditures.

Although some States and local communities

are finding ways around the maze of regulations,

funding streams, and accountability requirements

of multiple Federal programs, the Adminis tration

could lower the barriers and make it easier for

literacy programs to acquire the technology they

need. There are critical administrative actions the

Federal Government could initiate now, including interagency efforts for planning, implementation, and regulatory revisions to allow costsharing for technology installation and applications.

In addition, the Federal Government can improve interagency coordination and thus increase

the effectiveness of its adult literacy programs by

developing a consistent governmentwide policy

on technology for adult literacy and by using the

tools of technology-such as integrated databases or teleconferencing-to promote coordina-
18 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

tion and improve program administration among

agencies.

Encourage Technology Use Through New Regulations and Authorizing Language. Most Federal

literacy programs lack explicit legislative language encouraging use of technology. Those

provisions that do exist are options, rather than

mandates to use technology or set-asides requiring a minimum investment in technology. In fact,

the Adult Education Act (AEA) takes the opposite

approach, capping the amount that may be used

by the State resource centers for hardware and

software at 10 percent. Congress could establish

a set-aside for technology in the AEA (as it

already has for other new initiatives, such as

institutional corrections programs). Such a provision would likely gain some support among State

adult education directors, who have recently

recommended that in the next reauthorization

66

. . . the AEA should encourage a percentage of

adult education allocation for innovation and

technology in education.”15 A set-aside would

give programs “permission” to fired technology

acquisition; without this explicit policy, many

may not make this investment. The signal to

hardware and software developers from such a

set-aside and the degree to which it would

stimulate the market for adult literacy technology

development would depend on its size. (OTA

estimates that a 10 percent set-aside would put

$25 million into the marketplace.

A fixed percentage of set-aside funds for

technology acquisition would probably be insufficient for small programs. It is important, therefore, that Congress take parallel steps to allow

Federal funds to be pooled with other funding

sources.

IS U.S. lleptint of Educatiou Diviaion of Adult Education and Literacy and Oflke of Policy ad n-, “SUmXIUUY of state Adult

Education Dkctors FOIUIIL Feb. 18-19, 1993,” unpublished document, p. 12.
Provide Direct Funding for Technology. Congress

could provide capital funds for hardware and

software acquisition for adult literacy programs

directly through new Federal grants to local

literacy programs. The amount of funding could

vary with program size and scope.16 To leverage

the Federal investment, Congress could require a

match with local, State, or private funds. Grants

could require communitywide technology planning and cooperation across Federal programs.

For example, if the major Federal programs (AEA

JTPA, Head Start, and Chapter 1) were combined,

it would have a substantial effect, increasing the

pool of dollars available for technology. Technol

ogy resources could be located centrally or

dispersed. The point is that the involvement of an

entire community would aggregate demand and

drive down the costs of hardware and software.

Planning and cooperation on a regional or State

level would increase the effectiveness of available funds. Statewide technology initiatives in

K-12 education in Florida and Texas, for example, have made it possible for schools to acquire

computers, multimedia technology, and telecommunications capacity at lower cost than if each

school or district made purchases separately-a

good model for adult literacy.

Stimulate Development of Adult Literacy Software

and Programming

Effective use of technologies requires quality

software and programming tailored to the needs

of adult learners. Available computer software is

inadequate for the demands of literacy programs,

and programming for video and other technologies is even more limited. The Federal GovernChapter l-Summary and Policy Options | 19

ment has provided millions of dollars of research

and development (R&D) support to develop

educational television programming for the elementary, secondary, and college levels, software

tools and networking applications for science and

mathematics, and distance learning systems for

K-12 education. By contrast, the Federal investment in programmingg, software, and networking

applications for adult literacy has been almost

nonexistent, except for the military’s development of computer-based materials in basic skills.

Create an Adult Literacy Software/Programming

Initiative. A targeted initiative is one way to speed

development of a broad base of high-quality and

effective applications of video, computer, and

telecommunications technology for literacy. Congress could provide seed funding and encourage

public/private partnerships among literacy educators, State agencies, software developers, and

telecommunications providers, as it has done for

K-12 distance learning through the Star Schools

program. An appropriation of about $20 million

per year for the next 5 years would serve as a

significant stimulant to the field.17

Any such development should include standalone video courses and modules, interactive

distance learning programs, and computer software and multimedia learning materials that

address 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 $12.5

million annually for research and development in mathematics, scieq and technology for all levels of education.

16 ~tititlitqinitiative could concaxratedeveloprnent of sofhvare and video PWPmm@? in the areas of highest need. New data from

the National Adult Literacy Suwey of adults 16 years and older will become available later this year (September 1993). Thia data should help

clari& the instructional needs of adults and which segments of the population are most in need of assistance.
20 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

r

!

[

I

I

.- ..- . —.—-.—.. . -. . /

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 ]s

By enabling adult learners to write in Spanish or English, this so&are program helps them learn English as they

improve writing, thinking, and reasoning skills. -

that make use of advances in digitized speech,

graphics, and . animation), and

programs designed to reach both adults and

young children in family literacy contexts.

Funding development of software and programming alone is not enough; the Federal

Government would have to place equal priority

on achieving broad distribution-making software and programming available across the range

of literacy programs and providers, and bringing

these resources to unserved learners in their

homes and communities. Congress could require

that rights and marketing strategies promote the

widest possible distribution through cable, broadcast television, video rental stores, software and

music stores, and other less traditional outletssuch as welfare offices, post offices, public health

clinics, libraries, and the workplace.

Fund Software and Programming Through Existing Technology Programs. Another option is to

use existing Federal technology program authority to fired development of literacy applications,

rather than initiate a separate software effort. The

Federal Star Schools program already authorizes

instruction for literacy, as does the Ready to

Learn Children’s Television Act. The National

Science Foundation’s (NSF) educational technology programs, the National Telecommunications
Chapter 1-Summary and Policy Options | 21

and Information Administration’s National Information Infrastructure program, and the technology programs at the Advanced Research Projects

Agency (ARPA-Department of Defense) all

have expertise in technology that could be applied

to literacy. Without a specific allocation for adult

literacy or a congressional mandate, however,

literacy development will be largely left to chance

and continue to exist at the margin.l9 This

approach also makes it difficult to address literacy

needs systematically and avoid duplication of

effort.

Improving the System

Two broad policy strategies are considered for

improving the system of literacy services. The

first strategy focuses on helping administrators,

teachers, and volunteers become more effective.

The second strategy focuses on strengthening the

connections among literacy providers, social

services, and the private sector.

Expand Training and Professional Development

It is one of the sad ironies of adult literacy

education that often those with the least professional training are asked to help the learners with

the greatest educational needs. The system is

unlikely to get better without strengthening the

professional status and expertise of those who

teach, administer, and volunteer in literacy programs. Professional development should involve

several parallel improvements: continuing training for adult literacy educators, curriculum development and graduate-level programs in adult

literacy instruction, more rigorous standards and

certification requirements, and strategies for recruiting highly qualified personnel to teach and

administer adult literacy programs. Technology

can be a resource in all these efforts.

Coordinate and Expand lnservice Training. Teacher

training and professional development efforts are

new objectives of the National Literacy Act of

1991. Training is one of the missions of the newly

established State resource centers. The act also

increases the State set-aside for training and

resource development from 10 to 15 percent of

the AEA State grants under Section 353. Even so,

funding from these sources will be insufficient to

support systematic training activities for many

States. Section 353 funds amount to no more than

$25 million nationwide, and the $5 million

appropriated for State resource centers in fiscal

year 1993 is spread across every State and the

outlying areas.20

One option for making the most of available

funding is for Congress, through legislation, to

allow States to pool Section 353 set-asides, along

with State resource center grants, to create

multistate or regional teacher training centers.

Local adult literacy training funds could also be

channeled into these centers. Similarly, training

activities supported by other Federal and State

programs involved in literacy training could be

aggregated. Regulations should facilitate, not

inhibit, training efforts that address common

needs of adult literacy educators serving clients

from JOBS, JTPA, Head Start, Corrections, Drug

and Alcohol Rehabilitation, and other programs.

Collaborative training activities could also

encourage cross fertilization of staff expertise.

For example, teachers of young children in family

literacy programs could study the learning problems of the children’s parents; those who traditionally teach adults could learn about child

development and early childhood education. The

result would broaden the base of expertise in

intergenerational literacy programs. Collaborations

between those with training expertise in the

workplace and those skilled in teaching reading

and writing could encourage richer, more comprehen19‘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 suPPorts

several other activities beyond teacher haining.

331-048 0 - 93 - 2 QL. 3
22 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Telecommunications technologies can be used to

expand adult literacy services and programs.

sive workplace literacy programs. Social services

counselors and ESL instructors might also benefit

from joint training, as they learn more about the

multiple needs and concerns of their clients.

Collaborative professional development efforts

could help to break down walls that exist between

service providers funded from different sources,

possibly creating a broader base for the profession.

Distance learning technologies could greatly

facilitate multistate and multiagency training

efforts by serving teachers and trainers in different locations and small programs. Federal Star

Schools legislation now authorizes adult literacy

instruction, and the telecommunications partnerships formed to serve adult learners could also

provide training to literacy staff and volunteers.

The most highly skilled teacher trainers, whether

in community colleges, universities, or workplace

programs, could train literacy instructors, counselors, and volunteers over interactive networks.

Materials, strategies, and lesson plans could be

created and shared over computer networks.

Support Adult Literacy Curricula and GraduateLevel Programs. Most adult literacy teachers and

staff have received very limited specialized training in their field, and few universities offer

advanced degree programs in adult literacy education. Yet the challenges of adult literacy demand expertise in a range of areas: diagnosing

and teaching adults with learning disabilities,

creating curricula to meet the needs of culturally

diverse populations, applying adult learning theory, and using technology-all in addition to

acquiring the substantive knowledge to teach

reading, writing, mathematics, GED subjects, and

so forth.

Developing master’s level programs and curricula is an essential step for producing a cadre of

professional staff. Through the National Institute

for Literacy (NIL), the National Center for Adult

Literacy (NCAL), or the State resource centers,

the Department of Education could work with

universities to develop graduate programs. Another approach is to use distance learning technologies to pull together the resources and expertise

of universities or regional consortia. One interesting prototype is the National Technological

University-a consortium of engineering colleges and universities that provides advanced

training and courses to engineers. This consortium was supported by the Department of Commerce’s Public Telecommunications Facilities

Program-a resource that could be tapped by the

literacy community to bring together the necessary mix of faculty and programs. Additional

Federal support can be channeled through the

Department of Education’s Fund for Improvement in Post Secondary Education, NIL grants, or

new specialized grant competitions.

These programs could also target the development and distribution of innovative educational

materials that bring instructional research, strategies, and resources to prospective and current

teachers. Materials developed with this support

should be made available in a range of technological formats, from tapes that can be taken home

for review to state-of-the-art multimedia materials that can be distributed over networks.

Assist States With Their Professional Standards

and Certification Guidelines. Almost one-half of

the States have no special certification require-
Chapter l-Summary and Policy Options | 23

ments for adult literacy teachers, and this has

contributed to the low professional status of adult

literacy education. If program quality is to be

improved, more rigorous standards must be established for all adult literacy educators.

Certification is traditionally a State responsibility, but the Department of Education could

assist by disseminating model standards. States

such as New York, Connecticut, California, and

Massachusetts are leaders in this area, and their

experience could guide others. The Federal Government might also support efforts to develop

regional or national teacher certification guidelines, or ask the National Board for Professional

Teaching Standards to include a special assessment for adult education instructors.

Similar approaches at the State level could be

developed for increasing the professional standards for volunteer tutors. Working from the

models developed for tutor training by Literacy

Volunteers of America or Laubach Literacy

Action, States could develop certificate programs

for volunteer training that would enhance the

status, confidence, and effectiveness of volunteers. States could support volunteer agencies in

their efforts to systematize standards for volunteer recruitment, training, and supervision.

Recruit More Teachers. If adult literacy programs hope to serve more than 10 percent of the

target population, they will surely need more

teachers. One potential source of new staff is

military trainers being released as bases are

closed and force levels are cut. Trainers from

military basic skills education programs already

have expertise in teaching adults, and many have

extensive experience in technology-based instruction. To the extent that Congress establishes

programs and provides funding to speed the

conversion from military to civilian employment,

it could capitalize on these trainers’ skills by

providing incentives for work in adult basic

education, workplace literacy, and family literacy

programs. Increased funding for additional literacy 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 Corps

for college students could be structured to include

training of volunteers for adult literacy.

Encourage Coordination, Integrated Services, and

Partnerships

Although some argue that the multitude of

service providers and funding sources offers a

rich variety of options and approaches, most agree

that this disparate system creates problems for

learners and diminishes program efficiency. There

is often a mismatch between learner needs and

program offerings; services are further restricted

by a program’s source of tiding, target population requirements, location, and other factors.

Many small programs are unable to aggregate the

kinds of resources needed for planning, staffing,

training, technology, and comprehensive services.

Better coordination would leverage resources

more effectively and improve services to clients.

Coordination must begin at the Federal level;

mandates for State and local coordination are

undercut when the Federal house is not in order.

Expand Federal Interagency Coordination. The

National Literacy Act provisions for interagency

coordination are a starting point for bringing

coherence to the adult literacy field. The act

mandates that NIL enlist cooperation among the

Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and

Human Services. If it is to reduce the fragmentation of literacy efforts, this interagency group

should be expanded to involve the Department of

Agriculture (Food Stamp program), ACTION

(VISTA literacy volunteers), the Department of

the Interior (Indian adult education), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (programs for public housing residents and the

homeless), the Department of Justice (correctional education), the Department of Defense

(basic skills training), and NSF (educational

technology R&D and teacher training). All have
24 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

a stake in adult literacy, and experience and

resources to contribute. Given the ease with

which other such interagency coordination

groups slip into oblivion, Congress would be well

advised to exercise oversight to ensure that NIL

is fulfilling its mandate to work with the Federal

agencies and serve as a link between the State

resource centers, local programs, and the private

sector.

An immediate priority for this interagency

group would be to coordinate definitions, funding

cycles, and accountability, reporting, evaluation,

and eligibility requirements. This group could

begin with a focus on actions that do not require

changes in legislation, while working to assist

Congress in removing legislative impediments to

cooperative efforts-particularly those concerning

technology (see above).

Reward State and Local Coordination. Recent

legislation and executive initiatives all call for

coordination at the State and local level. Congress

may wish to back up these requirements with

“glue money”—incentives to help States and

local providers develop, extend, and improve

effective models of coordination. The approaches

recently taken by California, Oregon, Georgia

New York, and Michigan share several important

ingredients: formal cooperation among State

agencies through interagency agreements; centralization of those elements that can be implemented

on a statewide basis, including staff development

and certification; development of common definitions, program standards, and evaluation measures; and systems for collecting common data

elements and sharing information. The impact of

these efforts will be greatly enhanced if they are

disseminated to other States through information

networks created by State resource centers. If

Congress wanted to mandate coordination, it

could require evidence of working partnerships

among programs as a criteria for funding.

Coordinated efforts do not come about easily.

Many programs fear a loss of independence, and

turf is jealously guarded. Incentives must be

provided to assuage these fears and reward

participation by making it easier, not harder, for

programs to serve their clients. Furthermore,

confidentiality is a serious concern when client

data is coordinated and common records maintained. Issues regarding confidentiality-access

to data, restrictions on personnel at various

agencies, client oversight of personal records, and

limitations of the use of records-must be addressed in this process.

Model Interagency Partnerships. If coordinated

service delivery is to become more prevalent, we

need better working models. Demonstrations of

State and local systems of interagency coordinated service delivery should be part of federally

supported R&D for adult literacy. These demonstrations should include evaluations of the difficulties encountered and analyses of the costs and

benefits of coordinated services. Demonstrations

of coordinated service delivery should integrate

technology including client tracking systems

such as “smart cards,” databases that update

course offerings and space availability, and multiservice information kiosks for public use.

Partnerships between public and private programs should also be encouraged or required in

regulations or funding plans. Offering tax credits

to entities that provide space, facilities (e.g., work

site technologies for literacy instruction), curriculum development, or teachers’ salaries is one way

to encourage partnerships with private industry.

While industries are usually willing to train their

own employees, some incentives may be needed

to encourage them to include other learners in

their classes, whether they be “future employees” or members of the community in which

industries are located.

Encourage Technology-Based Coordination and

Dissemination. Technology can contribute to program coordination and effectiveness. Databases

of program funding sources and their requirements could help programs seeking support from

multiple sources. Technology could also ease
Chapter l-Summary and Policy Options | 25

recordkeeping and reporting

multiple funding sources are

requirements when

involved.

Technology can help improve program quality

by facilitating evaluation. Computer tools can

simplify data collection, track the progress of

learners, and analyze outcomes.

To effect change the adult literacy community

must have easy access to information about

successful programs, new technologies, and effective strategies. Recognizing this need, Congress

allocated funding for State resource centers, and

charged NIL with disseminating information on

promising approaches. Both of these entities have

many tasks to perform, however, and are just

getting under way.

The problem is not a lack of good information, rather the problem is good access to

information. One of the most pressing needs

centers around use of technology: How are

computers being used? What software applications are effective? How can technology support

the learning needs of specific groups such as ESL

learners? What are the pitfalls to be avoided? One

model might be found in the Outreach and

Technical Assistance Network (OTAN) developed to serve programs in California. OTAN has

a wealth of information on technology that could

be useful to other States. Similarly, the growing

base of technology information at NCAL is

needed by programs across the country. The

experience and expertise of the New York Literacy Assistance Center and other similar efforts

can be tapped. The newsletters and reports of the

Business Council for Effective Literacy are key

resources for workplace literacy programs. Thus,

a key strategy for NIL and the State centers is to

tap into the resources that are already working and

broaden access to them. Electronic networking,

teleconferencing, and information databases are

ways that technology can facilitate dissemination

of information and provide support to people in

the field.

Congress may wish to expand dissemination

activities at the State and regional leveI. It is at

this level that practitioners can play a key role by

helping programs and providers screen and evaluate computer software, sharing models of program coordination, and developing teacher training resources.

Experimenting With New Alternatives

In addition to expanding the base of technology

and improving the system of existing adult

literacy systems, it is time to step outside the

constraints of the current system and ask some

fundamental questions about adult literacy policy

in the United States. How can the visionary

applications of technology be made a reality?

How can personal access to learning resources be

extended to all adults, especially those who are

not being reached by the current system? How

could the Federal role in adult literacy be shaped

into a coherent national strategy?

Technology has the promise to provide people

with personal access to learning resources

through computer tools that are portable and easy

to use, video courses and modules, electronic

libraries, and information services. Several questions should be explored to move in this direction:

How would adults with low literacy skills use

pocket electronic learning devices? How might

they learn with a mix of courses and moduIes in

video or multimedia formats? How could electronic networks (e-mail, voice mail, two-way

interactive distance learning systems) be used for

learning? If personal learning tools and telecommunications networks create new alternatives for

learners, can they also create new alternatives for

the larger system of programs and services?

Make Experimentation With Technology a

Research Priorty

If these alternatives are to be explored, the

institutions currently charged with literacy R&D

(NIL and NCAL) should take the lead, making

experimentation with personal learning technology a priority for research. In the case of NIL, this

must become a major commitment, particularly

as funding levels increase. NCAL has already
26 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

,-

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

J . ----- J 5,

.)

.-

k“ bit’ r

..Q a.z..l —...--.....—-.—...——

o

0 !. ,.

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 a

central research theme by conducting forums on

technology and adult literacy. As one of the

Federal education research centers, NCAL should

seek connections with others, particularly the

Center for Technology in Education, to share

knowledge and collaborate on research proposals.

Include Adult Literacy in Advanced Technology

/initiatives

As Congress considers initiatives to spur advanced technology development, including a

high-speed information highway for research and

education, it can significantly increase the benefits by adding R&D focused on adult literacy

programs and adult learners. Congress may also

wish to include funding for partnerships between

software developers, telecommunications providers, hardware companies, and literacy providers;

this would bring the right people to the table to

reach every part of society.

Rethink the Federal Role

If Congress wishes to rethink Federal literacy

efforts, particularly to significantly increase funding, raise visibility, and unify piecemeal efforts,

it must focus on those with the highest priority

needs. Current attempts to clarify the changing

requirements for literacy and survey the literacy

skills of the adult population are important first

steps. Data from the National Adult Literacy

Survey is expected to provide much more precise

information on the level of literacy skills pos-
Chapter l-Summary and Policy Options | 27

sessed by various segments of the adult population and the impact of limited literacy on their

employment and well-being. The real challenge

will be to serve people who can read, but not well

enough to function fully in the workplace and as

members of society. Reaching this large group

will require drawing people to education and

training, and removing the stigma attached to

adult schooling. It will also involve creating

opportunities for adults to build learning into their

lives, for employers to build learning into the

workplace, and for other social institutions (e. g.,

libraries and medical centers) to build learning

into everyday life.

In the long term, an integrated, nationwide

learning system that reaches learners throughout

their lifetime needs to be developed as part of the

Nation’s literacy policy. We are a long way from

creating an interconnected and integrated system

of K-12 education, adult education, vocational

and technical education, higher education, and

training, but technology, particularly telecommunications, is helping to link institutions and

programs in new and important ways. Congress

may wish to enlist telecommunications, improved

learning and management tools, and information

systems to create a comprehensive system for

adult literacy.

.
The

Changing

Character of

Literacy 2

T

homas Jefferson believed that education in a republic

served three important functions: ‘‘. . . to prepare some

citizens to be public leaders, to enable all citizens to

exercise the common rights of self-government, and to

ready all citizens for the pursuit of happiness in the society’s

private sphere. The skills required for citizenship and individual development were different in Jefferson’s time than they are

today or than they will be 10 or 20 years from now. ‘‘The main

literacy problem, over the long run, has not been that people’s

literacy skills have been slipping, but that literacy demands keep

rising. ’ ‘2 Understanding what it means to be literate in American

society today is an important part of the overall literacy

challenge.

There are many different definitions of literacy, some broad

and inclusive, others more narrow. For this report, the Office of

Technology Assessment (OTA) adopts the definition of literacy

that appears in the National Literacy Act of 1991: “. . . an

individual’s ability to read, write, and speak in English, and

compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to

function on the job and in society, to achieve one’s goals, and

develop one’s knowledge and potential.”3 As this definition

suggests, being literate today means more than just being able to

read. Similarly, this definition suggests that literacy is relative

and will be defined differently for different people; thus, no score

on 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 SubtleDanger: 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
30 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

literacy. OTA considers inappropriate those definitions of literacy that specify thresholds above

which one is literate. However, tests and other

assessment tools can serve as proxies for estimating literacy in specific areas such as reading,

writing, or mathematics when measurement of an

individual’s progress over time or the effectiveness of literacy programs is needed.

FINDINGS

■

●

—

Changes occurring in society today are raising

questions about the skills and knowledge essential to the education of all Americans. Along

with the traditional components of literacy,

citizens may need higher order thinking and

problem-solving skills, computer and other

technology-related skills, literacy skills necessary for the workplace, and literacy skills

appropriate for family life.

The Nation faces a sizable literacy challenge: a

very large portion of the U.S. population is in

need of improving their literacy skills. While

numbers are difficult to fix, as many as 20 to 30

percent of the adult population (35 to 50 million

people) have difficulties with common literacy

tasks such as following written directions or

locating and using information contained in

documents, maps, and tables. Although many

of these adults can read at rudimentary levels,

they need higher levels of reading, writing, and

mathematical proficiency to function effectively in society.

The literacy needs of this large group are very

diverse. Literacy services need to be targeted to

meet specific needs. There are at least three

segments of the adult population whose numbers are large enough to merit special attention

in policy and educational planning: those who

lack high school diplomas, those whose native

language is not English, and those seeking jobs

or better employment. Given their large numbers, these groups may be efficiently served by

new approaches and improved use of technology.

Each year immigrants, high school dropouts,

displaced workers, and others swell the already

large numbers of those in the “literacy pool”

who need improved skills. OTA estimates that

somewhere between 1.0 and 2.3 million adults

are currently added to this pool annually.

Educational programs serving adults who) are

parents are likely to have two important outcomes: improving the skills and the life outcomes for the adult, and increasing the chances

of school success for that adult’s children.

Special benefits are, therefore, likely when

parents, especially mothers, are assisted by

literacy programs.

Dramatic demographic trends are changing the

composition of the U.S. population, and the

numbers of adults with literacy needs may grow

even larger in the future. A challenge for

policymakers is to develop long-range plans

that anticipate the literacy needs of tomorrow

while addressing an already large and difficult

problem today.

Just as the definition of literacy has expanded

to include both workplace and family contexts,

so too must the delivery system move beyond

a school-based, institutional model to reach

people in the workplace and help them learn

while on the job, and to reach people in their

homes and help them learn in new ways.

WHAT IS LITERACY?

Frequently cited estimates of the population of

“fictionally illiterate” adults in the United

States range anywhere from 1 to 80 million.4

Most of the discrepancies in the estimates can be

explained by examining which definition of

‘‘literacy’ is chosen and which measurement tool

is used to represent that definition. Depending on

the definition, the problem can appear big or

small. 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?” unpublished

documen6 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 participate

fully in society have become more complex. The task of helping new immigrants acquire these skills has also

changed dramatically.

definition is chosen—for example, ability to

read-the estimates of how many people can read

will vary depending on whether the researcher

asks people if they can read, asks them how much

school they have completed, or gives them a

reading test.

People often think of literacy as a hierarchical,

measurable skill, but recent work by linguists and

anthropologists suggests otherwise. Literacy is

elusive, complex. Its study requires careful definitions.s

Public sense of what literacy is has changed

dramatically over time. Early in this century the

proxy for literacy was the ability to write one’s

name; by this historical indicator, most adults

living in the United States today would be

considered literate. Throughout this century the

skills required for citizenship and individual

development have become more complex and the

expectations for what constitutes literacy have

risen. On many measures-including years of

schooling or acquisition of basic reading skill—

literacy in America has improved. However,

despite this improvement, more is needed to meet

the demands of a technological society. Furthermore, experts contend that any ‘‘standard’ for

literacy-be it the equivalent of a high school

education or a certificate of vocational competence-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,’ Literacy

in the United Stire.r, Cad F. Kaestle et al. (eds.) (New Haven+ C’I’: Yale University Press, 1991), p. 77.
32 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

changed as the rate of technological

continues to accelerate.

Defining Basic Skills

innovation

The question of which skills are necessary for

literacy becomes even more complicated if one

tries to anticipate what skills might be required in

10 or 20 years. For many years, the notion of

literacy usually meant reading; literacy proficiency was determined by a person’s grade-level

reading ability. Over time that notion has expanded to include reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Most models of elementary and secondary

education are built on the assumption that these

“basic” skills are developed in a sequential,

hierarchical manner and can be associated with

established grade-level equivalents.6 Similarly,

most adult literacy programs assume that adult

education should replicate the school grades and

eventually lead to the set of skills expected of a

high school graduate;7 these skills are understood

to be useful for all adults and in a wide variety of

settings.

During the 1970s, a number of literacy providers began to expand the notion of literacy to

include “functional competencies” or “life

skills” that all adults should have. This approach

was first popularized by the Adult Performance

Level Project, which focused on identifying the

"

. . . competencies which are functional to economic and educational success in today’s society. ’ Their model of functional competency

expanded the requisite academic skills to include

problem solving, speaking, and listening. In

addition, these investigators conceived of competence partly in terms of knowledge areas (e.g.,

consumer economics and occupational knowledge) and thus focused on information that adults

need to know, in addition to skills they need to

have (see box 2-A).9

This competency-oriented approach has continued to gain acceptance. It emphasizes learning as

"

. . . the ability to perform specific literacyrelated tasks in the context of work, family and

other ‘real-life’ situations. ”10 Since these tasks

are different for every adult, this orientation leads

to a more individualized set of ‘requisite skills.”

Today most literacy programs teach some

combination of academic basics and life skills.

The approach chosen reflects a larger set of

beliefs about the ends that adult literacy education

should serve. “The goal of academically-oriented

programs is to develop general abilities that

presumably can be applied across situations

depending on the goals of the learner. In contrast,

competency-oriented instruction is intended to

help learners handle specific tasks in their immediate life situation.”11

One important issue in this debate is that of

generalizability-some argue that focusing on a

specific set of skills may not prepare learners to

cope with new tasks or changing literacy demands. 12 Some educators further argue that literacy programs need to provide learners with a

general set of skills that will allow them to gather

and use information and continue learning throughC Elizabeth Hayes, University of Wisconsin- WOXL “Beyond Skills Versus Competencies: Issues and Strategies in the Evaluation of

Adult 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 as

a 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 Sttitmd Kaestle, op. cit., footnote 5.

10 ~y~, op. cit., footnote 6~ P“ 1.

11 Ibid., p. 4.

12 ~&
Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy | 33

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

. . . being a competent novice means learning how

to manage oneself effectively in a novel situation

by noticing procedures and social interactions,

copying experts, asking for explanations and

guidance, getting a mentor, and taking extra time

. . . to study the layout, devices, tools, and other

artifacts . . . that make up the work setting.13

Beyond the Basics: Changing Views of

Essential Skills

Changes occurring in society today, as well as

projected future trends, suggest that any definition of what it means to be literate will need to

change. Elementary- and secondary-level educators have begun to reexamine and redefine the

skills and knowledge considered essential to the

education of all Americans. Many of today’s

adults do not have these skills and knowledge.

Technological advances will continue to change

the ways people communicate with one another,

shop, interact with social institutions, get information, and do their jobs. Projections about the

changing nature of work suggest that a somewhat

different profile of skills may be needed by high

school graduates entering the workforce in the

future. Changing economic and technological

forces will continue to create displaced workers

who need to relearn basic skills, upgrade those

skills, or learn new skills, These trends suggest

that adults cannot rely on a limited period of

formal schooling during youth to carry them

through the next 50 to 70 years of life.

There are many competing ideas about which

new skills are the most important ones people

need, but little empirical evidence exists to

support any particular viewpoint. Throughout the

education community today, there are many

lively and productive debates going on about new

goals, new skills, and new visions of what

schooling should provide to all Americans. Similarly, there are many competing visions of what

additional skills deserve room on the “literacy

plate.” Several of these new efforts are discussed

below.

Portable Skills: Literacy as Problem Solving

Research in cognitive science suggests ways of

understanding the underlying informationprocessing and problem-solving skills common

to a wide variety of reading, writing, computational, and communication tasks.14

The cognitive science conception of literacy

orients us to think about literacy as a tool for

knowledge construction, a tool for learning. This

view of literacy takes us beyond routine acts of

decoding or calculation, and even beyond fairly

complex acts of filling out bureaucratic forms or

following job instructions, . . . The goal is to

educate a citizenry who are able to use print to

learn, in new and changing environments. Citizens must learn how to learn from texts, rather

than merely interpret them and memorize facts.

They must be able to critically evaluate what they

read, to express themselves clearly and cogently

in written and oral form, and to use various forms

of computer technology as tools for learning.

Within cognitive science, literacy has been reconceptualized as reasoning or problem solving in

order to generate new knowledge.15

Although this work is still under development,

its most prominent application is the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

Literacy Assessment, which has grouped literacy

skills into three areas-prose, document, and

quantitative-each thought to represent distinct

and 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 and

Educational Refo~’ paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Oi%cers 1990 Summer Institute, Newtoq MA, p. 5.
34 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

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

Adult Performance Level Project: Competencies

Funded 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 the

ability to read, write and compute with the functional competence needed for meeting the requirements of adult

living.’ ‘1In order to establish a comprehensive basis for defining important skills, the APL study held conferences

on adults’ needs, surveyed Federal, State, and foundation officials as to what should be taught in adult education

classes, conducted a literature review, and interviewed undereducated adults.

This process generated a two-dimensional definition of functional competence “.. . best described as the

application of a set of skills to a set of general knowledge areas. . . which result from the requirements imposed

upon members of a society. “2 Five general knowledge areas were identified: consumer economics, occupational

knowledge, community resources, government and law, and health. In addition, four primary skills were identified

that”. . . seemed to account for the vast majority of requirements placed on adults. The four skills were called

communication skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening), computation skills, problem-solving skills, and

interpersonal relations skills.

1 Anabel Powell Newman and Caroline Bevemtoe~ A&h Literacy: Contexts and ChulZenges (New~ DE: International

Reading ASSOCiiltiOU 1990), p. 68.

2 No~e~ Norrhcutt, The University of ‘kXM at Aust@ “Adult Functional Competency: A Summary,” unpublished

manuscript, March 1975, p. 2.

3 Ibid., p, 2.

study is attempting to identify the information- computers as part of a basic high school educaprocessing skills that underlie competent performance in each area and develop ways to teach

those skills.16

Technology Skills

New technologies, especially those that are

computer-based, are viewed as increasingly important tools. Most recent high school graduates

have some experience with computers. In addition to being used in schools as instructional aids,

computers provide students with valuable skills

for the labor market and other aspects of their

lives. As early as 1983, the National Commission

on Excellence in Education saw the need for all

students 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 graduates

to:

(a) understand the computer as an information,

computation, and communication device; (b) use

the computer in the study of the other Basics and

for personal and work-related purposes; and (c)

understand the world of computers, electronics,

and related technologies. 17

Similarly, the most recent revision (1991) of

the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment

System (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 for

the 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,
Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy | 35

CASAS Competency List

A 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 been

drawn 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, a

competency must be rated as appropriate and relevant by at least 80 percent of the participating consortium

agencies. (CASAS then allows programs to tailor their curriculum and their assessment to the populations they

serve by selecting relevant competencies from the list.) Each year the participating organizations meet to revise

and update the competency list. The list that follows gives examples of competencies that have been identified

within 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 ~ts~~~m~s-CWS~@&ACCOWI@@ System for Fe&rally Funded 321

Addt Basic Education Progranw Ewmtive Summary (San Diqgo, C& 1991), p. L

5 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).
36 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

basic education programs added the following

new

■

■

■

skills to their competency list:

Interpret operating instructions and directions

for use of a computer,

Read or interpret computer generated printouts, and

Demonstrate use of business machines such as

cash registers and calculators.18

Although directly educating people about computers is important, researchers have stressed that

reading, comprehension, and reasoning skills are

fundamental for computer use. One survey of

small businesses found that employers feel they

can train workers in computer-related skills

relatively quickly if those workers have good

general educational skills with reasoning and

communication proficiencies.19 While confirming the place of computer competence in a

secondary school curriculum, A Nation at Risk

recommended a brief period of computer education (1/2 year) compared with subjects such a s

English (4 years), mathematics (3 years), social

studies (3 years), and science (3 years). Available

data suggest that long periods of training in

computer use are not necessary for most jobs. The

National Commission for Employment Policy

has predicted that as of 1995 only about 1 percent

of all workers will have jobs that require longterm training in computer use, while about 23

percent of the labor force will have jobs with

computer-related demands that require a minimal

amount of training.20

These trends suggest that it will be increasingly

important for adult education efforts to offer

learners opportunities to use computers, gain

familiarity with them as personal tools, and

understand their role in society as communication

and information devices. Since the software and

hardware are constantly changing, these efforts

will probably be most effective if they give

students an underlying set of “user skills” that

will enable them to understand and use new

technologies, rather than train students in any

specific software or application. Further research

is needed to identify which cognitive skills

underlie effective use of technology.

Literacy Skills for the Workplace

In recent years, a growing number of policy

reports have suggested that workers will need

new skills to perform jobs in the workplace of the

future. Many of these reports have attempted to

list the skills necessary for productive, entry-level

workers. The most recent report of the Secretary

Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills

(SCANS) proposed a three-part foundation of

skills and personal qualities, as well as five

competencies that ‘‘. . . lie at the heart of job

performance. . . . These eight requirements are

essential preparation for all students, both those

going directly to work and those planning future

education. ’21 The three foundation skill areas

are:

Basic skills—reading, writing, arithmetic: and

mathematics, speaking, and listening;

Thinking skills—be able to learn, reason, think

creatively, make decisions, and solve problems; and

Personal qualities—individual responsibility,

self-esteem and self-management, sociability,

and integrity.

The five workplace competencies that workers

should 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, ” Educational

Evaluation 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 Report

for America 2000 (WashingtorL DC: June 1991), p. xv.
Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy | 37

Changes occurring in society today suggest that any definition of what it means to be literate will also need to

change. For example, although most recent high school graduates have received instruction in computers, many

older 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 culturally

diverse backgrounds;

Information—be able to acquire and evaluate

data, organize and maintain files, interpret and

communicate, and use computers to process

information;

Systems-understand social, organizational, and

technological systems, monitor and correct

performance, and design or improve systems;

and

■ Technology—be able to select equipment and

tools, apply technology to specific tasks, and

maintain and troubleshoot equipment.

Table 2-1 lists the eight SCANS requirements

along with the lists of workplace skills from three

other selected reports. Although some of the skills

and competencies differ, there is a fair degree of

overlap and consensus. Broadly speaking, the

skills fall into four groups: academic skills (e.g.,

reading and writing), social skills (e.g., oral

communication and teamwork), organizational

skills (e.g., problem solving and leadership), and

attitudinal skills (e.g., motivation and good work

habits) .22

22 Russell W. Rumberger, ‘‘The Deftition and Measurement of Workplace Literacy, CaL~ornia’s Workjorcefor the Year 2000: Improving

Productivity by Expanding Opportunities for the Education and Training of Undeserved Youth and Adults, study papers, California Worldorce

Literacy Task Force (Sacramento, CA: January 1991).
38 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

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

American Society for

Training 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, writing

Computation

Learning to learn

Communication

Interpersonal skills

Teamwork

Negotiation

Problem solving

Creative thinking

Organizational effectiveness

Leadership

Self-esteem

Goat-setting/motivation

Personal/career development

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

—

Reading, writing

Computation

Reasoning

Science and technology

Social and economic

studies

Oral communication

Interpersonal relationships

Problem solving

Personal work habits

and attitudes

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Written communication

Numeracy

Reasoning

Learning

Oral communication

Cooperation

Working in groups

Peer training

Multicultural skills

Problem solving

Decision making

Evaluation

Planning

Obtaining and using

information

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 for

Training and Development, 1988); National Academy of Sciences, Report of the Panel on Secondary Education for the Changing Workplace, High

Schoo/s and the Changing Wor/@ace: The Emp/oyers’ View (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1984); and Secretary’s Commission on

Achieving Necessary Skills, What Work Requires of Schoo/s (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, June 1991).

No research defines which skills area prerequisite for all types of work. Similarly, there is little

concrete information on the ‘basic’ skill requirements of various jobs in the United States.23

Nonetheless, the consensus represented in these

and other reports seems to be that ‘‘workplace

basics’ should be expanded to include more than

just academic and technical skills; organizational

skills, social skills, and attitudinal qualities all

may contribute to employability.

Literacy Skills for Family Life

Another area of literacy that has received

increased attention in recent years focuses on

families. Parents of young children are faced with

new demands as their children prepare for and

enter school. Many of these parents are unable to

participate actively in their children’s education.

This parental interest and motivation, coupled

with evidence that higher levels of parental

education are related to better educational outcomes for children, has led to a growing focus on

family or intergenerational literacy efforts. These

programs aim to help parents (or other caregivers)

improve their own basic skills while they learn

new ways to incorporate reading, writing, and

communication skills into the lives of their

children. The benefits are thought to be twofold:
Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy I 39

as they improve their own life chances through

increased education, caregivers also improve the

chances that their children will be successful in

school.

Box 2-B provides some examples of the kinds

of skills and competencies family literacy programs seek to provide. Beyond basic skills,

parents often gain skills and knowledge related to

improving parent-child relationships, understanding child development, providing supervision,

setting positive expectations, using written materials at home, and becoming involved in the

child’s school and

tions.

Scientific Literacy

Throughout this

have been made in

other community organizacentury enormous advances

science and technology, and

many of the serious problems of today’s world

require an understanding of scientific and technological concepts+. g., acid rain, shrinking tropical rainforests, pollution, disease, population

growth, and proliferation of nuclear technologies.

Some educators have argued that the future

depends in large measure on the wisdom with

which people use science and technology. Many

believe that all U.S. citizens need abetter grasp of

science. For example, the American Association

for the Advancement of Science has recently

launched a major initiative to define what constitutes scientific literacy in a modern society and

outline a plan for achieving it.24

Another initiative focuses on how the Federal

Government can increase public understanding of

science. 25 A working committee reporting to the

presidential Office of Science and Technology

Policy has adopted the following goal: “By the

year 2000, all segments of the American population will show improvement in scientific literacy

and will display increases in the knowledge and

skills necessary to make informed decisions. ’ ’26

They describe a scientifically literate American as

one who can:

. . . participate in discussions of contemporary

scientific issues, apply scientific information in

personal decision making, locate scientific information when needed, and distinguish valid information and sources from those that are not. To be

scientifically literate, an individual should possess the skills necessary to understand and

evaluate publicly disseminated information on

science and technology and interpret graphic

displays 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 of

skills that a person needs to acquire to be

considered “literate,’ the answer has to be “it

depends. ’ As the discussion shows, literacy

involves not one or two skills but a wide and

diverse profile of skills and knowledge. Moreover, ‘‘. . . literacy is not an all-or-nothing state

like small pox or pregnancy. It is instead a

continuum of skills that are acquired both in and

outside of formal schooling and that relate

directly to the ability to function within society. ’28 There is no absolute threshold of skill or

competency above which people can be certified

as literate and below which they can be said to

have 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 of

Science, ” 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 of

Science, “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.
40 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

●

●

●

●

●

●

knowledge needed to become employed or to

pursue 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 mmx~~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 is

more than the ability to read and write a little.

Literacy describes a wide variety of communicative acts, interpersonal strategies, and survival

skills. It is more appropriate to picture a spectrum

of literacies across a variety of specific needs and

communities, from barely able to write or recognize your own name to highly and multiculturally

educated. It is more accurate to ask whether

people are sufficiently literate to meet their own

needs and what society expects of them than to

ask if they are literate.29

DEMOGRAPHICS OF ADULT LITERACY

Despite all the complexities, addressing the

literacy needs of the Nation ultimately requires

some way to understand the size and scope of the

problem. Who is affected? Who should receive

educational services? What resources are needed

to meet the literacy needs of U.S. adults effectively? What literacy skills does today’s technological society require for adults to function

effectively? What skills might be required to meet

societal demands 10 or 20 years from now?

Answers to these and other questions require

some method of defining and measuring the

dimension of “adult literacy. ” This section

examines some common ways of defining and

measuring “literacy,” and presents some estimates of the number of U.S. adults who lack

adequate skills.

School Completion Rates

School attainment has been the most commonly used ‘measure’ of literacy for the Nation.

In the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps

defined “functional literacy” as 3 or more years

of schooling, ass uming that a person with that

much schooling could read the essential print

materials of daily life. Over time, the number of

years of schooling thought to equal adequate

Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy 41

Figure 2-l-Highest Level of Education Attained by

U.S. Adults Ages 25 and Over, 1990

Graduate or

professional

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 population

Total = 159 million

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990

Census, unpublished data, tb. ED90-1.

literacy has increased. During World War II, the

Army defined fictional literacy as equivalent to

a 4th-grade education. In 1947, the Census

Bureau applied the term “functional illiterates”

to anyone with less than 5 years of schooling; 5

years later, in 1952, they raised it to the 6th grade.

By 1960, the U.S. Office of Education had adopted

8th grade as the standard and “. . . finally, by the

late 1970s, some noted authorities were describing fictional literacy in terms of high school

completion. ’30

Figure 2-1 presents the school completion rates

as surveyed in the 1990 census. If the completion

of 4 years of schooling is considered a sufficient

literacy goal, then 97.3 percent of today’s adult

population meet this standard. However, if the

much higher standard of a high school diploma is

used, then only 75.2 percent of adults would be

considered ‘‘literate’—this means over 39 million adults have inadequate schooling.

School attainment figures show literacy rates

vary considerably for different age cohorts. Over29 alp. Ne~ and Csroli.ne Beverstock MulrLiteracy: Contexrs and ChaZZenges (Newarlq DE: International Reading AasoeiatioKL

1990), 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 ,1

1972 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 have

decreased 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 categories

used 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@ember

1992), fig. 5.

all, high school graduation rates are much lower

among older Americans. While less than one-half

of adults over age 75 are high school graduates,

86.6 percent of those between 25 and 44 have

attained this level.

Nationally, dropout rates have been declining

for blacks and whites, but not for Hispanics (see

figure 2-2). Between 1972 and 1991, rates for

blacks dropped from 21 to 14 percent and for

whites from 12 to 9 percent.31 Rates for Hispanics

have shown no consistent trend, but have remained high. However, Hispanics make up an

increasing proportion of all dropouts, because the

total population of Hispanics ages 16 to 24

increased during this time period while the

populations of whites and blacks did not. In 1991,

16- to 24-year-old dropouts were 50 percent

white, 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 numbers

of male and female dropouts between ages 16 and

24. Dropout rates were higher in homes with

low-incomes (26 percent) than in middle- (12

percent) or high-income homes (3 percent). People between the ages of 16 and 24 were more

likely to be dropouts if they lived in central cities

(16 percent), than in suburban (9 percent) or

nonmetropolitan 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 in

school and have not completed high school. There are a number of different ways of memuring -utrates; for further discussion of these

measures end some of the methodologies issues involva see U.S. Departmen t of E!dueation, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout

Rates 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 Hispanics

ages 16 to 24 has increased from appro ximately 2.5 million in 1980 to around 3.5 million in 1991.
Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy | 43

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

Sex

Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 status

Central city . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Suburban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Non metropolitan.. . . . . . . .

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

15.4

15.8

2.0

1.9

1 3.00/0

11.9

51 .6%

48.4

49.40/0

50.6

21.9

4.5

3.5

2.0

.6

1.2

8.9

13.6

35.3

50.3

15.7

32.0

70.2

14.4

11.3

26.5

11.8

2.7

40.1

55.0

4.9

18.9

58.2

22.9

5.9

18.1

7.1

1.6

2.1

.2

5.9

7.8

10,8

6.7

.5

.8

1.5

1.1

9.1

9.7

14.1

15.9

13.7

19.5

39.3

27.5

18.8

24.9

34.7

21.5

10.5

14.1

6.6

1.7

1.3

.7

16.3

9.4

11.3

45.4

34.9

19.7

33.8

45.1

21.1

31.2 3.9 12.5 100.0 100.0

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 North

Dakota to 14.9 percent in Nevada and 19.1

percent in the District of Columbia. A total of 25

States had rates between 9 and 12 percent, while

14 States had rates below 9 percent; 11 States plus

the District of Columbia fell above 12 percent

(see figure 2-3).

Data on school attainment and dropout

rates confirm that since the turn of the century,

significant progress has been achieved in

dropouts (column b), 1.7 million lived in central

cities, 1.3 million in suburbs, and 0.7 million in

nonmetropolitan areas, indicating that substantial

numbers of dropouts live in suburbs as well as

central cities.

Data from the 1990 census also allow a

regional examination of recent dropout rates. In

1990, about 1.6 million, or 11.2 percent, of all

16- to 19-year-olds were high school dropouts.

When dropout rates were computed for each
44 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

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=9.5

RI=12.9

CT=9.2

- , NJ=9.3

DE= 11.2

}= ‘* DC=19.1

F

u-l; MD= 11.0

WV= 10.6

VA=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 who

complete secondary school.33 Even with no

change in the high school dropout rate, high

school completion levels will rise for the Nation

as a whole as the population ages and the cohort

of older, less-educated adults becomes a smaller

portion of the population.

The most significant problem with using

school attainment as an index of literacy is that

it reveals very little about actual knowledge

and skills possessed by adults. The skills of

adults with the same level of educational attainment vary widely. Indeed, there are many knowledgeable and skilled adults whose formal levels

of schooling are not high.

Furthermore, although most analyses of employment and earnings demonstrate better outcomes for high school graduates than for drop33-Id L. I-Io@&OQ All One System: Demographics of Educah”o~indergarten Through Graduate School (wash@ton, w:

Inatitnte of ~tiOlltd Leadership, 1985).
Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy | 45

outs, academic skill levels also influence these

outcomes. Within each group-high school graduates and high school dropouts-those with better

academic skills earn more. 34 In addition, lowe r

levels of basic skills are associated with the

increased likelihood that young adults (ages 18 to

23) will experience other difficulties such as

joblessness, poverty, dropping out of school, and

unwed pregnancies.35

Tests of Literacy Skills

One response to these arguments is to try to

estimate literacy rates by testing people’s skills

directly. Beginning in the 1970s, survey researchers began to assess people’s

. . . ability to read bureaucratic forms, instructions, and advertisements that are encountered in

most adults’ lives. . . . The 1970s estimates of

functional illiteracy ranged from 15 percent to

over 50 percent of the American population, , . .

Not only did the studies produce varying estimates of illiteracy, but each single report contained estimates that differed depending on which

cut-off point was used.36

One of the most popular, and seemingly

straightforward, methods of measuring “literacy’ is to assess the difficulty of the reading

material a person (or a group of people) can read.

For example, it is common to hear reports of high

school graduates who read at an 8th-grade level or

large numbers of adults unable to read newspaper

stories written at the 1lth-grade level.

Many attempts have been made to try to rate

common ‘‘real-life’ reading materials assumed

necessary for everyday functioning. Although

these methods depend on readability formulas,

which can give widely disparate results, some

interesting findings have been reported. For

example, newspaper articles are reported to vary

between 9th and 12th grade, while newspaper

election coverage tends to be written at the

college level. Best sellers, in contrast, have

averaged around the 7th-grade level for the past

50 years. Some reports have suggested that many

societal tasks are quite difficult:

An apartment lease and food-stamp notices, for

example, are at the college level, an insurance

policy is at the twelfth-grade level, and an aspirin

bottle is at the tenth-grade level. Antidote instructions on a bottle of corrosive kitchen lye are at the

ninth-grade level, while tax forms and directions

on how to prepare a T.V. dinner are at the

eighth-grade level. Only a driver’s license manual, estimated to be written at a sixth-grade

reading level, falls within the grasp of many in the

bottom 30 percent.37

The use of reading level estimates is fraught

with technical and conceptual problems.38 The

primary difficulties include the following:

Determining what it means—Technically,

reading level means ‘‘. . . that grade at which the

average student can understand 75 percent of

what is presented. " 39 Thus materials assigned an

8th-grade reading level may not be fully understood by all persons reading at that level. An

individual’s reading skills also vary a great deal

depending on such factors as background knowledge, interest, and familiarity with particular

written materials (see chapter 3).

Conceptual limitations—Most modem definitions 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 computation. By focusing exclusively on reading level

scores, many argue, we ignore these and other

critical literacy domains.

Technical problems—Determining reading

levels depends heavily on the particular test used,

the types of reading skills tested and the difficulty

of the items. In addition, readability formulas,

used to determine difficulty, are not widely

agreed on, and so give different results.

In the 1970s, survey researchers began to focus

on a broader view of literacy and to test people

directly for their ability to read a wide range of

everyday materials and complete associated tasks.

For example, in the Survival Literacy Test, adults

were asked to complete five forms: a Social

Security number request, a bank loan application,

a driver’s license application, a public assistance

form, and a Medicaid form.40 National studies

conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s attempted

to set some criteria to distinguish “functional

literates’ from “illiterates.” Many of these

studies were criticized for using arbitrary cutoff

points or for ranking all people on a single

scale-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 of

earlier studies. In 1984, NAEP began the Young

Adult Literacy Assessment to examine the abilities of young adults ages 21 to 25. Instead of

trying to produce a single estimate of functional

illiteracy, this study attempted to emphasize the

multiple nature of literacy skills and to report how

many young adults had reached various skill

levels on different kinds of tasks. To do so, the

NAEP Young Adult Study adopted the following

definition of literacy based on the advice of panels

of experts: “Using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals,

and to develop one’s knowledge and potential, ’42

The NAEP study characterized literacy skills in

terms of the following three “literacy scales”:

prose literacy-the knowledge and skills

needed to understand and use information

from texts that include editorials, news stories, poems, and the like;

document literacy—the knowledge and

skills required to locate and use information

contained in job applications or payroll forms,

bus schedules, maps, tables, indexes, and so

forth; and

quantitative literacy—the knowledge and

skills needed to apply arithmetic operations,

either alone or sequentially, that are embedded in printed materials, such as in balancing

a checkbook figuring out a tip, completing an

order form, or determining the amount of

interest from a loan advertisement.43

Performance in each of these areas is described

in terms of a proficiency scale that extends from

O to 500.44 Tasks are placed along the scale to

describe various levels of proficiency; increasingly difficult tasks characterize higher levels on

the proficiency scales. Literacy skills can then be

described in terms of the numbers of young adults

who successfully complete tasks at each proficiency level. (See figure 2-4 for examples of

document literacy tasks at different proficiency

levels.)

The conclusions of this study include the

following:

1. Most young adults demonstrate the skills

and strategies necessary to complete tasks at the

lower 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.
Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy | 47

include writing a brief description about a job,

locating a fact in a sports article, matching

grocery coupons to a shopping list, entering

personal information on a job application, and

filing in information on a phone message form.

‘‘The overwhelming majority of America’s young

adults are able to use printed information to

accomplish many tasks that are either routine or

uncomplicated. ’45 The authors conclude that

"

. . . it is clear from these data that ‘illiteracy is

not a major problem for this population.

2. Sizable numbers of young adults have

difficulty with tasks of moderate complexity.

Basic skills in uncomplicated applications show

high mastery. But in more complex contexts

where judgments of relevance and similarity must

be 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 often

fail to consider all relevant information in a

literacy task, or are confused by logical/mathematical data.47

3. White young adults obtained the highest

scores on all three scales while black young adults

scored one full standard deviation lower; the

mean scores of Hispanic young adults tended to

fall halfway between black and white adults,

Although some of this difference is explained by

the lower school attainment of blacks and Hispanics, the gap is reduced only slightly when

attainment is controlled.48 It is important to note,

however, that although black and Hispanic young

adults are overrepresented among the young

adults with low literacy skills, the majority of this

group is white, since whites make up 77 percent

of young adults.

4. The above findings were further substantiated when the reading proficiency of these young

adults was compared with NAEP samples of 4th-,

8th-, and llth-grade students. Further evidence

that ‘‘illiteracy is not a major problem is

demonstrated by the finding that 94 percent of

young adults read at or above the level of the

average 4th grader. Roughly 80 percent reached

or exceeded the average 8th-grade level, while 62

percent read as well or better than the average

1lth grader.

The results of studies that have attempted to

assess literacy skills directly are complex and

difficult to summarize. One group of researchers,

having reviewed the major studies of functional

literacy rates, concluded the following:

Based on these studies, we find it reasonable to

estimate that about 20 percent of the adult

population, or around 35 million people, have

serious difficulties with common reading tasks.

An additional 10 percent are probably marginal in

their functional-literacy skills.49

Literacy Target Groups

One of the reasons the size of the literacy

problem is difficult to estimate is that literacy

skills are not easy to observe or to measure. In

addition, adults with low literacy skills have

widely different needs. Thus another way to

characterize the literacy problem is to examine

target groups of the total population likely to have

low literacy skills. The section that follows

discusses three such groups: those without a high

school 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 English

speaking one percent. . . responded to a set of oral-language tasks. The comparatively low perforrnan ce indicates that this group (about 225,000

people) 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

I

The Young Adult Literacy Assessment was conducted in 1984 to survey the literacy abilities of young adults ages 21 to 25. Each participant was

interviewed 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 extends

from O to 500. More difficult items characterize higher levels on the proficiency scale. The figure shows the Document Literacy Scale and some sample

tasks of varying difficulty that participants were asked to complete.

SELECTED TASKS AT DECREASING

LEVELS OF DIFFICULTY

365

{

Use bus schedule to select appropriate bus for

343 given departures & arrivals

334

320 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

I

nll

The graph below shows prediction of United States

energy consumption through the year 2000. Use

the graph to answer the question that follows.

Estimated U.S. Power Consumption by Source

n Coal

~ Petroleum

Natural ga s

_ Nuclear power

D Hydropower

Use index from an almanac 1971 1980 1985 2000

Locate eligibility from table of employee benefits

In the year 2000, which energy A. Petroleum

source is predicted to supply less B. Natural gas

power than coal? C. Nuclear power

D. Hydropower

E. I don’t know
257

m

255

253

249

221

219

211

196

192

181

169

160

110

Locate gross pay-to-date on p stub

Complete a check given informatlon on a bill

u

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!3188 50)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 31

I

734 98 82 50 261 67 r .—. K. -- - 1

YEAR 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

S

SOURCE: 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 employment. These groups are not independent of

one another-an individual who is counted in one

group (e.g., no high school diploma) is often a

member of another (e.g., nonnative English speaker).

Adults Without a High School Diploma

Because people can be identified fairly easily

as either holding or not holding a credential such

as a diploma, this group can be counted and

identified. As figure 2-1 illustrates, 25 percent of

Americans age 25 and over (39 million people) do

not hold a high school diploma. In addition, about

4 million persons ages 16 to 24 had not graduated

from high school and were not enrolled in 1991.50

Although this is the group that most conventional adult education programs target, people

within this group have widely differing levels of

basic skills. Although some of these individuals

may be unable to read at the most rudimentary

levels, most have already achieved some level of

competence in reading and writing. For example,

data from the Young Adult Survey indicate that

approximately 75 percent of 21- to 25-year-olds

who have no diploma can read at least as well as

the average 4th grader.51 Of those who stayed in

school beyond the 8th grade, 54 percent read as

well as the average 8th grader and 27 percent as

well as the average 11th grader. Among those

with lower educational attainment (O to 8 years),

the figures were somewhat lower (37 percent for

8th grade and 15 percent for llth grade).

immigrants and Nonnative English Speakers

Another population of considerable interest in

literacy efforts is immigrants and other adults not

proficient in speaking English. As of 1989,

appro ximately 16.5 million foreign-born people

were legally residing in the United States; another

for a Lifetime

2 million undocumented immigrants were also

thought to be living in the United States at that

time. 52

Immigration rates during the 1980s rank among

the highest levels in U.S. history, surpassed only

by the first two decades of this century (see figure

2-5). Approximately 6 million legal immigrants

entered the United States during the 1980s. In

addition, recent decades have shown a shift in the

composition of immigrant populations.

As recently as the 1950s, two-thirds of the legal

immigrants to the U.S. came from Europe and

Canada. By the 1980s, that percentage had

dropped to 14 percent. In the ‘80s, 44 percent of

the nation’s legal immigrants came from Asia and

40 percent came from Mexico and other Latin

American countries.53

It is difficult to estimate the literacy needs of

this foreign-born population. Available data on

the amount of schooling immigrants have received in their native countries reveal some

interesting trends. For example, those immigrants

entering the United States between 1975 and 1980

have completed the same number of years of

school on average as the U.S.-born population

(12.4 years, foreign born; 12.5 years, U.S.-born).

However, these immigrants are concentrated at

both the high and the low ends of the schooling

distribution. A higher proportion of these immigrants have attended college (38 percent) than

have people born here (32 percent). But a greater

proportion of these immigrants are also found at

the lowest education levels (31 percent have less

than 9 years of schooling compared with 17

percent of U.S.-born). In contrast to this bimodal

distribution for these immigrants, the largest

proportion 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.
Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy | 51

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

Millions of Immigrants per decade

10 , .—

= All other 8.8

8 ~~ Europe and Canada

6 PA 5.7

0.6

m.

2.8

B

to 1980s

6.0

1820s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 1900s 10 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 school

completion level.54

Those immigrants at the lowest levels of

education often have varying experiences with

print materials and written languages as well as

limited proficiency in speaking English. Many

come from rural villages and tend to fall into three

categories:

. . . nonliterates, who cannot read or write in any

language; semiliterate, who have the equivalent

of a few years of formal education and minimal

literacy skills; and non-Roman alphabetic literates, who are fully literate in their own language

(such as Lao or Chinese) but who need to learn the

Roman alphabet.55

Estimates of the total number of adults who

have limited English proficiency are difficult to

obtain. Most are based on self-reported answers to

surveys conducted by the Bureau of the Census;

such self-report data probably show lower numbers than a direct test of English language

proficiency would indicate.

The 1990 census indicates that 25.5 million

adults (13.8 percent of all adults ages 18 and over)

speak a language other than English at home (see

figure 2-6). Of these adults, about 75 percent

report speaking English well or very well. However, a total of 5.8 million adults report that they

speak English not well or not at all. These are

self-reports of spoken language proficiency and

tell us little about people’s skills at reading or

writing English.

People who do not speak English at home are

heavily concentrated in several regions of the

United States (see figure 2-7). California, with 8.6

million, has more than twice as many as any other

State. Five States (California, Texas, New York,

Florida, and Illinois) account for 63 percent of

those 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 1990

census, 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.
52 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

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 such

individuals; these 15 States combined account for

84 percent of the nationwide population.

There are a number of States that have high

proportions of non-English speakers, even though

the absolute numbers are not particularly high.

For example, New Mexico ranks highest among

the States with 35.5 percent of its population

reported to be non-English speakers at home.

However, New Mexico has far fewer people who

are non-English speaking than does California,

which is second at 31.5 percent (0.5 million as

compared with 8.6 million in California). Other

States that have relatively high proportions of

non-English speakers but comparatively low

absolute numbers include Hawaii, Rhode Island,

Nevada, Alaska, and the District of Columbia (see

table 2-3 for proportions by State).

Those Seeking Jobs or Better Employment

There has been increasing interest in understanding the relationship between literacy skills and

employment. Many experts today argue that there

is a growing job-literacy gap-a discrepancy

between the skills of our population and those

required to per-form most of society’s jobs.

Estimates of the extent of this job-literacy gap

have been very difficult to obtain, but the results

that are available indicate that two different kinds

of trend=’ . . dumbing down and rising literacy demands-are occurring at different levels in

the occupational pyramid and in different sectors.’ ’56 (See box 2-C.)

Nonetheless, it seems useful, as another method

of describing the literacy problem, to attempt to

estimate the number of individuals who have

difficulty finding or keeping employment because of literacy difficulties. The Department of

Labor (DOL) has recently commissioned a study

of the literacy skills of three groups served by

DOL programs: persons enrolling in the Job

Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs, persons applying for jobs through the Employment

System (ES), and persons filing claims for

S6 St*@Kaestle, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 121.
Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy | 53

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

R

MN

ID SD

WY i

#

● J’

“.. OW

HI

P

‘ 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, represents

individuals who have experienced persistent difficulty finding jobs, who are unemployed and

looking for work, or who are seeking better

employment opportunities. ‘‘These groups include a significant segment of Americans who,

with proper assistance, could enhance their literacy skills and in turn contribute in large measure

to the growth of our nation. ”57

Building on the framework established in the

NAEP Young Adult Literacy Assessment, a

sample of the DOL program participants completed literacy tasks in three areas: prose, document, and quantitative literacy. This assessment

goes 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 Pampllleq

n.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 the

Population (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.4

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24.8

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.3

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.8

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17.3

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13.2

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0

SOURCE: US. Department of Commeree, Bureau of the Census, 1990

Census, unpublished data, tb. ED 90-6.

setting five levels of literacy proficiency within

each area, and describing the informationprocessing skills required for successful performance at each level.

The findings of this assessment show that large

proportions of the DOL population demonstrate

limited literacy skills. Overall, tasks at levels 1

and 2 (the lowest two of the five defined levels)

were found to ‘‘. . . require relatively low-level

information processing skills and it seems likely

that skills evident at these levels would place

severe restrictions on full participation in our

increasingly complex society, including the

workplace. ’58 Approximately 40 to 50 percent of

the JTPA and 40 percent of the ES/UI populations

demonstrated literacy skills at these two lowest

levels compared with slightly over 30 percent of

the NAEP sample of young adults.59 Of the total

population of roughly 1 million JTPA and 19

million ES/UI participants, approximately 7.5 to

8.5 million are estimated to have significant

literacy limitations. Regarding those adults who

demonstrated skills at levels 1 and 2, the authors

concluded:

Unless an attempt is made to upgrade the level

of literacy skills of these individuals, their success

in job training programs may be limited, thus

denying them access to the job market. Moreover,

for those individuals who do succeed in a job

training program without a concomitant increase

in their literacy skills, the question remains

whether a demonstrated low level of proficiency

will enable them to avoid future employment

difficulties that may arise from projected increases in skill requirements.60

Even more striking are findings regarding these

adults’ 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 quantitative

literacy, both DOL groups were more heavily represented at level 1, while only the JTPA group was significantly larger at level 2. The only

signitlcant difference for prose literacy was the larger representation of JTPA clients at level 1.

@ -het ~., op. cit., footnote 16, pp. 9-10.
Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy | 55

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 these

jobs 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 upgraded

as companies adopt new technologies and work practices. Current workers in these jobs will need retraining

to 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 that

traditionally have required postsecondary education or college degrees.

In many industries it has become more difficult for people without postsecondary education to progress from

lower 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 matched

to the better jobs created by the economy. Roughly one-third of the new entrants will come from minority

groups that have traditionally received less and poorer quality education. Immigrants, many of whom need

to develop English language skills, also will be a more important source of laborforce growth.

1 mbOX is adapted tlom U.S. Congress, Office of ‘RcImology _menti Worker Training: Competing in the New

International Economy, OTA-ITE 457 (TVashingtom DC: U.S. Govemment Printing mice, September 1990), pp. 155-157.

2 ~=eMl~ 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 on

Workforce Quality and Labor Market Efficiency (’Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor, September 1989), pp. 95-98.
56 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

perceptions of the adequacy of their literacy

skills.

Some 65 and 60 percent of the JTPA and ES/UI

client groups, respectively, perceive that they

could get a better job if their reading or writing

skills were improved and roughly 80 and 70

percent, respectively, report that their job opportunities would improve with increased skill in

mathematics. 6l

Overall this translates into approximately 11.6

million DOL jobseekers who perceive their inadequate reading and writing skills to be a barrier to

better employment and 14.9 million who perceive

so for their mathematics skills. Taken together,

these findings indicate there is a significant

need for adult education programs aimed at

improving the literacy skills of jobseekers.

Another method of anticipating needs for

education is to examine what proportion of the

current workforce has literacy skill limitations.

Many workers are employed at jobs for which

their skills seem adequate. But what would

happen if their jobs changed substantially? Major

national and global economic changes are driving

labor market changes. For example, a special

1986 Bureau of the Census survey estimated that,

between 1979 and 1984, about 5.1 million workers were displaced by major layoffs or plant

closings from jobs they had held for more than 3

years.

62 How much of the current workforce

might require improved literacy skills to benefit

from retraining, keep a job with changing skill

demands, 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 communication) of their workers or examined the skill

levels of displaced workers. OTA’s earlier work

bearing on these topics has concluded that most

estimates of basic skills levels among employed

workers have been based on data from only a few

companies. 63 For example in one manufacturing

firm, about 20 percent of the hourly workers were

unable to cope with technical training because of

deficient basic skills. Most of these workers had

high school diplomas and did not think they had

a basic skills problem.64 OTA’s 1986 analysis of

displaced workers found that 20 to 30 percent of

adults entering displaced worker programs in the

mid- 1980s needed to improve their basic skills.65

Seeking Better Information

The task of defining and estimating literacy—

knowing the magnitude and character of the

problem-is not straightforward. Definitions of

what literacy is and what it means to be literate

have changed and continue to change. Studies of

literacy rates become rapidly outdated. In addition, because literacy is a‘ ‘hidden’ problem, it is

easy to underestimate and difficult to study.

Literacy skills are more easily assessed for

identifiable groups, such as those in job training

programs or those graduating from high school,

than for the population as a whole. Yet it is

difficult to determine optimal policy directions

without some sense of the size and scope of the

Nation’s literacy needs.

Another problem plaguing attempts to survey

a 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, Commission 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.
Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy | 57

those who remain ‘ ‘uncounted. ” Many surveys

have to exclude those individuals who cannot

complete the forms or answer the questions. For

example, the NAEP Young Adult Survey found

that about 2 percent of the population had ‘‘. . .

such limited literacy skills that it was judged that

the simulation tasks would unduly frustrate or

embarrass them. "66 Thus the NAEP conclusions

about the literacy proficiencies of young adults

are based on the 98 percent of the sample who

were English-speaking and who were able to

respond to the printed task. Similarly, during the

base-year survey of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, 5.4 percent of the

students were excluded from the sample because

they were unable to complete the questionnaire

"

. . . owing to limitations in their language

proficiency or their mental or physical disabilities. ’67

Many surveys also sample only the noninstitutionalized population. This policy, while practical, may also contribute to further underestimation 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 are

estimated to be high school dropouts.68 These

examples illustrate that those excluded from

national samples may have some of the highest

literacy needs.

The Adult Education Amendments of 1988

required the Department of Education to submit

a report to Congress defining literacy and estimating the extent of adult literacy in the Nation. A

nationally representative household survey of

adults over 16 is currently being conducted by the

Department under contract to the Educational

Testing Service; inmates of Federal and State

prisons are also included. The definition of

literacy used in the NAEP Young Adult Literacy

Assessment has been adopted. This approach will

not yield a single number of ‘illiterates,’ but will

"

. . . produce a variety of estimates that show the

percentages of adults performing tasks at different levels of difficulty. ’ ’69

Among the goals of the survey are the following:

Describe the types and levels of literacy demonstrated by the total adult population, adults

within specified age ranges, and adults comprising “at-risk” subgroups;

Characterize and help explain demonstrated

literacy skills in terms of demographic and

personal background characteristics;

For the first time, profile the prose, document,

and quantitative literacy skills of the American

workforce;

Relate literacy skills to current labor-market

indices as well as occupational categories; and

Compare assessment results from this survey

with those from the 1985 literacy assessment of

young adults conducted by NAEP and with

those from the Workplace Literacy Assessment

being conducted for the U.S. Department of

Labor.70

The information obtained from this survey

should help educational planners, policymakers,

and researchers understand the literacy needs of

various populations, improve and design effective 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 problem

with language not limited solely to the use of printed materials.

67 phillp fiufwad 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.
58 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

about the best ways to use technology to reach

larger segments of the population in need.

LITERACY NEEDS: GROWING

OR SHRINKING?

As these estimates suggest, a large number of

U.S. adults need to improve their literacy skills.

As many as 20 to 30 percent of the adult

population (35 to 50 million people) have difficulties with common literacy tasks. Howe\’er, to

understand the Nations’s literacy ‘‘problem”

more completely, one must consider not only

the pool of people in need today, but also look

at factors that may increase or decrease the

numbers of people needing 1iteracy services

tomorrow”.

New people will continue to enter the pool of

those with 1iteracy needs. Each year new immigrants, high school dropouts, displaced workers,

and others will be added to the already large

number of those who need to be served. Recent

Census Bureau projections for the years 1992 to

2050 predict that new immigrants done will total

about 1 million each year. 71 In its strategic plan

for adult education, the State of California has

estimated that the number of people with literacy

deficiencies will grow by about 3 percent per

year. 72 Applying this figure to the entire U.S.

literacy pool produces an estimate of 1 to 1.5

million new entrants each year. One national

estimate puts the number of new entrants to the

adult basic education pool at 2.3 million. 73

Related factors such as rising or falling immigration or dropout rates will affect the numbers of

adults who will enter the pool each year, and the

effectiveness of adult literacy programs will

influence the number of those who leave it.74

Any change in national goals for what a high

school education should provide could also dramatically affect the number of adults who will require

literacy services to reach those goals, “[f the

average amount of schooling seen as necessary

continues to rise, as it has throughout this century,

and if the definition of skills essential to literacy

continues to broaden, the number of adults

needing literacy services could grow much larger.

Demographic data also suggest that literacy needs

are higher in some regions of the United States.

Furthermore, projections of population growth

indicate that the South and West will experience

most of the growth in the Nation in the next

decade .75 These are the same regions that tend to

have higher dropout rates and higher numbers of

non-English speaking homes (see figures 2-3 and

2-7). Strategies for adult literacy education need

to consider these regional differences.

One strategy for reducing the pool of those with

literacy needs is to try to lessen the number of new

entrants. Such a preventive approach would seek

to assure that today’s children are successful in

school 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 and

reflects 1990 immigration law changes, as well as current knowledge of emigration, undocumented migration, and movement to and from

Puerto Rico. Higher assumptions about immigration would put the expected yearly totals at about 1.3 million, lower range assumptions at about

MlO,O(X) per year.

72 c~o~ State Dqartment of Education, Adult EducationUni4 Adujtl?ducationf orrhe 21st Century.’ S~@egicpk.Zn 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 is

based 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 net

undocumented 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 States

by Age, Sex and Race: J989 to 2010 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1990).
Chapter 2–The Changing Character of Literacy | 59

population has remained relatively constant over

the last two decades, their proportion of the

population has declined dramatically and should

continue to do so. In 1960, children under age 18

accounted for 36 percent of all Americans; by

2010, they are expected to comprise only 23

percent. Thus the pool of new entrants to the

future workforce will grow smaller. Minorities,

particularly Hispanic and Asian children, are

expected to make up an increasing proportion of

the population under age 18.76

The number of children living in homes where

a language other than English is spoken is also

increasing dramatically; while the 1980 census

reported that 9 percent of 5- to 17-year-olds fell in

this category, the 1990 figures have risen to 14

percent—an increase of almost 1.8 million schoolage children over the previous decade.

These and related demographic trends suggest

the following educational consequences:77

■

■

■

■

■

—

The number of children entering school from

poverty-level households is expected to increase.

The number and proportion of minority school

children will increase.

More children will enter school from singleparent households.

A larger number of children who were premature babies will enter school; these children are

more likely to experience learning difficulties

in school.

There will be more school children who were

born to teenage mothers and mothers who have

not completed high school.

More children will enter school from homes

where a language other than English is spoken.

Education has important intergenerational effects.

When parents are assisted by literacy programs, they

not only improve their own skills but also increase the

chances of school success for their children.

Taken together, these projections suggest that

the number of children entering school with one

or more factors that put them at risk for educational difficulties will rise. The chances of any

one child experiencing multiple risk factors is

likely to increase as well.78 Thus, the burden on an

already resource-depleted school system is growing, not declining. Programs focused on optimizing early development, promoting schoolreadiness, and preventing school failure and

school dropouts are extremely important interventions. 79

Research findings have suggested another fruitful policy avenue for improving the future educational attainment of today’s children. One of the

most consistent findings of the research on

positive educational outcomes for children is the

influence of mothers’ education level. This suggests 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~Kmop. 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).
60 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

interventions focused on mothers (or primary

caretakers). One study, for example, found that:

. . . having a mother who completed high school

was a significantly more important determinant of

the school enrollment of sixteen- to seventeenyear old youth than whether the mother was

married or whether she had an additional $10,000

in family income per year, although both of these

factors were also important. . . . Similarly . . .

[another group of researchers] used data from the

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Market

Experience to predict young people’s test scores

on the basis of their mothers’ and fathers’

education and other variables. They found that an

extra grade of attainment for the mother-when

father’s education, race and region of the nation

were constant-was associated with an extra

half-grade equivalent of achievement for her

children. Because of this intergenerational effect

of the parent’s education on the child’s, it is

unlikely that we will be able to make a major

difference for the child unless we place equal

priority on education and academic remediation

for the parent.80

Educational efforts aimed at adults with low

literacy skills today are likely to have two

important outcomes: improving the skills and the

life outcomes for adults, and at the same time

increasing the likelihood of positive educational

outcomes for those adults’ children or future

children. 81 As yet very little research evidence is

available to document the direct effects on

children of raising a parent’s education level.

Research in this area is needed in order to design

programs that can optimize the direct benefits for

children as well as parents. Existing evidence is

compelling enough, however, to recommend

that parents (especially mothers) of small

children receive high priority in literacy policy

and planning.

A comprehensive literacy policy must consider

the changing needs of people throughout the life

cycle. The challenge of adult literacy is to develop

a long-range policy that anticipates the literacy

needs of tomorrow while addressing what is

already 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: Harvard

University Press, 1991); and Thomas G. Sticht et al., The Intergenerational Transfer of Cogru”tive Skills, vols. 1 and 2 (lYorwood, NJ: Ablex

Publishing Corp., 1992).
Adults

as

Learners 3

L

earning and going to school have most often been

associated with childhood and youth; most of our ideas

about learning and teaching are based on educating

children. 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 with

changing roles and life choices and, as a result, need new skills

and knowledge throughout their lives. More and more, adults are

seeking out educational opportunities-to relearn skills they

have forgotten, to acquire skills they never got, or to learn new

skills that were not even taught when they attended school. But

adults are not children; their diverse needs, goals, and life

situations would challenge even the best system of adult

education. Thus, a discussion of how best to address the literacy

needs of the Nation must include a careful look at the adults

themselves-how they use literacy in their lives, how they learn,

and what motivates them to improve their skills or gain new

knowledge.

FINDINGS

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

stereotypes. They are at all ages and stages of the life cycle and

have many different backgrounds, many different lifestyles,

many different experiences and skills.

■ A person’s literacy skills vary in the different contexts of their

lives, such as home, work, or school. For example, people are

often more skilled at reading job-related materials than they

are at reading unfamiliar materials. Each person can be thought

of as having a profile of literacy skills adapted to that person’s

life situation and circumstances.

61
62 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

■

■

■

Traditional school-based approaches used to

provide education for children do not work well

for adults because:

—adults have many roles and responsibilities

and thus many competing demands for their

time;

—adults bring with them a wealth of concepts,

knowledge, and experience on which to

build new learning;

—adults have little time for learning, so they

must often seek to learn things that are

meaningful and can be applied immediately

in their daily lives;

—for the most part, adults seek education

because they choose to do so-participation

is voluntary, dropping out and recentering

are common.

The people most likely to benefit from adult

education are least likely to participate in it.

Situational barriers such as work schedules,

childcare responsibilities, transportation, and

cost often prevent participation in formal education. In addition to these situational barriers,

adults also have attitudes and feelings about

school and learning that affect their decisions

about further education.

Taken together, these findings suggest that

adults are more likely to invest the time and

energy in opportunities to learn if those opportunities:

—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 flexibility and choice-so that individuals can learn

at their own pace, on their own time schedules, and under conditions that work best for

different individuals.

 Technologies offer considerable promise for

meeting the needs of adult learners, because

they can deliver learning in places other than

classrooms, facilitate the efficient use of precious learning time, sustain the motivation of

adult learners, and reach many different types

of learners in the ways they learn best.

LITERACY IN EVERYDAY LIFE: ADULTS

WITH LOW LITERACY SKILLS1

The world of adults with low literacy skills in

the United States is unknown territory for most of

us. The research base is slim indeed. Little is

known about what most adults read, how they use

literacy in the various domains of their everyday

lives, and how literacy interacts with technology.

Still less is known about how adults with low

literacy skills lead their lives in a print-based

society, especially the great majority of those

adults who are not enrolled in literacy programs.

A large number of adults with limited literacy

skills have found a variety of ways to survive in

a print-based culture, as shown by a few ethnographic studies. They have talents and skills in

social relationships and in practical life skills.

Many adults with low literacy skills are successful in the workplace; lack of such skills is often

masked by other competencies so that colleagues

and peers are unaware of these workers’ ‘‘hidden

problem.” In contrast, some new immigrants may

suddenly find themselves perceived as nonliterate

because they lack written and communication

skills necessary to function effectively in English,

despite being highly literate in their native

language. Whatever their current life circumstances, however, most adults with low literacy

skills are aware that society places a great deal of

value and status on literacy.

Although research on the literacy demands of

everyday life is limited, several studies provide

insights 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~es

of 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 methods

that provide rich, descriptive data about the

contexts and activities of participants. Some of

these studies address the literacy practices of

adults with low literacy skills, and others address

everyday literacy of non-native English speaking

families. Other researchers have investigated how

workers deal with the literacy demands of their

jobs. These studies offer some important insights

and conclusions; most are based on small samples

of people who have been studied intensively and

thus their generalizability is limited.

Profiles of Diversity

Adults with low literacy skills do not fit

common patterns and stereotypes. They have

many different backgrounds, lifestyles, experiences, and skills. Consider the following adults:

Fred Kruck is a 50-year-old steelworker who

has recently been laid off because the plant where

he had worked for 19 years closed. Last year he

enrolled in truck-driving school as part of a

Federal program to train laid-off workers in new

skills; he dropped out of the program, however,

because of a well-kept secret-he can barely read

and write. He was ‘‘. . . the top laborer in the blast

furnace, the meanest, most dangerous furnace in

the mill, where he hollered orders to a dozen

subordinates, deploying equipment the size of

buildings. It never mattered, never even was

mentioned, that he had graduated from high

school without really learnin g to read and write.

Now, with his furnace gone, it does. ”2

Lisa Bogan, aged 37, was born in rural

Mississippi and lived there until she came to

Knoxville, Tennessee, with her frost husband in

1973. Separated now from her second husband,

Lisa is struggling to overcome the effects of an

abusive second marriage and provide for her two

children with a job as a sales clerk in a department

store. Although she has a high school diploma

she 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 reading

and writing.

reading level is at 5th- or 6th-grade level. Both

literacy and technology present some difficulties

for her, and she has tried adult basic education

classes to upgrade her skills. She is very active

outside the home and family; she votes, attends

PTA meetings, talks with teachers, and is active

in her church.

Alicia Lopez, age 47, migrated alone and

undocumented from her native Mexico to the San

Francisco Bay Area in 1981. In 1986, she became

a legal resident of the United States through the

Immigration Reform and Control Act. Six years

ago she brought her daughter and infant granddaughter to the United States. Alicia now lives in

a home with her sister’s family and raises her

6-year-old grandchild as if she were her own

daughter. Although she dropped out of school in

Mexico at age 13, she can read and write Spanish

quite well; her written and oral language skills in

English are, however, quite limited. Until 5

months ago, Alicia worked as a cook in several

food preparation factories. Since nearly all of the

employees were Spanish-speaking, she was able

to function with very limited English. Alicia

recently 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,
64 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

program where she is learning facility maintenance skills and studying English. Her goal is to

find stable employment that will enable her to

adopt her two youngest grandchildren, currently

in the foster care system because of their mother’s

drug addiction. While she is determined and

capable of mastering new skills and systems, her

limited English presents significant barriers to her

ability to advance, particularly in the employment

arena.

As these and other profiles in the literature

suggest, there is no one type of person nor one

universal characteristic that defines people with

literacy needs. Adults with low literacy skills

. . . appear to embody a range of attributes, rather

than presenting a homogeneous picture. Some are

ambitious, others content; some approach life

positively, while others are fatalistic and depressed. The same range of characteristics maybe

found in the population at large or among literate,

educated adults.3

similarly,

. . . individuals can be expected to vary greatly in

their purposes for reading and writing, in the texts

they choose to read and write, as well as in the

contexts for performance of reading and writing

abilities. A person’s literacy profile might be

conceptualized as a contemporary quilt in progress whose configuration is closely linked to

specific settings characterized by specific opportunities and constraints.4

Those in need of literacy education, or ‘second

chance” basic skills education,5 can be almost

anyone:

■ Women who need to re-enter the workforce in

the wake of divorce or teenage mothers who

dropped out of school when they became

pregnant.

Refugees with college degrees who speak no

English or children of Hispanic migrant workers whose itinerant way of life limited the time

they spent in school.

A recent high school graduate who is having

difficulty entering the workforce or a 50-yearold auto worker whose plant recently closed.

A mother at home who wants to be able to help

her children with their homework or a working

mother who needs to improve her mathematics

skills in order to get a promotion.

A truck driver who needs to pass a newly

mandated written examination in order to keep

his job or an inmate at a prison who is required

to meet a minimum standard of literacy.

“The target population encompasses Americans

who are employed, underemployed, and unemployed.” 6

Adult learners vary on a multitude of dimensions. If the children in our public schools

present a picture of remarkable diversity,

adults do so even more. Adults learners vary in

age from 18 to over 80-with a corresponding

wide variety of life experience. When children are

in school, those of the same age will have

approximately the same skill levels. Not so with

adults, however; all levels of skill-horn little or

none to the highest levels-can be found at any

age. Adults also vary in the amount of experience

they have had in the workforce and the literacy

demands of the jobs they have held. harriers

come from all cultural and ethnic groups, urban

and rural. Some live in poverty, some are

middle-class. Adults who need to learn English

can have extremely diverse experiences with

sM 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, Commission 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 perceived

as nonliterate because they do not speak English.

reading and writing in their native language—

from no experience with the written word to

highly proficient (see box 3-A). In addition,

adults vary in their cognitive abilities; some

significant portion of adults with low literacy

skills probably have undiagnosed learning disabilities (see box 3-B).

Competence and Strength

Research reveals that adults with low literacy

skills are strong and resourceful, skilled and

knowledgeable. It is often assumed that such

adults live impoverished lives, socially and culturally as well as in terms of literacy. In contrast,

the research suggests that to lack reading skills is

not necessarily to lack other skills: indeed the

adults who have been studied had many other

skills, full social lives, and much cultural knowledge. They were respected and “functional”

members of their communities.7

A common theme among the profiles of adults

with low literacy skills is that of self-reliance and

independence. Many are determined to be independent, dislike having to rely on others, even

family members, and do not want to live on

welfare. They want and expect to have control of

their own lives (see box 3-C).

Many also are faced with pressing issues of

survival. Their lives have a fragile stability that

can be easily overturned by life events such as

poor health, accidents, or job changes. The

following case Provides a telling example.

Les Willard is a 36-year-old man who lives

with his wife and two children in one of the

poorest neighborhoods in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Les puts in long hours of work, including extra

jobs on weekends and fixing things around his

own house. He needs to work these hours to

support his extended family, which includes a

disabled brother and an elderly father. If he could

get his electrician’s license, he would earn higher

wages and perhaps need fewer working hours, but

he cannot get the license because his reading

skills are too low to pass the required test. He

cannot improve his literacy because he needs to

work such long hours. He has been physically ill

off and on over the past several years with an

undetermined stomach ailment. He does not seek

medical help because he has no medical coverage.

When he fell off a roof and broke some ribs, he

bound them up himself, and went on with his life.

He sees himself as someone who “holds up,”

who takes pride in managing his family responsibilities and taking care of his “kin.” He and his

wife have managed to build a solid marriage as

well as a supportive environment for their children and extended family. They want their

children to be better educated and have more

opportunities 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. Fellenz

and 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 Research

Conference, Calgary, Alber@ Canada May 6-8, 1988.
66 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime
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@Jand

Policy Developme@ The Iearnln“ g Disabledin Employment andlhirdng Programs, Reseawh @ EvaluatkmI@ort Serka

91-E (waddngtoll DC: Us. Deparmm of Labor, 1991).

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

5 Ibid., p. 54.
68 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

1 -kCenta for Literacy studies, Univdly of~~ “Life at tbc _: Profiles of Mults

With bw L&racy Will&” OT.A CO~ --1992. ‘m names of “mdM&ahI have becm cbanged
Chapter 3-Adults as Learners | 69

deliberate and time-consuming steps to try to

secure good schooling for them.

Strategies for Literacy

Despite their low literacy skills, many adults

have developed a rich and diverse array of

strategies for adapting to the literacy demands

of a print-based society and for learning new

skills in their daily lives. The Office of Technology Assessment’s (OTA) profiles of adults suggest a number of strategies that adults with low

literacy skills use to cope with daily life. Some

people rely on others to help, and develop social

networks based on reciprocal exchange. Many

people have worked out a variety of ways of

managing in which they do not depend on others;

such strategies of self-reliance include learning

the routine formats of bills and forms, making

educated guesses, and using written text for

specific purposes such as writing down words to

look up in a dictionary (see box 3-D). Avoidance

of situations where literacy or language demands

exceed skills is an important strategy for many.

Still others, particularly non-native speakers of

English, use technology for information and

communication,

LEARNING IN ADULTHOOD

Much of what is known about learning comes

from studying children in schools. In contrast,

little is known about the process of learning that

continues once a person leaves school. Adults

continue to learn throughout their lives. Transitions in life stages and changing life conditions

often provide the impetus for much of this

learning.

Some researchers have examined how adults

learn in the various arenas of their lives, particularly the workplace. One of the most consistent

findings of the research on literacy acquisition

among adults is that a person’s literacy skills vary

as a function of different settings (e.g., work,

school, and home) in which he or she develops

and uses those skills. Evidence indicates that

work-related literacy demands and uses are very

different from school-related ones, and that experienced workers are much more skilled at on-thejob problem solving using reading, writing, and

mathematical skills than at pencil-and-paper tests

measuring the ‘‘same’ operations. One line of

research has looked at on-the-job reading and

writing demands.8 This research has several

consistent findings.

Workers in most types of employment do

considerable job-related reading. The average

times reported in different studies range from

30 minutes to 2 hours per day. When workers’

literacy activities were compared with those of

high school and technical school students,

workers’ average daily reading time of 113

minutes was found to be higher than that of

students in school.9

Job-related reading is primarily “reading-todo” (as opposed to “reading-to-learn,” which

is the primary purpose of school-based reading).

Workers read and write to accomplish tasks, solve

problems, and make evaluations about the usefulness of material. . . . Students in secondary

schools read primarily to obtain information

needed to answer teacher questions.l0

Work-related literacy demands are strongly

repetitive and contextualized, and related to

knowledge that the worker already has. Workers

have repeated opportunities for reading and

s See, for example, Thomas G. Sticht et al., Human Resources Researeh Organization “Project REALISTIC: Determination of Achdt

Functional 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.
70 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime
re-reading the material, and their job experience

provides them with knowledge that helps them

understand the written material.

Chapter 3-Adults as barriers | 71

11 wl~~ Man Diehl, Indiana University, “Functional Literacy as a %riable Construct: An Examination of Attitudes, Behaviors, and

Strategies 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 Adult

Education 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 Jean

Lave (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.
72 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Box 3-E—Profile of Tom Addington1

1 Adapted from Center for Literacy Studies, UXdVerSity Of ‘MW$~ ~~fle, “Life at the Margins: Profiles of Adults

With Low Literscy Skills,” OTA contractor reporg March 1992. The Mmcs of individuals have been changed.
m

r’-

—

u)

0

a

m

3

u

<

CL

1681 ’63 3Nnr~

analvmmu U3nNvMl Oav 3UW ml W133ds

ZME -W =WWl

N

m

!

ImvaL

moms 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
74 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

1‘Mlyn c. mmcr, “caducdng Bvdusdon ill Adult LMacy Program: rssuc#J and RcammmM On&” papcxprcY?altcd

at 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 fairly

reading 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 a

preaches. One group of researchers studied prob- paper-and-pencil test on the same mathematical

lem-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 arithmetic

formal 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.
Chapter 3-Adults as barriers | 75

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 Adult

E!ducaaoll “ and Literacy, January 1990, p. 11.

6 see, for example, Janice Lee Albert SXKI W-D’~ Samuel& Ad@ Learners’ Perceptions qfkUteraqy Pro~ranu

and thehqact of Par@p@”on on Thefrk”ves (NOW YorlL NY: Literacy kdtance Center, Inc., August 1991).

7 S=mA._@ 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 Mll@.g office, March 1992).

virtually error free-arithmetic in the supermar- everyone looks much less skilled than they really

ket. ’ ’17

Results of these studies suggest that available methods for assessing people’s literacy do

not give the full picture of what people can do.

Just as research in cognitive science has indicated

that knowledge and processes are intertwined, the

research on everyday uses of literacy confirms

that when the process (literacy as skill) is separated from the knowledge (everyday context),

are. This suggests that many people who perform

poorly on paper-and-pencil tests may nevertheless be functioning adequately, or to their own

satisfaction, in their everyday lives. These results

also suggest the need for new kinds of literacy

assessment methods; the trend toward developing

performance assessments in education offers the

promise of providing a broader and more complex

picture of individual accomplishment (see box 3-F).

17 Ibid,, pp. 82-83.
76 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

These findings about the importance of context

in learning are highly congruent with the view of

learning that has emerged from the cognitive

sciences. This approach, which applies to both

children and adults, challenges many of the

traditional assumptions about learning on which

most classrooms have been based.18 The traditional model assumes that complex skills can be

broken down into simple skills, each of which can

be mastered independently and out of context.

Not until all components are mastered can more

complex “thinking skills develop. Moreover, in

this model, the teacher is the active partner in the

educational process, imparting knowledge to a

passive student as though filling an empty jug.

In contrast, the “constructivist” view of learning underscores the importance of the student

actively constructing his or her own knowledge.

This view of learning suggests the following

principles to guide the design of effective learning

environments: 19

■ People do not easily or predictably transfer

learning-either from school to “real life,”

from real life to classrooms, or from one subject

to another. Educational experiences should

help students transfer skills, concepts, and

knowledge they have learned to new situations.

■ Learners are not passive vessels into which

knowledge can be poured, but rather active

participants in their own learning. “The student

needs chances to engage in choice, judgment,

control process, problem formulation; s/he

needs the chance to make mistakes. We have an

adage in our culture, ‘Experience is the best

teacher.’ In other words, you learn when you

do, a popular observation borne out by the

research. Although not sufficient for effective

learning, doing is necessary.”20

Knowledge is acquired from experience with

complex, meaningful problems rather than

from practicing subskills and learning isolated

bits of knowledge. “Human beings-even the

small child-are quintessentially sense-making,

problem-solving animals. . . . As a species, we

wonder, we are curious, we want to understand. . . . Fractionated and decontextualized

instruction fails to mobilize this powerful

property of human beings in the service of

learning. ‘ ’21

Learners are not blank slates, but rather carry

concepts and knowledge they have acquired

elsewhere into the learning situation. “In other

words, the teaching challenge is not to write on

a clean slate. It is to confirm, disconfirm,

modify, replace, and add to what is already

written there. "22

Skills and knowledge are best acquired in

context. Previously it was thought that in order

to make skills and knowledge more generalizable, most learning should be general and

separated from the context of everyday life.

“Context, however, turns out to be critical for

understanding and thus for learning. . . . The

importance of context lies in the meaning that

it gives to 1earning.’ ’23

ADULTS SEEKING LEARNING

OPPORTUNITIES

Adults learn all the time, in all the arenas of

their lives. For some adults, new roles and life

transitions-becoming a parent, moving to anew

18 Forh-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.
Chapter 3-Adults as Learners | 77

1 tipti from center for Literacy Studies, University of lkrmes~ Knoxville “Life at the IWl@ls: PrOfileS of ~~w

With Low Literacy Skills,” OTA contractor repofi March 1992. The ms of individuals have been changed.

part of the country, taking a new job, developing

a medical problem-precipitate new learning and

the acquisition of new skills. Most people desiring to gain new knowledge or improve their skills

probably do so informally, e.g., by reading books

or listening to books on tape, watching television,

setting up informal tutoring exchanges with a

friend or relative, observing others, doing volunteer work, using the library, or attending lectures

at community centers (see box 3-G). But some

adults seek formal education through enrolling in

courses or engaging a tutor.

Evidence shows that people most likely to

benefit from adult education are least likely to

participate in it. In 1990-91, a 1arge-scaIe,

nationally representative survey was conducted

about the educational activities of adults in the

United States. Thirty-eight percent of adults ages
78 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

17 and over reported participating in some

educational activity during the 12-month period.24 Findings included the following:

People with jobs were more likely to participate

than those who were unemployed or not in the

labor force (41 percent as compared to 21

percent and 14 percent respectively);

People with higher levels of education were

more likely to attend (see figure 3-l);

People with higher incomes had higher participation rates;

Adults between the ages of 35 and 44 had the

highest rates of any age group;

Adults with children under 16 had higher rates

than those with no children (37 percent as

compared to 28 percent); and

Men and women participated at the same rate.

These findings suggest that “. . . those who

would benefit greatly from participation in some

part-time educational activity seemed less likely

to do so-that is, adults with a 12th-grade

education or less, who were not employed, or

whose households were at the

levels. ’ ’25

The Decision to Participate

in Adult Literacy Education

lowest income

Adults entering literacy programs are significantly different from children in school. They are,

for the most part, ‘‘schooled. Most of them have

had at least 7 years of schooling, many have had

some high school, and some have graduated from

high school, but without proficiency in reading or

other basic skills. Furthermore, these adults enter

the classroom with a wealth of life experiences

that reframe and often screen both their perceptions and their participation in the learning

experience. 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 School

Completed

Bachelor% degree

or higher

Assoclate's degree

Some college

High school and

vocational school

12th grade

9th to 11th grade

Up to 8th grade

in Educational Activities During

by 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 and

informai educatbnai experiences in which adults partidpated over the

12-month period preeeding the survey. This includes enrollment in

coiiege, vocational training, GED instruction, Engiish as a seeond

language, and any other type of education or training provided by any

typeof provider indudingcolleges and universities, empbyers, communityorganizatbns (e.g. library, museum), and State and ioeal agenaes.

Those stili attending elementary or secondary sohooi were exductect

from the swey.

SOURCE: Roslyn Korb et al., U.S. Department of Echeation, Nat ional

Center for Educatbn Statistbs, “Adult Education Profile for 199G91 ,“

NCES #91-222, Septembsr 1991.

times in their adult lives as they drop out of and

reenter programs. These adults have a strong

sense of self, an emotionally laden history of past

1earning experiences, and a complex set of

motivations.

Why do more adults not enter literacy programs? What factors affect their decisions to seek

educational 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 and

teachers. 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 coutdbegin

more 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.
80 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

have not experienced success in school situations.

“For many, public school is associated with

shame and pain from the time they were young. ’32

Some, like Tom, describe not being able to learn

or understand but being passed on through the

system:

I wasn’t learning nothing, they just passed me

to get rid of me. They’d send me down on the ball

field, rake the ball field off or tell me to go to sleep

or something or other. . . . Seemed like they

didn’t have enough patience so I just quit goin’.

I wasn’t learnin’ nothin’. They wouldn’t try to

learn me nothing so I just quit goin’. . . . They

ought to took their time ‘cause I was willing to

learn. They ought to took their time to learn me

but they didn’t seem like they cared that much.33

Although most students have painful past experiences with schooling, they are affected in different ways: some retain negative self-evaluations of

themselves as learners, some do not believe in the

usefulness of education, and some remain reluctant to subject themselves to schools and teachers

once again.

The threatening nature of change. The decision to enter a literacy program often is the

culmination of a long period of personal struggle.

‘‘Even after they have admitted to themselves that

they need to develop better literacy skills, it can

be years before someone enters a program. ”34

Deciding to come usually means the participant is

deciding to change something about their life-to

be different than they are now.

In the future I would like to go to school because

I would like to have something more meaningful

than a factory job. If I go to the school, I want to

try to find some interesting job-you know–-to

learn how to get some more money doing

something different because I need to be some

other woman, you know. I don’t want to be the

same all the time.35

Often the decision to enter a program cannot be

attributed to a single event, but is part of a larger

process of change or life transition. Losing a job,

confronting alcoholism, breaking up an intimate

relationship, or having one’s children begin

school can lead to changing roles and life choices.

“As adults move through the life cycle, new

motivations to learn are constantly being generated by the need to perform new roles. ’36 While

deciding to address a literacy problem can be

associated with a sense of hope and empowerment, it can also trigger fear of failure or of being

incapable of realizing one’s dreams. Researchers

have also suggested that improved literacy can be

a threat to the balance of power in a family or

between a couple.37 Improved literacy can alter

the stability of the person’s current life situation.

One learner describes it in this way:

At first my husband didn’t approve. He would

say, “You’re always going out; you read too

much; you think you know everything. " . .

Because I couldn’t read, I was more dependent on

him. When I learned to read he lost something

because I didn’t need him so much. I think it was

something like what can happen when an alcoholic stops drinking.38

Fear of job loss. Many prospective learners

express a fear of reprisal such as job loss if

employers 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 ~dD- 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 identified

as a deterrent to participation in a number of

workplace literacy programs.39 Some of these

programs have had to offer offsite classes or enlist

union support to encourage employees to attend.

I was kinda scared the first time when I couldn’t

read really. . . . I was kinda scared to talk to my

boss actually about that because I thought she was

going to fire me. So one day I told her I wanted

to talk to her. So she was willing to listen and I tell

her I have a reading problem. And actually she

was very sympathetic with me. She helped mea

The Importance of Motivation

An 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 voluntary

adult learners toward literacy education. When it

is strong, adults can be expected to overcome the

barriers to participation that life imposes. When

motivation is weak participation is highly unlikely. It follows that if literacy programs can

develop recruitment and instruction which is

congruent with learners’ motivations, success in

attracting and retaining students will be considerably enhanced.41

A number of theorists and researchers have

studied the motivations of adult learners. Although findings vary from study to study depending on populations studied and methods used,

several general principles have emerged from this

research. 42 Adults give a variety of reasons for

participating in adult education. These motivaChapter 3-Adults as Learners! 81

ii

i

Adults turn to education for many reasons including

helping their children with homework, getting a new

job, reading for fun, or learning something new.

tions go well beyond a simple desire to improve

basic skills or get a high school diploma. One

review of the literature suggests that the goals

reported in most studies can be grouped into three

broad types: employment goals (to gain or

upgrade employment), hopes related to children,

and self-improvement.43 In fact, one of the most

frequently cited motivators for attending adult

education is self-improvement, which includes

reasons such as becoming a better person, wanting to learn new things, being more independent,

becoming better informed. These self-improvement reasons appear to be equally, if not more,

important than vocational motivators (e.g., getting abetter job, making more money).44 Motiva39 Lw mm~, ‘wO&pl~e Literacy Programs: ~g anizationand Incentives,’ paper presented at “Adult Learning and Work A Focus

on Incentives, ’ a conference sponsored by the U.S. National Center on Adult Literacy, Nov. 4-5, 1991.

40 Ffigemt adD- 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 Adult

Literacy 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 attend

community colleges ‘‘. . . are more interested in learning, in acquiring new skills, and in completing . . . basic general education than in

advanced credentials, even if those credentials yield greater economic rewards.
82 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

tion also seems to be influenced by age and the

learner’s place in the life cycle. For example,

diversion (a desire to dispel boredom) is given as

a reason for participating by younger and older

people, but less so for those in middle age.

Concerns about professional advancement, in

contrast, were highly motivating to those in

middle age, less so in later years.45

Why People Do Not Participate

Most estimates suggest that somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of eligible adults have

enrolled in federally sponsored literacy programs

46 AS the above section has within the last year.

demonstrated, the adult who shows up at an adult

education program is likely to be highly motivated and has managed to overcome or set aside

other potential barriers to participation. But what

of the adults who never come? What do we know

about those who do not participate in literacy

programs? It is much easier to survey, observe,

and interview adults who come to programs than

the much larger part of the population who do not.

Lack of information about nonparticipants is a

major problem facing those who would increase

participation rates.47

Some researchers have attempted to find out

what the common barriers are to attending adult

education classes. Most of these efforts are

surveys that provide a list of possible reasons for

not attending classes and ask adults to select the

ones that apply to them.48 This research is of

limited generalizability, however, because it tells

us only what people say keeps them from

participating, which can be greatly affected by

social desirability (e.g., it is easier and more

acceptable to say cost and time are deterrents than

to admit one is too anxious to try it or that one

thinks education is worthless). Nevertheless this

work has helped to illuminate the commonly cited

reasons that people give for not attending.

Most of the research on barriers or deterrents to

participation in adult education has been conducted with a broad range of adults, and does not

focus on those with few skills. A synthesis of this

general research suggests eight major types of

deterrents:

“1. Individual, family or home-related problems

2,

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

(e.g., child care, poor health, transportation

difficulties)

Cost concerns, including opportunity costs

and lack of financial assistance

Questionable worth, relevance, or quality of

available educational opportunities

Negative perceptions regarding the value of

education in general, including those related to

prior unfavorable experience

Lack of motivation or indifference toward

learning (e.g., anomie, apathy)

Lack of self-confidence in one’s learning

abilities, including lack of social support/

encouragement

A general proclivity toward nonaffiliation

(e.g., marginal involvement in social activities)

Incompatibilities of time and/or place, especially those associated with conflicting demands 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 laugh

at 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< 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

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

Reasons for nonparticipation thus fall into two

major groupings: reasons internal to the person

and those that are external or in the environment

(see table 3-l). Internal reasons (which have also

been called dispositional or psychosocial) include

attitudes and feelings about the usefulness and

value of adult education and evaluations about

oneself as a learner.50 External reasons can be

situational (cost, time, transportation), informational

(not knowing about relevant opportunities) and

institutional (issues under the control of the

schooling institution such as scheduling, registration procedures, course prerequisites, and location of the classes).

Different barriers are likely to be more or less

important to different kinds of people. For example, situational barriers tend to be associated with

those who are married, have children, and hold a

job. Cost factors tend to be cited by younger age

groups, and adults of lower socioeconomic status

tend to be more deterred by lack of information.51

However, very little is known about which

deterrents are most important and whether the

elimination of those barriers would actually

increase participation.

Of the situational barriers, lack of time seems

to be most often and consistently cited by adults

as a deterrent. ‘‘Clearly, such proven strategies as

Attitudes of family and peers

Life-cycle transitions/role changes

Access to information about relevant educational opportunities

Situational barriers to participation: (e.g., time,

money, transportation, childcare needs)

Institutional barriers (e.g., fixed schedules, registration requirements, course prerequisites)

varied and flexible scheduling, distance learning,

and provisions for self-pacing will make education more accessible to adult learners. ”52 Other

strategies for removing situational barriers might

include providing childcare or transportation

costs, locating learning sites near the workplace,

providing better information about available resources, and so forth. Decisions about which

situational barriers to remove-for example, by

providing childcare-will depend on the specific

groups being served by programs.

Because they are more concrete, situational

barriers are often the easiest to remove or change

through policy decisions. Attitudinal barriers may

prove to be far more difficult and complex to

address. Dislike for school, low perception of the

need for education, and perceptions that a large

amount of effort is required to make gains in adult

education all reduce participation of those most in

need. Strategies for removing some of these

attitudinal barriers might include developing

ways to encourage or motivate those who do not

perceive a need or to convince learners that

progress is possible and leads to desired outcomes. If dislike for school is a substantial

deterrent to adults with low literacy skills, then

educational programs may need to be “deschooled” and removed from some of the institu50 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.
84 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

A lack of time or transportation prevents many adults from attending literacy classes. This classroom on wheels

travels throughout Los Angeles bringing learning resources to adults in their own neighborhoods.

tional trappings of schools. Although these are all

strategies worth exploring, no one really knows

which, if any, will have the greatest impact on

increasing participation rates.

MEETING ADULT LEARNER NEEDS:

THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY

New technologies offer considerable promise

in addressing the special concerns faced by adult

learners who wish to improve their literacy skills.

Technology can deliver instruction to learners in

many new and different ways, whether they are

computer-based, video-based (e.g., television and

videotapes), or audio-based (e.g., radio, audiotape, and telephone). Some of the promise of new

technologies reflects effects on increasing and

sustaining motivation. Another plus is the possibility that instruction delivered via technologies

may directly influence cognitive understanding—

that is, help learners master new information

better, more comprehensively, or more quickly.

Other advantages come from the flexibility and

efficiencies these new technologies offer to adults

who have very small amounts of time to devote to

learning.

Although those using technology to teach

literacy have considerable anecdotal evidence of

its effectiveness, very little empirical evidence is

available to substantiate these claims. Some

research evidence has accumulated about the
Chapter 3-Adults as Learners | 85

effects of technology on learning,

53 but much Of it

is based on studies done with children. The

research that has been done with adults comes

primarily from higher education and military

settings.

With these caveats in mind, then, the promise

of technology for adults with low literacy skills

can be described in a number of areas.

Reaching barriers Outside of Classrooms

Technology can facilitate the delivery of learning experiences in places other than classrooms.

Adults can learn at times and places convenient

for them; many situational barriers such as lack of

transportation or childcare can be overcome by

bringing instruction into homes and communities.

Similarly, for many adults with low literacy skills

privacy is important; learningin their own homes

may offer a less stigmatizing way to obtain further

education. Because of painful past experiences

with classroom-based learning, some adults with

low literacy skills may be more motivated to give

education a ‘‘second chance’ if it can be delivered in nonschool-based settings, such as the

home, libraries, or community centers.

Attempts to offer adults instruction that is more

convenient has its roots in the correspondence

course-a method invented in the late 19th

century to provide instruction to learners unable

to attend a class.54 Communications media such as

broadcast television and audio recording have

long been used in corporate, military, and university continuing education sectors as a means to

offer education at a distance. More recently new

forms of telecommunications have offered new

possibilities for reaching learners.55

But do adults learn as well or as effectively

when taught at a distance? Is face-to-face instruction an inherently superior way of teaching or can

other methods be just as effective? Most studies

that have compared face-to-face instruction with

other methods such as teleconferencing, videobased instruction, or instruction via radio and

audiotapes have found that achievement gains

made by students exposed to the technologies

were at least equal to those made by students

receiving face-to-face instruction.56 In addition,

although the research findings indicate that the

absence of face-to-face contact is not detrimental

to learning, the literature suggests that a requirement for successful distance education may be a

carefully designed learner support system. In such

a system students are supported by teachers who

do things such as help students organize study

time and develop study skills, provide diagnostic

counseling and tutorial assistance when necessary, and monitor and help sustain student involvement and motivation for learning. 57

Using Learning Time Efficiently

Technologies can facilitate more efficient use

of precious learning time. Because they must

juggle multiple roles and responsibilities, most

adults have very little time to devote to learning.

Many adults who have tried to participate in

literacy programs find themselves unable to

sustain their participation because of conflicting

job schedules, family responsibilities, or transportation problems. Although they may have

precious parcels of free time, these do not always

occur when classes are scheduled. To sustain their

motivation, many adults may need to take advan53 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 Information

Service (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 the

Research Literature,” O’IA contractor qort, Deeember 1992.

57 Moore, op. cit., fOOtnOte 54.

331-048 0 - 93 – 4 QL. 3
86 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

tage of these small segments of time or may be

drawn to opportunities that offer other efficiencies such as learning while commuting, waiting in

the doctor’s office, or on a lunch break. Technology offers ways to deliver education at times and

places that can maximize the efficient use of free

time.

There are a number of other ways that technology can make learning more efficient. When a

group of students sits in a classroom and learns

from a teacher, the pace of instruction is set by the

teacher. Some students could move at a faster

pace, while other students, perhaps with less prior

knowledge or with other needs, could benefit

from a slower pace. Technology can allow

students to master content at the pace that suits

them best. For example, audio and videotapes of

lectures allow students who need repetition to

revisit the material until it is mastered, while other

students move on to new materials. Features of

computers and multimedia technologies can allow

the learner to set the pace at which text is read or

materials are presented. People can spend more

time on things they do not understand, while

moving quickly through those they have already

mastered. A lecture or a broadcast presented at a

fixed rate is understood by some learners but

leaves some bored and others confused. Allowing

the learner to control features such as pace, the

need for repetition, and the need for extra

explanation or feedback helps optimize time

spent learning. This capacity of the technology is

particularly important for adults, since they come

to educational settings with an extremely wide

range of life experience, knowledge, and formal

schooling.

A review of adult education studies comparing

computer-based education (CBE) to conventional

instruction methods found positive effects on

adult learners.58 First, these CBE methods raised

achievement scores by an average of 0.42 standard deviations-or the equivalent of an increase

from the 50th to the 66th percentile. In addition,

in 12 of the 13 studies that reported instructional

time, the computer methods were faster; i.e.,

adults learners typically required about 70 percent

of the time required by conventional teaching

methods. These results suggest that, at least in

general adult education, the learner can learn as

much or more of the material in a shorter amount

of time than with conventional methods.

A more recent review of interactive videodisc

methods in the military, higher education, and

industrial training suggests a very similar pattern. 59 Across 47 studies reviewed, results suggested that interactive videodisc instruction increased achievement an average of 0.5 standard

deviations over conventional instruction, an increase from the 50th percentile to about the 69th

percentile of achievement. Results also suggested

that the more the interactive features were used,

the more effective was the instruction. The

average amount of student time saved across eight

studies that looked at this factor was 31 percent.

These results suggest that adults (in military,

higher education, and training settings) learn

more in less time with interactive videodisc

methods. Studies to date are not detailed enough,

however, to allow conclusions about whether

factors such as self-pacing account for these

efficiencies.

Sustaining Motivation

Technologies can enhance and sustain the

motivation of adult learners. Many factors can

deter an otherwise motivated adult from participating in a literacy program. Technology offers

ways of protecting the privacy of learners. In

addition to its capacity to deliver instruction

outside of classrooms, technology offers other

58 Cmc. Km et ~., “The Effectiveness of Computer-Based Adult Edueatiom A h4eta-Anslysis,” Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 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: btituk

for 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, for

example, learners no longer have to worry about

making mistakes or feeling evaluated by teachers

and peers. Computers are patient, nonevaluative

tutors. But privacy need not mean isolation.

Learners can use electronic networks, fax, telephones, and other distance technologies to share

information and communicate with learners or

tutors in other location-still retaining their

anonymity but participating in new kinds of

‘‘schools’ and ‘‘communities."60

Educators working with technology have long

been aware of a kind of “novelty” factor that

improves the motivation of students working with

technology. Learners, it seems, find technology a

‘‘fun’ way to learn and may also find it rewarding

to master ‘‘new machines. Adults with low

literacy skills may particularly enjoy the opportunity to work with computers and gain experience

with this important and pervasive technology.

Some educators have also argued that computer

methods also sustain motivation, because they

can allow learning materials to be customized to

meet the interests of individual learners. For

example, a learner could scan a newspaper article

of her choice into the computer; she could

practice various assignments using content in

which she is interested.

Multimedia technologies allow learners to

branch off and explore ideas of particular interest.

@ ‘M-@ -, ‘‘Li- & R&chines: h Overview of the Use of ‘l&Imology in Adult Literacy IkOgIWUS,” Upubw ~~PL

1993, p. 7.
88 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

The computer’s capacity to allow learners choices

over content as well as provide immediate feedback on the learner’s responses makes it particularly well-suited to maintaining the motivation of

a student as he or she progresses. These features

are particularly important for adult learners who

often feel that learning is difficult and may need

to re-experience themselves as successful learners.

Research on attitudes and motivation in relation to technology-based instruction is fairly

limited, though many of the published conclusions seem to be positive. Some of the positive

effects associated with computers may be novelty

effects of using technology rather than the instructional potential of the delivery system itself.61

Research with students from elementary to college age indicates that students enjoy using

computers for several reasons: they like being

able to make mistakes without embarrassment;

they enjoy immediate, helpful feedback; and they

like graphics and game formats. Some studies

have suggested that computers are motivating

because they give students the feeling of being in

control. Other studies have suggested that computers contribute to students spending more time

on a task, which in turn can contribute to higher

levels of achievement.62

The benefits on motivation of factors such as

immediate feedback, encouragement for correct

answers, and being able to work on content of

personal interest has long been known. The

design of software that incorporates these features

is likely to influence motivation and learning

more than the effects of the technology alone.

Good instructional software that builds on what is

known about adult learning is likely to influence

achievement and attitudes. Most available research cannot, however, distinguish among the

various explanations for the motivating effects of

technologies.

Individualizing Instruction

Technologies can offer opportunities to individualize instruction, reaching all types of learners in ways they learn best. Different media offer

different modalities for presenting material: some

materials may be understood better if they can be

heard (e.g., a persuasive speech) or seen demonstrated (e.g., the steps involved in cardiopulmonary resuscitation). Information presented in two

modalities at the same time can sometimes

facilitate learning; e.g., beginning readers often

benefit from hearing text read to them while they

follow along with the text.

Audio and video technologies have long been

used in classrooms to supplement print-based

materials. The expanding capacities of new multimedia technologies offer opportunities for learners to access materials in many different forms—

text, graphics, moving video, still video, digitized

audio-and to combine these modes in unique

ways. Thus, the new technologies offer ways of

individualizing instruction to meet the needs of

different types of learners.

The research on this topic is not extensive but

it suggests that individuals do differ in their

responsiveness to different media. Several studies

have suggested that lower achieving students

benefit more from the availability of audio and

videotaped versions of courses. In one study,

university students in the lowest quartile of

achievement who received their psychology

course via audiotape outperformed the live lecture students; in addition, fewer of the lower

achieving 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” Reeent

Researe h“ Journal of E&cational Computing Research, vol. 4, No. 4, 1988, Pp. 367-389.

ISJs= Jobto~ op. Cit, footnote 53.
Chapter 3-Adults as Learners | 89

Some of the most pertinent evidence comes

from the British Open University, which in the

1970s and 1980s created a large number of

multimedia courses (i.e., these courses included

components of printed text, television, radio, and

audiotape). These were higher education courses

designed to be completed primarily at home.

Research on the use of the various media in these

courses indicated strong individual differences

between students in their ability to learn from

different media.

Whereas most students on most courses do seem

to make an effort to watch the majority of

television programmed, there is no coherent

pattern 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 a

lot of students, those students who do use it

regularly find it extremely valuable. . . . The

weaker students who do watch or listen rate the

broadcasts as more helpful than do the more

successful students. a

Having examined other possible explanations, the

researchers concluded that some students have

difficulty with text, as they have not been

successful readers in their past academic experiences. These students are likely to rely on audio

and video for a simplification of the material.

One group of researchers working with adult

literacy learners developed an inventory to distinguish between auditory learners and visual learners. Results suggest that those learners who read

at lower levels (junior high and below) have a

strong preference for auditory-based instructional

materials. 65 These researchers argue for the importance of including clear digital audio components in effective literacy courseware.

Providing Access to Information Tools

For many years, printed text was the primary

medium through which people gained information. Schools and libraries provided access to

books and other texts, and taught people how to

use these resources to get needed information.

Today a whole new information infrastructure is

emerging; access to it depends on understanding

and using a variety of technologies.

As individuals, those of us already equipped with

a computer and a modem on our desks do not

represent the Americans who have the most to

gain by greater access to information. We already

have the means to find out most of what we want

to know, electronically or through books, magazines, and, most importantly, through telephone

calls to fellow members of the informed, Moreover, our basic needs (e.g., for health, education,

and a job) are largely met.66

Just as the inability to read has often isolated

people from the mainstream of society, technological ‘illiteracy’ threatens to marginalize those

who lack technology access. Helping adults learn

to use information tools promotes lifelong learning and independence. Everyone is entitled to

know how to make effective use of the variety,

quality, and quantity of information available as

well as the powerful tools for creating and

manipulating information (see box 3-H).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this chapter on adults and

learning have several important implications for

literacy policy planning. Contrary to stereotype,

adults with low literacy skills are strong and

resourceful, skilled and knowledgeable. Each

brings a wealth of concepts, knowledge, and

experience 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 Advanced

Research 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.
90 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

1 A&pti fimM* H@lnd ad Jim stb~e, “Does Video Instruction Have a Part to Play in Adult Literacy

Program,” 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 learning

should be poured, but active builders of their own

skills and knowledge-participants in the educational process. These adults are capable of making choices, of mastering their own learning tools,

and of becoming competent consumers of learning opportunities. The delivery of literacy services must consider these learners as potential

consumers exercising choice over available options.

The great majority of adults needing literacy

skills do not participate in educational programs

for which they are eligible. The problem of

nonparticipation--- what causes it and how factors

such as culture and life history may affect

it—-needs to be better understood. New models of

education, tools of instruction, and methods for

delivery need to be developed that will appeal to

nonparticipants.

Chapter 3-Adults as barriers | 91

Adult learners participate in learnin g opportunities for a wide variety of reasons, which include,

but are not limited to, employment and workforce

participation. ‘‘Adult literacy education must

focus on meeting learners’ goals, for as long as

participation is voluntary society can reap its

benefits only if learners are able to reap their

own. ’ ’67 Literacy policy and planning needs to

recognize that learners have a broad range of

learning goals and outcomes. Adult literacy

education can be viewed as an investment in an

educated citizenry. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, education should enable all citizens to

exercise the rights of self-government and to

pursue happiness and individual development

within society. Literacy policy and practice can

be developed to build on the goals and motivations of individuals learners.

67 B~er, op. cit., footnote 36, p. 161.
The Literacy

System:

A Patchwork of

Programs and

Resources 4

T

he literacy service delivery ‘‘system’ is a heterogeneous

and eclectic mix of funding sources, programs, administrative agencies, and service providers. Literacy programs range from individual tutors working one-on-one

with learners in small voluntary programs to federally sponsored

research efforts affecting thousands of learners. Instruction and

services are provided by school districts, community colleges,

employers, labor unions, community-based organizations, libraries, and churches. Programs take many different approaches:

some focus on basic reading and writing skills; others on

family-based literacy, workplace literacy, or on daily living

skills; and some tackle literacy as an element of job training. This

complex, diverse system is frequently criticized for being

fragmented and inadequate. There is an almost universal sense

that more can and should be done, and that it can and should be

done 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 confronted with a web of disconnected, often overlapping

programs.

There is no one best approach to providing adult literacy

services, but some programs have been more successful in

meeting learners’ needs than others. Success seems to reflect

greater resources, secure funding, and a philosophy that

responds to the learner’s individual needs.

Data do not currently exist to enable the Office of Technology

Assessment (OTA) to make any reasonable estimate of the

93
94 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

■

■

■

■

total funding devoted to adult literacy education. Public support is the most identifiable

source. Federal funding has grown significantly in the last few years, and has provided

leadership, leveraging other dollars toward

adult literacy. However, the greatest growth

over the last decade has been in State support,

now outstripping Federal funding for literacy.

As the major funders, Federal and State programs and policies largely define who is served

and how and where they are served.

The overall amount spent by business and

industry on literacy training for their workers is

expanding due to union and public perception

of the links between literacy and economic

competitiveness, but there is no aggregate data

on these programs.

A number of factors, including new Federal and

State laws, a diverse population of learners, and

changing technologies have combined to increase the variety of learning sites and public

and private agencies funding and administering

programs. Most importantly, new opportunities

go beyond the traditional school-based programs run by local education agencies (LEAs).

The content of adult basic education (ABE),

adult secondary education, preparation for the

general equivalency diploma (GED) examination, and English as a second language (ESL)

instruction shows little variation across program sponsors. An increasing emphasis on

matching curriculum to the learner’s daily

needs has led to more contextualized content,

especially as workforce and family literacy

programs 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 and

assumes different motivational factors than

those of schoolchildren, it also means that

many adults do not remain in programs long

enough to receive the full benefit of instruction.

Rapid turnover and high dropout rates lead to

limited learnin g gains.

Most instruction is provided by part-time or

volunteer teachers. Certified teachers are generally K-12 educators without special training

in the art and science of teaching adults.

Volunteers receive little training and support

for the challenges they are expected to meet.

Funding is a constant concern. For most

programs, unstable and short-term funding

make it difficult to plan, to purchase necessary

equipment or materials, or to develop professional staffing ladders. The instability of funding also gives a negative message to the clients.

The use of technology in adult literacy programs is limited, but growing. Technology can

offer benefits for individual learners and for

program management. For today’s laborintensive system, technology is an alternative

for overburdened programs unable to provide

comprehensive individualized instruction to

large numbers of students.

The barriers to more effective use of technology are similar to those faced in K-12 education, but more severe in adult literacy programs.

These barriers include funding limitations, staff

unschooled in teaching with technological

tools, adminis“ trators unaware of technology’s

potential, and uneven curriculum coverage in

current software.

THE DELlVERY SYSTEM

The patchwork of the present system is best

understood by answering these questions: who

provides the funds, who admini sters the programs, who is being served, what kind of instruction do they receive, and who are the teachers?

Who Provides the Funds?

Money for programs comes from many sources:

Federal, State, regional, and local government

agencies on the public side and businesses,

unions, foundations, charitable institutions, and

individual 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 complicated

because most programs receive support from

multiple public and private sources, literacy

services may be subsumed under broader funding

categories, and data collection requirements of

sponsors do not necessarily complement one

another. OTA finds that it is impossible to specify

the total amount spent on adult literacy services

across the Nation.

It is clear, however, that the public sector is the

most identifiable and largest source of support.

Consequently, the public sector has an enormous

effect on program administration.

Federal Programs and Dollars

The Federal Government supports adult literacy education through an assortment of targeted

programs administered by several Federal agencies. These programs not only provide a base of

funding for local literacy efforts, but also greatly

influence State and local funding, administrative

structures, priorities, target populations, services,

and instructional approaches. These efforts are

explored in more detail in chapter 5.

At least 29 different Federal programs in 7

agencies support adult literacy and basic skills

education as one of their primary purposes, and

many more include adult literacy as a peripheral

goal. Chief among the Federal literacy programs

is the Adult Education Act (AEA), administered

by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). In

fiscal year 1992, the AEA provided $270 million

for the following programs: State basic grants;

State literacy resource centers; workplace literacy

partnerships; English literacy programs; and national research, evaluation, and demonstration.

ED also supports literacy education through

special programs for adult prisoners, commercial

drivers, homeless adults, Native American adults,

and migrant adults, and through the Even Start

Family Literacy Program, the Bilingual Family

Literacy Program, the Library Services and Construction Act, and the Student Literacy Corps.

Although ED continues to have primary responsibility for adult education, the influence of

other agencies, particularly the Departments of

Health and Human Services (HHS) and Labor

(DOL), is growing. HHS administers the new

Federal $1-billion Job Opportunities and Basic

Skills (JOBS) training program for welfare recipients, as well as programs for refugees and eligible

legalized aliens and family literacy activities

under the Head Start program. DOL has responsibility for the $4-billion Job Training Partnership

Act (JTPA), which authorizes basic skills education as a means toward its primary goal of

workforce development for disadvantaged youth

and adults. Other Federal programs with adult

literacy and basic skills education as a major

purpose are spread across other agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Justice, and

Interior, and ACTION.

Because many Federal programs authorizing

multiple activities do not require that obligations

or expenditures for adult education activities be

reported separately, available data is limited for

estimating Federal funding.1 At best, one can

arrive at a partial, low-end estimate by totaling

identifiable adult education and literacy obligations. Using this method, OTA estimates the

fiscal year 1992 spending for adult literacy to be

a minimum of $362 million.2

State and Local Programs and Dollars

All States participate in the major Federal

literacy-related programs, and most participate in

several smaller Federal programs as well. In

addition, States fund their own programs, both to

fulfill their matching responsibilities under Federal programs and to carry out State-identified

priorities. As a result, State-level activities and

programs 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.
96 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

New Jersey, for example, administers 63 different agencies, library funds to State libraries-there

basic skills and literacy programs through 6

different State agencies; Illinois reports 33 different funding sources.3

Many State agencies are involved in the

administration of literacy-related programs. Although State administrative structures roughly

track the Federal structured funds flow to

State education agencies, JOBS funds to welfare

are important variations by State. In many States,

the agency with responsibility for elementary and

secondary education programs also admini sters

adult education.4 Other States place adult education in agencies responsible for vocational education, community colleges, or job training.

To bring coherence to literacy efforts, 40 States

have 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, and

Procedures,” background paper for the IYoject on Adult Literacy, Southport Institute, 1988, p. 16.
Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources | 97

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 efforts

leverage Federal, State, and local monies, as well as business and foundation support. The city’s share of Federal

Adult Education Act funds, adminis tered at present through the community college, are supplemented by Federal

library service funds, $800,000 from city-administered JTPA funds, State welfare reform, and a separate State

Literacy Works Program.

The BCLC/BRI program provides curriculum expertise and technological support to local literacy efforts. A

curriculum specialist helps programs identify useful materials and instructional approaches, and maintain contact

with the professional literacy community. One of BRI’s major goals is to experiment with and evaluate new

technologies to provide technical assistance and a “technology vision’ to local programs. Since most programs

have neither the resources to acquire hardware and software nor the expertise to install and maintain it, BRI’s

technical 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 the

installed hardware base; e.g., when a city department changed its system, BRI received the 10 computers that were

being replaced.

Various technologies have been installed in different centers. For example, in the Ripken Center a computer

laboratory with an integrated learning system supplements classroom instruction. Students can listen to lessons

on 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 its

local branches to allow computer access for area residents, with assistance from BRI’s technical specialist. The

Ripken Center is also a test site for software under development by the Educational Testing Service, an interactive

video and computing system used to teach problem-solving strategies in the areas of document, text, and

numerical 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 home

runs hit by Ripken over the season. He and his wife have been leading f~ial backers and literacy advocates for the city. One

of 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 and

placed under the Governor’s Office,6 while others policy for all the relevant service providers in

are placed under the Department of Education7 

or their State.

another existing agency such as the Office of Many cities and localities also provide public

Community Colleges, 8 Public Library Office,9 

or funding for literacy services and solicit funding

Department of Commerce.10 These coalitions from local industry and philanthropic sources (see

serve 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.
98 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

that provide public information on literacy resources, coordinate efforts to connect learners

with programs, and provide technical assistance,

training, and funding assistance.

It is difficult to determine how much funding

for adult education comes from all State and local

sources, especially as compared to the Federal

share. States face the same problems as the

Federal Government in accurately estimating

contributions from all relevant sources, especially

from programs in which basic skills education is

just one of many allowable activities. Local

literacy programs generally keep detailed data on

receipts and expenditures, in categories defined

for their own needs.

Statistics are available on State and local

matching contributions under the AEA, the major

source of Federal funding for adult literacy in

many States. These statistics show that State and

local matching expenditures for adult education

have mushroomed in the past several years and

now outstrip Federal AEA contributions. For

example, while Federal expenditures for adult

education rose from $100 to $158 million between 1980 and 1990, during the same time

period State and local expenditures went from

$74 to $622 million.11 (See figure 4-l.)

Care must be taken in interpreting estimates of

AEA matching funds. First, aggregate data mask

wide variations among States and localities (see

table 4-l). Most of the growth in State and local

matching funds is attributable to large increases

in a handful of States,12 with several States

providing only the minimum match required by

law or slightly more.13 One 1990 study of” nine

geographically diverse local programs found that

in five sites, State and local dollars provided the

majority of support, ranging from 67 to 95 percent

of the total, while in the other four Federal

funding predominated.14 In addition, AEA matching funds may not be a reliable proxy for total

State spending, since past studies have found that

States may underreport their true AEA contributions.15 Moreover, these AEA matching expenditures are only part of the picture. State and local

matching under other Federal programs-such as

JOBS, public library programs, and Even Start—

is increasing the pool of total literacy funding, as

are expenditures for State-initiated literacy programs. Finally, the growth in State funding may

be slowing as some States confront fiscal crises.

In sum, while aggregate State and local finding

has grown-and likely exceeds aggregate Federal

funding from all sources-the Federal Government remains the leading partner in some States,

an essential partner in the rest, and a catalyst for

funding in all.

Private Support

Private support for literacy comes from many

sources: foundations, United Way contributions,

businesses, unions, and individuals. While there

are a few corporations and foundations supporting literacy efforts nationwide—the United Par11 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 personal

cornmunicatioq 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 25

percent 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

--- Federal spending — 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

of Services

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., and

Toyota Motor Corp., to name three of the largest

efforts—many more companies support efforts

benefiting literacy activities in the communities

where their employees live and work (see table

4-2). Industries spend millions of dollars training

their own employees in basic skills,l6 as well as

supporting overall literacy efforts in their communities. Unions have provided support for

literacy out of general dues or, in some cases, on

a shared basis with industry (see box 4-B).

Who Administers Programs and

Provides the Services?

In the literacy world, distinctions must be made

among the entities that provide the funding, those

that administer the programs, and those that

deliver the actual services to adults. Often these

entities are different. For example, a local service

provider, such as a community-based organization (CBO), may receive funding from several

different Federal and State programs and private

16 ~C tO@ Swnt bY ~q@erS, ~~v~m~t w~~ies, ad ~o~on @ro@ employ= basic ~Sis not ~OW p~isdy, bllt prowly

does not greatly exceed $1 billion per year. U.S. Congress, Office of ‘Rdmology Assessment, Worker Training: Competing in the New

International Economy, OTA-ITE457 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, September 1990), p. 154.
100 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

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 per

State 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. . . . . . . . . . .

$2,777,200

378,254

1,487,000

1,782,390

9,196,782

1,343,385

1,772,830

544,735

604,801

5,611,296

3,742,737

571,644

648,262

6,290,817

3,132,164

1,588,770

1,288,997

2,509,184

2,838,563

814,526

2,458,855

2,877,406

4,904,768

2,025,941

1,902,422

3,056,131

584,101

924,073

591,838

666,701

4,083,836

886,496

9,719,848

4,219,967

574,554

5,836,288

1,830,980

1,217,964

6,784,560

821,483

2,351,279

590,200

3,113,800

8,437,165

722,932

484,168

3,394,170

1,631,503

1,528,239

2,513,690

412,459

2,630,440

149,021

99,943

United States . . . . . . . . . . $132,951,650

$2,800,304

1,760,960

2,725,057

7,442,486

216,952,480

357,748

11,921,606

230,091

4,220,535

52,679,924

2,601,315

1,388,706

180,000

7,304,958

21,748,771

3,329,586

287,351

263,625

6,244,123

4,351,264

3,601,401

9,621,265

123,452,005

10,714,081

335,722

1,606,738

403,231

190,258

465,856

536,041

19,519,833

1,357,127

26,777,640

19,311,736

257,777

6,471,483

285,600

7,345,449

1,214,589

1,400,943

7,789,840

164,098

525,977

7,608,691

3,484,000

2,086,009

3,210,757

5,208,345

1,286,216

6,360,491

267,329

308,337

0

0

$622,069,755

$5,577,504

2,139,214

4,212,057

9,224,876

226,149,262

1,701,133

13,694,436

774,826

4,825,336

58,291,220

6,344,052

1,960,350

828,262

13,595,775

24,880,935

4,918,356

1,576,348

2,792,809

9,082,686

5,165,790

6,060,256

12,498,671

128,356,773

12,740,022

2,238,144

4,662,869

1,077,422

1,114,331

1,057,694

1,202,742

23,603,671

2,243,623

36,497,488

23,531,703

832,331

12,307,771

2,116,580

8,563,413

7,999,149

2,222,426

10,141,119

754,298

3,369,777

16,045,856

4,206,932

2,570,177

6,604,927

6,839,848

2,814,455

8,874,181

679,788

2,938,777

149,021

99,943

$755,021,405

50.21%

82.32

64.70

80.68

95.93

21.03

87.05

29.70

87.47

90.37

41.00

70.84

21.73

53.73

87.41

67.70

18.23

10.16

68.75

84.23

59.43

76.98

96.18

84.10

15.00

34.46

45.78

17.07

44.04

44.57

82.70

60.49

73.37

82.07

30.97

52.58

13.49

85.78

15.18

63.04

76.81

21.76

14.45

47.42

82.82

81.16

48.61

76.15

45.70

71.67

39.33

10.49

0.00

0.00

82.39%

40,177

5,067

33,805

29,065

1,021,227

12,183

46,434

2,662

19,586

419,429

69,580

52,012

11,171

87,121

44,166

41,507

10,274

26,090

40,039

14,964

41,230

34,220

194,178

45,648

18,957

31,815

6,071

6,158

17,262

7,198

64,080

30,236

156,611

109,740

3,587

95,476

24,307

37,075

52,444

7,347

81,200

3,184

41,721

218,747

24,841

4,808

31,649

31,776

21,186

61,081

3,578

28,436

1,311

160

3,565,877

$159

406

90

305

238

82

220

260

401

372

54

53

61

151

427

103

148

231

174

89

100

313

1,415

493

101

143

162

84

331

151

108

72

231

235

394

126

73

206

152

240

121

166

90

70

169

505

203

201

106

217

166

98

81

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 grants

or company (amount and date) Description of literary support

Barbara Bush Foundation

for Family Literacy

Bell Atlantic

Black and Decker Stanley

Tools

Coors Brewing Co.

William H. Dormer

Foundation

John S. and James

Knight Foundation

L.

Southland Corp. (7-Eleven

Stores)

Toyota Motor Corp.

United Parcel Service

Foundation

1 990: $500,000

1991 : $500,000

1992: $500,000

1989-91 : $595,000

1992-95: $500,000

1991: $100,000 in tools,

manuals, and other

job materials

1990: 5-year, $40-

million grant

1990: $336,000

1991 : $96,500

1 990: $309,000

1991 : $233,000

1992: $597,000

1 991:$1 20,000

1991: 3-year, $2-

million grant

Phase I-1989:

$2.25 million

Phase II—1992:

$1.51 million

— . A—- - - - . . . . . .

Grants to 10-15 organizations {for up to $50,000 each) to establish

community family literacy programs, train teachers, and publish and

disseminate materials documenting successful programs.

In cooperation with American Library Association, establishes librarybased family literacy programs in local libraries in mid-Atlantic States.

In partnership with HomeBuilders Institute and U.S. Department of

Education, to upgrade education and skills for construction workers.

“Literacy. Pass It On” program commitment to provide literacy services

to 500,000 adults through literacy hotline, support to volunteer

organizations, and an advertising campaign to raise awareness of the

Iiteracy needs of women.

Multiyear grants to support innovative literary projects in communitybased organizations (CBOs), for young first offenders in a work camp

in Tennessee, and for unemployed ex-offenders on release from

correctional institutions.

Supports projects in 26 urban and rural communities where KnightRidder newspapers operate. Recent grants supported hiring staff,

creating computer labs, establishing hotlines, and purchasing and

creating 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 intergenerational literacy programs in five cities under national grant competition.

Grants to United Way of America, Association for Community Based

Education, 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 family

literacy 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 requirements of the several different agencies or organizations that administer these programs. Conversely, a Federal agency may channel funding to

a State administrative institution, which in turn

makes grants to several different types of local

service providers.

Several different types of organizations administer local programs, including LEAs, CBOs,

libraries, community colleges, regional administrative units, and others. Numerous entities also

provide the actual literacy services, among them

schools, community colleges, businesses and

industries, correctional facilities, and community

and volunteer agencies. Federal administrative

structures and finding streams seem to have a

major influence on who administers funds and

provides services at the local level: JTPA services

tend to be provided by CBOs, library literacy

services by libraries, and AEA services by LEAs.

Because AEA is the largest and most influential

program, education agencies are the predominant
102 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Box 4-B—Ford’s Skills Enhancement Program1

Ford’s Skills Enhancement program (SEP) was setup under a United Auto Workers-Ford collective-bargaining

agreement 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, generate

approximately $40 million per year for the program.

Since EDTP activities are on the employees’ own time and supported by monies that would otherwise go to

worker wages, the union is careful to distinguish the EDTP programs from job training activities that are Ford’s

responsibility to provide to employees during working hours. The SEP is one of the several EDTP ‘Avenues for

Growth,” 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 pl anning. SEP began

in 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 title

because of the stigma it created; at the same time, more upper-level classes were added to improve the image of

the program. Confidentiality is central to the program. ‘‘People see me in the lab and don’t know if I’m learning

basic 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 computeraided instruction. Having the program onsite reduces some of the negative associations with school that some

workers have not shaken from their younger days, and makes it possible for workers to come in at breaks or before

or after shifts. Using an integrated learning system, employees can pickup exactly where they left off, eliminating

a lot of otherwise wasted time trying to get started. “It’s totally pressure free. I can go back over and over the

material until I get it. And besides, it’s fun. You can’t just pickup a history book and keep reading. You’d fall

asleep. The computer keeps you interested, keeps you going.’

Walton Hills is more heavily computer-oriented than other centers for another practical reason: space at the

plant is at a premium. The 30- by lo-foot classroom has space for computers along three of the walls, a few

cabinets, and two small tables that seat about six people each. There is very little group instruction; rather, students

walk in, pick up their assignment sheets, and go to work on their own, using the teacher as a resource. Placement

testing is available, but some learners, like Doug, are afraid of teats. “I’d rather start at the beginning and, if that’s

too easy, I can always move ahead.’

Instruction is provided by the United Technologies Center (UTC), a self-supporting arm of nearby Cayahoga

Community College. Walton Hills contracted with UTC because of its extensive resources and experience with

computer-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 2,000

hourly 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’s

been hesitating. “I’m not sure-tests and I don’t get along. It costs a lot more to take the test here at work, but

I’m not sure about taking it at the high school. Just walking in the door there, the smells, everything about that

place 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 service deliverer, and schools the most common site

of service delivery. Currently, 60 percent of the

funding under the AEA State grant program goes

to LEAs; the remainder goes to higher education

institutions (22 percent), and a mix of intermediate agencies, other State agencies, and CBOs.17

Within these general trends, States have developed various delivery systems, taking greater or

lesser advantage of the latitude that exists in most

Federal laws for using a range of local service

providers. For example, Massachusetts distributes AEA funds through a direct competitive

grant process that puts CBOs and other nonschool

providers on equal footing with LEAs; as a result,

CBOs receive about one-half the AEA funding.18

Texas—a populous State covering a vast geographic area-has used a unique regional approach to deliver adult education services. Texas

channels adult education funding from several

sources (including the AEA, the State adult

education program, State Legalization Impact

Assistance Grants (SLIAG), and JOBS) through

60 regional cooperatives, headed by a locally

designated fiscal agent. Most of the fiscal agents

are independent school districts, but some are

education service centers and public community

colleges or universities. Each cooperative in turn

arranges for services to be delivered through a

network of public, private, and volunteer agencies

and organizations in the local community. *9

As a result of recent amendments to the AEA

encouraging funding for nonschool providers and

new emphases like workplace literacy and family

literacy, a shift may be occurring from LEA and

school-based programs to nontraditional and

voluntary literacy providers. CBOs are playing a

larger role. A recent study showed that, overall,

CBOs receive about two-thirds of their funds

from government sources20 and the remaining

one-third from nongovernment sources. 21 Many

are affiliated with another organization-the

public library, public school system, volunteer

organization, or other institution-with whom

they may share space, tutors or teachers, instructional materials or training, fund-raising efforts,

or other arrangements for joint program operation. 22

Volunteer programs also play an important

role, especially in reaching the most disadvantaged learners. The two major volunteer organizations, Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA) and

the Laubach Literacy Action (LLA) are training

more volunteer tutors and serving an increasing

number of learners (see box 4-C). Together the

two organizations serve over 200,000 learners in

over 1,500 programs nationwide.23 Some of their

150,000 volunteers work one-on-one with learners as private tutors, while others perform administrative assistance or assist teachers in ABE

programs. 24 Both LVA and LLA support their

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; and

enables 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.

23 E~en T-enbaum ad Wdli- s~~g,The Major National Adult .Literacy Volunteer Organizations, Final Report, VOIU~ ]: A

Descriptive Review, prepared for the U.S. Department of Educatio% (Ibckville, MD: Westat, Inc., 1992), pp. 57-58.

~ Ibid., p. vii.
104 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

1 (he study showed that 94 percent of local adult U-~used volunteers, as did 51 percent of federally fimded

State- administered adult education programs. U.S. Department of Educatio% National Center for Education Statistics, AduZz

Literacy 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 ~~~tU-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 ~stonIVWIa, Htq VOhmteers of Franklin County, hfalone, NY, personal communication, Nov~hr 1~.
Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources | 105

Organization Laubach Literacy Action (LLA) LIteracy Volunteers of America(LVA)

Established

size:

Number of local affiliates

Number of volunteers

Number of learners

Characteristics

Volunteers

Learners:

Budget and sources

Philosophy and approach

Instructional method

Training content and

commitment

Retention and attrition

Tutors

Learners

1968 In Syracuse, NewYork by Frank

C. - h

1,023 (45 States)

98,271

147,087

Not available

50% female, nearly aIl are over 18,

two-thirds are Iiteracy/basic reading

and one-third are English as a second

language (ESL) students.

$8.7 million was received at the national level ($7.5 million from the sale

of publications and $1.2 million In

public or private support). Expenditures: of $8.5 million in national expenses, $5.6 million was spent on

publications, $1.4 million on LLAoperations, and the remainder went to

international literacy operations.

Promotes local choices among

instructionalmethodsonlearners’ personal goals, Including the

Laubach Way to Reading series of

skill books based on a phonetic approach.

One-on-one tutorlng and some smallgroup instruction in basic literacyskills

and ESL

10 to 18 hours of training over 3 to 4

sessions, nominal materials fee ($lO),

guidance and reference materials, inservice training.

Information not available at this time.

Information under development

1962 in Syracuse, New York, by Ruth

Colvin

434 (41 States)

51,437

52,338

80% female, 50%0 are 45+ years of

age, 75% white, 40% have attended

or 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 grade

education, and 10% report having

less than a 5th-grade education.

$2.2 million was received at the national level; 40% from the sale of LVA

publications and the remainder from

public or private donations. Expenditures: of the $1.9 million in national

expenses, one-half went to programs,

services, and conferences; $662,000

was spent on publishlng materials.

Eclectic followingthe goals and interests of the individual student. Specific

and uniform initial training of tutors is

required

One-on-one tutoring and some smallgroup instruction in basic literacy skills

and ESL

18 to 21 hours of training over 4 to 6

sessions, nominal materials fee, and

a 1 -year oommUmenttotutor21 -hour

sessions per week tn service training,

guidance and reference materials.

About 50% stay a full year or more.

1988-89 data indicates that 32% left

after Iess than 1 year.

40% leave before 25 hours of lnstruction; about 25% of learners stay

50 or more hours.

NOTE: The Laubaoh Literacy Action profile i9 bawl on IWO data and the Uteraoy Wunteers of Amerka Inc. profile is bsfxi on

1SS1 data

SOURCE: Ellen Tenenbaum and Wiliian Strang, Weatat, Inc. ‘The U40r National Adult Uteracy Whmtoar Organkatbn8-Oraft

Final Rqmrtj Volume 1 :ADeacri@va Raview,”prepared forthe U.S. Department of E&cation, OffIce of Polkyand Planning, 1SS2.
106 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Many literacy programs have recognized the need to “go where the learners are” to attract participants. This

learning center is in a shopping mall.

publications created to assist tutors and local

programs.

Volunteer organizations face several significant challenges. LVA and LLA serve learners

with very limited literacy skills. These clients

tend to be “. . . more needy, have more cognitive

limitations, or have more traumatic learning

histories that may have caused them to fail at ABE

or shy away from the ABE system. " 25 Y e t

volunteers, who typically have 10 to 21 hours of

preservice literacy training, are expected to teach

these challenging students. While all programs

seek to provide more training, they are often

hindered by the lack of staff to develop or conduct

training, resources to purchase commercially

developed training packages, or money to send

volunteers to conferences for continuing education. Many also find it difficult to schedule

training that meets the needs of volunteers who

work and live throughout a large area.

Location of Services

Most programs26 offer service at several sites;

the most common sites are public high schools

(70 percent) and adult learning centers (40

percent) .27 Approximately one-quarter of programs offer services at correctional facilities,

workplaces, community colleges, and community

centers. These AEA service delivery sites have

shifted over the last decade, from locations at

public high schools, vocational schools, libraries,

and churches, toward a higher incidence of

workplace 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 of

Semice Fmviders,” Fmt Intenm“ Report to the U.S. D(q) artuxmt of Education, March 1s92.

27 ~~~t1- ccnterrefcrs to a building or section of a building used exclusively for adult education. Often these buildings arc public

schools no longex used for K-12 classes and converted for use as adult education facilities. Young, op. ci~, footnote 26.
Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources | 107

nity colleges, and correctional facilities28 (see

figure 4-2). (See box 4-D.)

Figure 4-2—Percent of Adult Literacy Programs

Using Various Locations, 1980 and 1990

Who Is Being Served?

Adult learners may be workers, job seekers,

welfare recipients, immigrants, inmates, high

school dropouts, or any others whose past skills

do not match their current needs. They come from

all ethnic and racial groups. As described further

in chapter 5, targeted Federal and State programs

have focused attention on new groups of learners

served at new sites: e.g., welfare recipients in

JOBS and JTPA programs, inmates in Federal

prisons, the homeless in shelters and community

centers, and workers at their job sites. For some

of these learners-in particular, welfare recipients and incarcerated adults-participation may

be mandated rather than voluntary. While the

providers serving these new groups may remain

the same, these new emphases affect the type of

programs offered.

No count has been taken of the total number of

learners served by combined Federal, State, local,

and private sector efforts. Participant counts are

confounded by the fact that many learners span

several categories or are targeted by several

program funding sources: e.g., a welfare recipient

may be both a high school dropout and a recent

immigrant; an incarcerated youth may also receive basic skills in a job training program. In

addition, the same adult may enter and leave one

or more programs several times over a period of

years.

The most complete data have been collected

through the AEA. These data suggest that the

2,800 programs supported by the AEA served a

total of 3,565,877 clients in 1990.29 Data on

numbers of clients served is subject to debate,

however. For Federal reporting purposes, clients

Public

secondary school

Adult

learning center

Correctional facility

Workplace

Community college

Community center

Private residence

Vo-tech school

Church

Library

r

25Y0

240/o

1170

60/0

230/o

22”/0

P

10“/0

1?40

00!0 20?A0 40?A0 600/0 800/0 100”/0

~ 1980 overall _19900verall

NOTE: Totals exceed 100 percent because many programs use

multiple sites to deliver services.

SOURCE: DevelopmentAssociates, Inc., “National Evaluation of Adult

Education Programs, Profiles of Service Providers,” First Interim

Report for the U.S. Department of Education, Mar& 1992.

served are those who have completed 12 hours or

more in an AEA-funded program; however, for

State reporting purposes, many local programs

count all who go through the intake process

(testing and placement into appropriate classes)

whether or not the learner attends for the minimum of 12 hours of instruction.

A recent study30 indicates that between 15 and

20 percent of all clients who go through the intake

process 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 Client

Characteristics,” draft repofi 1993.
108 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime
Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources! 109

Furthermore, after 40 weeks, only about 12.5

percent of those who actually begin attending are

still active. When these adjustments are considered, the number of those actually served to any

significant degree in AEA programs in fiscal year

1990 may be as low as 2.2 million. Participant

counts for literacy activities reported by other

Federal agencies may also be included in this

total, since many individuals counted under other

program categories actually receive literacy services through AEA programs. For example, in

1990, 313,671 adults in institutionalized settings

(correctional institutions, rehabilitation facilities,

hospitals, and mental institutions) received fulltime adult education and literacy instruction

through Federal and State funding.31 DOL analysts estimate that 170,000 individuals received

some basic skills instruction through DOL programs in 1991,32 The HHS JOBS program reported 118,621 participants in education programs. 33 And 18,000 homeless individuals participated in basic educational services under the

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act

from summer 1988 to 1989.34 Many of these

learners are counted in the AEA totals.

An analysis of learners by program sponsor

shows that different types of sponsors tend to

reach different adult populations. For example,

data on entrants to programs supported under the

AEA for the l-year period ending April 1992

indicate that 42 percent of the learners were white,

with the remaining 57 percent minorities.35 CBOs

serve a higher subset of minorities; nearly threequarters of participants are minorities.36 Gender

distribution suggests that more women than men

are served in both AEA-funded programs37 and

CBOS,

38 but volunteer programs serve men and

women in equal numbers.39

What Kinds of Instruction Do

They Receive?

Although adult literacy programs are often

commonly referred to as ‘adult basic education,

this is a misnomer. Several types and levels of

instruction are offered in these programs. Program levels generally correspond to elementary

and secondary school grade levels; learners are

placed into classes based on their literacy skills as

measured on such tests as the Test of Adult Basic

Education or the Adult Basic Learning Examination. These standardized norm-referenced tests

provide norms for adults, and are used to interpret

scores in grade levels (based on K-12 school

norms) 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. POints

Buifetin, 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 Auxss

to 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, basic

and 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 but

extrapolated 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.
110 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

adults. 40 Critics of this approach suggest that

adults’ learning ability is more complex than

statistical grade-level measures reflected in standardized test scores.

The most common types of adult education

include:

■ Adult Basic Education: Sometimes referred to

as “below the 8th-grade level,”41 ABE is

typically divided into three levels: level 1 refers

to students functioning at reading grade levels

O to 3; level 2 for those at the 4th-to 6th-reading

grade levels, and level 3 for the 6th- to

8th-reading grade level. Since most ABE instruction is roughly equivalent to the 4ththrough 8th-grade levels, and the characteristics of programs serving level 1 students are

different than those serving the level 2 and 3

students, OTA refers separately to level 1 as

Beginning Literacy.

■ Adult Secondary Education: ASE refers to

instruction for adults whose skills are at the

secondary (high school) level. The focus is

generally on attaining a high school diploma

either by completing course work or passing the

GED examination,42

 English as a Second Language; ESL instruction teaches English (reading, writing, and

speaking) to non-English speakers .43 As will be

discussed below, ESL is complicated by the

fact that it includes learners with a range of

literacy levels in their own language.

A majority (60 percent) of federally supported

adult education programs provide at least some

instruction of all three types-ABE, ASE, and

ESL. The percentage of programs providing ABE

(92.3 percent) and ASE (85 percent) is higher than

those 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 in

ASE),44 suggesting that ESL programs are those

with the largest numbers of students, or the ones

most likely to have waiting lists.

A range of learning environments is used in

adult literacy instruction. As shown in figure 4-3,

individual instruction and small group instruction

are the most common. Computer-aided instruction or learning laboratories are used in only 14

percent of federally supported ABE programs,45

Beginning Literacy

A sizable number of adults who seek literacy

assistance function below the 4th-grade level.

While some LEA programs serve learners at this

level, volunteer programs and community-based

programs traditionally concentrate their efforts on

this group.46

Beginning literacy programs typically provide

one-on-one private instruction by volunteer tutors

who 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 as

a 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 is

unknowq 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.
Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources I 111

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 to

the U.S. Department of Education, March 1992

literacy volunteer organizations or commercial

publishers,47 The Laubach Way to Reading series,

for example, takes students through a series of

levels based on a phonics approach. These levels

correspond, in general, with levels measured on

the Test of Adult Basic Education. Tutors supplement these materials with audiotapes, flash cards,

word games, and beginning reading exercises.

LLA encourages tutors to adopt flexible approaches in using their materials.

LVA programs use a ‘‘whole language’ approach, focusing on material tied to a learner’s

goals and interests, or “language experience”

where learners dictate or write paragraphs based

on their lives and interests, using these words as

the basis for developing a vocabulary. Decoding

skills (learning symbol and sound relationships

and word patterns) are taught in the context of

printed materials meaningful to the learner.

Computer use in beginning literacy programs is

limited. Although the number of adult literacy

software titles is quite extensive, there is very

little software aimed at beginning readers. Few

software applications use audio, an essential

feature for nonreaders.48 Moreover, most early

reading programs are geared explicitly to children

and include features that may ‘‘turn off many

adults .49

47 The Association for COmmunity Based Education study showed 61 percent of CBOs use materials devdoped by tiefi o~ Pro&Yam ~d

46 percent use material developed by other literacy programs. Furthermore, 25 percent use other materials such as newspapers, letters, and

Life-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, ~teractive

Educational Systems Desigq Inc., “Software for Adult Literacy, ” OTA contractor repofi June 1992, p. 6.

49 Ibid., p. 6.
112 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Adult Basic Education

ABE programs focus on learners who have

some reading skills. Instructors are certified in

elementary and secondary education and generally teach part time. Students typically participate

in small classes several hours a week. Volunteer

tutors often assist as classroom aides or provide

supplemental personal tutoring to accompany

ABE instruction. Courseware includes textbooks

developed by commercial publishers, LVA or

LLA materials, or materials created by teachers to

fit the needs and interests of their students. A

small but growing number of ABE programs use

computer software, often networked integrated

learning systems Allowing a student to move

through a range of instructional content and

levels. ABE programs use a vast range of software

titles, some created for children and others created

especially for adult learners.50

Adult Secondary Education Programs:

High School Completion and the GED

Some people believe that the most important

goal for adult literacy students at all levels is to

attain high school certification in one form or

another. 51 A high school degree has become a

necessary passport to many jobs, as well as to

vocational and higher education programs. The

1970 amendments to the AEA added adult

secondary education as a part of the AEA grants

to States. Although the AEA has traditionally

emphasized programs for adults with a 5th-grade

equivalency level or lower, State ABE programs

have tried to get the most ‘ ‘bang for the buck’ by

concentrating funds on the learners who were

easiest to reach and serve-those with a base of

skills to build on in seeking the more easily

attainable GED or high school diploma. Therefore, although the act stipulates that not more than

20 percent of each State’s basic grant maybe used

for programs of equivalency for a certificate of

graduation from secondary school,52 States continue to emphasize ASE programs with their own

money.

While enrollment in ABE remained relatively

constant from 1980 to 1990, ASE growth was

more dramatic. In 1990, ASE students numbered

1.1 million, more than 30 percent of the total 3.6

million adults enrolled in adult education,53 and

103 percent higher than the comparable percentage of a decade earlier.54

There are three types of ASE programs: high

school completion programs, the external diploma program, and preparation for the GED

examination. Of the ASE students in fiscal year

1990 programs funded by the AEA, 206,952

passed the GED and another 67,000 obtained

adult high school diplomas.55

High school completion programs are most

like a traditional high school program and are

designed and offered through local school systems. The requirements are based on the nun-her

of Carnegie Units required for graduation in the

particular State where the learner resides. Classes

are usually offered through the local school

districts, in schools and after hours, and must be

taught by certified teachers. Students must attend

for the prescribed number of hours of instruction

and testing is often the measure of satisfactory

completion.

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 24

who had not graduated from high school and were not enrolled in 1991 in any school. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education 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.
Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources | 113

The External Diploma Program is administered by the American Council on Education, the

professional organization also responsible for the

GED. External diplomas are granted based on a

combination of demonstrated capabilities including oral and written communication, computation, and the analysis and manipulation of data in

context. Assessment does not include standardized paper-and-pencil tests, but rather is based on

performance in simulations that parallel situations found on the job or in personal life. This is

the smallest of the high school credentialing

programs; in 1990,3,000 adults received external

diplomas from local schools in 10 States.56

The GED Certificate Program is the most

common vehicle for ASE students to obtain a high

school diploma. GED content corresponds to

what graduating high school seniors are expected

to know in the areas of writing, social studies,

science, literature, the arts, and mathematics.57

The minimum score required for passing each of

the five subtests is set by each State. Most

participants in GED preparation courses are

targeted at the 7th- to 9th-grade reading level,

although participants range from the 6th- to the

1lth-grade reading level. GED preparation classes

focus on language and computational skills, but

also cover test-taking skills and other subjects.

Because the content of these classes is test driven,

classes tend to be structured and use commercially published materials. Programs often use

computers to provide additional independent

practice for GED students. As students may be

weak in one area and strong in others, software

More than 750,000 learners took the GED

examination in 1991. Odelia Cantu celebrates her

success at a graduation ceremony.

programs offer students an opportunity to concentrate on a specific area of the test, and practice and

move at their own speed until mastery is achieved.58

Over 800,000 students took the GED tests in

1991, a 6-percent increase from the previous year;

the percent passing also increased, from 70 to 72

percent. There was also an 8-percent rise in the

number taking the Spanish-language GED tests .59

Not all adults working toward the GED certificate

are enrolled in GED preparation classes. One of

the largest GED preparation programs in the

country is offered over public television. GED on

TV, sponsored by Kentucky Educational Television (KET), offers assistance and encouragement

to students both in classes and at home as they

prepare for the examination. An estimated 1.2

million students in Kentucky and throughout the

Nation have passed the GED examination after

viewing 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 students

and 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.
114 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

English as a Second Language

ESL is literacy’s coat of many colors—a

program that is offered in the workplace, community colleges, community programs, prisons, and

LEAs. The learners have one thing in common-a

need to learn how to speak, understand, read, and

write in English. Beyond this, they range across

the spectrum, from refugees61 and recent immigrants 62 to long-term residents, including many

non-English speakers who are U.S. citizens. ESL

students span a range of languages, levels of

English proficiency, and literacy in the native

language. It can be a great challenge serving this

diverse and complex audience of learners (see

chapter 3, box 3-A). Computer software for ESL

instruction offers great promise for individualizing instruction, especially when speech and audio

are included to help students develop their

English skills. However, ESL software for adults

is limited despite great demand. Better instructional approaches and materials that provide

bilingual assists to students across the curriculum,

especially in writing skills, mathematics, vocational skills, and GED preparation, are needed.63

ESL accounts for the fastest growing and

largest portion of the adult literacy program in the

United States. ESL enrollment in Federal AEA

programs nearly tripled between 1980 and 1989,

when it exceeded 1 million students; currently

one in every three students enrolled in adult

education participates in ESL instruction.64 It is

estimated that, by the year 2000, 17.4 million

limited-English-proficient (LEP) adults will be

living in the United States, and immigrants will

make up 29 percent of the new entrants into the

labor force between now and then.65 Man y

programs have waiting lists as long as several

years, and could easily fill all their ABE slots with

ESL students.

Two pieces of Federal legislation have been

influential in creating this ESL demand. The

Immigration Reform and Control Act provided

amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants already living in the United States, and required that

all applicants demonstrate minimal proficiency in

English and U.S. history/government by taking a

test or providing a certificate of enrollment in

approved courses.66 The second piece of legislation was the Immigration Act of 1990, which

created a demand for ESL in adult literacy by

allowing greater immigration. 67 ESL programs

for adults are also supported by the AEA and

several other Federal literacy programs (see

chapter 5). Many ESL programs are offered in the

workplace, often tied to vocational skill development, for those already employed but constrained

in 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 hours

of 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. Comprehensive

Adult Studem Assessment SystenL “A Survey of Newly Legalized Persons in Califo~” report prepared for the California Health and

Welfhre Agency, 1989, pp. 1-2.

67 fi~tforwveralclaascs Of ~, from 1980to 1990 thenumberof imm@mts admitted to the United States waslixnited to270,000

per 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 total

immigration per year, stinting with approximately 700,000 per year from f- years 1992-94 and leveling off at an annual total of at least

675,000 immigrants beginningin f- year 1995. Refugees am not included in this total. Joyce Vialet and Larry Eig, “Immigmd“on Act of

1990 (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 rather

than paid, and part time rather than full time. The

ratio of volunteers to full-time professional teachers in federally supported AEA programs nationwide is almost 8-to-la and only 1 in 4 paid staff

members is full time. In community-based and

volunteer programs, the ratio of volunteers to paid

staff, and part-time to full-time instructors, is

higher.

Most paid staff were, or still are, K- 12 teachers.

Slightly less than one-fifth of full-time instructors

in AEA programs are certified in adult education;

13 percent of full-time instructors hold no teacher

certification. 69 Furthermore, only 7 percent of

part-time instructors in AEA programs are certified in adult education but81 percent of part-time

staff earned other types of teaching certificates .70

Most States do not require special certification in

adult education for those who teach in literacy

programs; some States have no certification

requirements of any kind (see chapter 6, figure

6-3). Forty-five percent of federally funded AEA

programs do not have a single staff person

certified in adult education, a single full-time

instructor or administrator, or a directed inservice

training effort.71

NEW EMPHASES IN LITERACY PROGRAMS

The delivery of services is changing as the

definition of literacy expands, public awareness

grows, new players enter the field, and new

partnerships form. While ABE, ASE, and ESL

instruction remain the “meat and potatoes” of

adult literacy programs, several new types of

literacy programs are growing in importance.

Chief among these are workplace literacy and

family literacy programs. These programs recognize that literacy needs are changing as the

demands of the workplace and demands placed on

families increase. A third type of program increasing in frequency is literacy for incarcerated

adults.

Workplace Literacy

Literacy requirements change as employment

demands change. In the past, when manufacturing, mining, farming, and forestry jobs formed the

traditional base of the workforce, those who

lacked a high school diploma could get by

because of the jobs they had and the supervision

they received. But workers’ necessary skills are

changing as the economy shifts from manufacturing to a service-based workforce.72 Furthermore,

new skills are needed as industries purchase new

technologies and adopt statistical quality control,

team-based work, and participatory management

processes. A worker in a pulp and paper mill

where modernization has changed his job sums up

his anxiety:

With computerization I am further away from my

job than I have ever been before. I used to listen

to the sounds the boiler makes and know just how

it was running. I could look at the fire in the

furnace and tell by its color how it was burning.

I knew what kinds of adjustment were needed by

the shades of color I saw. . . there were smells that

told you different things about how it was

running. I feel uncomfortable being away from

those 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 than

now 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.
116 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

to go by. I am scared of that boiler, and I feel that

I should be closer to it in order to control it.73

As a host of studies have pointed out, the

United States is unlikely to remain an economic

power without improving the basic skills of its

workers. 74 Companies may not realize the extent

of their employees’ basic skills deficiencies until

they attempt to make a major change that requires

training, then find that their employees lack the

basic skills to read the texts or understand the

computations required.

Schools have an important role to play, but

with 75 percent of the workers for the year 2000

already out of school and on the job, the

immediate task is up to the employer. Only a few

employers have taken up this challenge; today

only 1 in 10 employees receives formal training

of any kind from his or her employer, and this

training is typically focused on executives, managers, and highly skilled technicians, not frontline workers.75 Helping employees acquire basic

skills is not a priority with most companies .76 The

problem is particularly acute for small companies

(under 100 employees), which together employ

35 percent of the total U.S. workforce.77 Despite

the fact that they are more likely to employ

workers with less education, small companies do

not have the expertise to offer trainin g in-house,

the resources to contract for training, or the

numbers of employees to make a focused effort

profitable. 78

Workplace literacy programs are one response

to the need for improved worker skills. These

programs upgrade the job-related basic skills of

employees or prepare job seekers for work in

specific industries. Usually they are offered

through partnerships of business, labor, unions,

schools, private industry councils, and government agencies; partnerships are especially attractive for small businesses unable to mount programs alone79 (see box 4-E). Workplace literacy

programs, often conducted at or near job sites

using work-related tasks and materials, can improve morale, customer satisfaction, error rates,

productivity, and profits.80

States have been important sources of support

for workplace literacy, using economic development funds or other State funds, or Federal AEA

basic grants. The Federal Government also specifically encourages employer-sponsored workforce literacy programs through the National

Workplace Literacy Partnerships Program of the

U.S. Department of Education. An evaluation of

this program concluded that these projects have

maintained 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 Skills

in 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, America

and 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 Small

Business (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, “workplaCx3Literacy

programs: Organization and Incentives, “ in National Center for Adult Literacy, op. cit., footnote 74, p. 7.

so B~, op. cit., footnote 78, P. 52”
Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources I 117

than any other type of adult education programs.81

The program’s success has been attributed to a

number of factors, including the close involvement of public and private partners, convenient

worksite locations, work-related content, incentives such as work-release time, and supportive,

nonstigmatizing environments.82 Many of these

features are shared by privately sponsored

workforce literacy programs.

Increasingly, unions are negotiating workplace

education into labor contracts. Unions encourage

voluntary programs with open-entry/open-exit

approaches to increase worker flexibility and

choice. Programs are rarely labeled ‘‘basic

skills” because of the stigma attached; instead,

most attempt to offer courses across a range of

levels so that training is seen as important to all

employees. Confidentiality is often tightly maintained, as employees fear that if their educational

deficiencies are made public, they may be used

against them by management. For example, in

one program involving a coalition of local industries and educational providers, a difficult issue

arose when the coalition offered GED courses to

employees, many of whom, it was discovered,

had lied on their original application forms about

having a high school diploma. Ordinarily, this

would be grounds for dismissal, but to overcome

this dilemma, the employer offered an “amnesty” to those who agreed to take the GED.83

Technology in Workplace Literacy Programs

Several of the challenges faced by workplace

literacy programs are particularly amenable to

technological solutions. Computers are often

selected for these programs because they offer

self-pacing and confidential records of student

progress. One employee need not be aware of

what another employee is studying on the computer. Furthermore, when computer laboratories

are a central component, a teacher need not

Workplace literacy and training programs are

growing in importance as workers at all levels

increasingly must use technology, analyze

information, 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 when

integrated learning systems with recordkeeping

capabilities allow easy entrance to the instructional system. Finally, the very use of computers

attracts many students. Many enter programs that

use computers with the assumption that technology training will help them keep current jobs or

enable them to find other employment if necessary.

Research suggests that the most successful way

of teaching adults literacy skills is to put the

material into a meaningful context. Most

workplace literacy programs conduct a job-site

analysis to link literacy skills to actual on-the-job

tasks. Typically, a local community college or

school district conducts a learner and workplace

analysis as a basis for the overall program.

Curriculum materials incorporate worksite vo81 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.

331-048 0 - 93 - 5 Q~. 3
118 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime
Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources | 119

cabulary, procedures, and context. While this can Another example of the shifting view of

be accomplished with traditional training programs, computer-based systems make it easier to

create customized materials and individualize

learning plans that match basic skills content with

workplace context.

Family Literacy

The hand that rocks the cradle also tells the family

stones, reads the books, asks “What did you do

at school today?”84

literacy is the growth in family literacy programs.

Research has shown that the education level of the

mother is the strongest variable affecting a child’s

school achievement;85 parents can increase children’s chances to succeed in school through such

means as reading to children or modeling good

reading habits .86 But if the parents themselves are

unable to read, the children miss this extra boost.

Family literacy or intergenerational literacy

refers 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: Results

of the Intergenerational L.iteracyAction Project of Wtier Opportunities for Women (Washington DC: Wider Opportunities for Women+ July

1991).

86 s=, for _le, TOG. sti~t ~d B~. Mc~~d, ~&”ng the Na~ns~~~: 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 LizAn

Overview of Intergenerational and Family Literacy Programs,” prepared for the U.S. Department of Education Office of the Secretary, Mar.

3, 1989.
120 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

family with literacy activities. program providers

can be private or public or a combination of

several sources. The major source of Federal

support has been ED and HHS, which fund the

Even Start Program, the Bilingual Family English

Literacy Program, and the Head Start Family

Literacy Initiatives. Many States have established

family literacy programs using their 10-percent

AEA set-aside for innovative and coordinated

approaches.

Family literacy programs run the gamut from

family story hours at the public library to comprehensive programs that offer instruction to both

children and adults. One model-Parent and

Child Education (PACE)-was developed in

Kentucky and replicated nationally as the Kenan

Trust Family Literacy Program. This program has

four components: early childhood education;

adult basic education and pre-vocational skills; a

support group for parents to discuss common

parenting issues and concerns; and an intergenerational activity called PACT-parent and child

together time.87 Over 50 sites nationwide have

been trained in this model by the National Center

for Family Literacy in Louisville, Kentucky.

Experiences with the Federal Even Start program suggest some of the challenges faced by

family literacy programs.88 One challenge is high

turnover 89: a family may move out of the service

area or lose eligibility90 or may be dissatisfied and

drop out of the voluntary program. Additionally,

some programs are structured for short-term

interventions in order to recruit more eligible

families in subsequent years. Finally, family

literacy programs face the difficult choice of

whether to focus resources on the ‘‘ready to

learn” family in which parents attend ABE

classes, children attend early childhood education

programs, and parents learn about parenting; or

on the families with the lowest skill levels and

most severe problems, who may need crisis

intervention and several months of extensive

social services until the family is indeed ‘‘ready

to learn. ”91

Technology in Family Literacy Programs

Some family literacy programs use the computer as a vehicle to draw parents and children

together, attract participants, or make reluctant

parents more comfortable in a school setting and

more likely to connect with their child’s education. For example, in programs supported under a

partnership between Apple Computer and the

National Center for Family Literacy, the computer was a used as a “. . . literacy tool: a pencil,

typewriter, paint brush, crayon, recorder, scissors,

and eraser (thank goodness!) all rolled into one

easy-to-use machine. ’ Parents and children

were encouraged to create materials to take home

and share, using word processing and print

capabilities to make posters, banners, greeting

cards, and other items both children and parents

could take pride in. Stories written by parents

went home for reading aloud to children. Parents

were also encouraged to preview children’s

software. These activities sought to help remove

parents’ fear of computers and help them consider

ways to help their children learn. A telecommunications 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~iestit 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.
Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources | 121

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 translations

in the same program.

them to share lessons, products, and ideas with

one another.93

Programs for Incarcerated Adults

On any given day, over 1.2 million Americans

are behind bars. Their literacy problems are

severe. Four out of five do not have a high school

diploma, and more than 75 percent lack basic

reading and mathematics skills.% Other estimates

suggest that 85 percent of juveniles who come

before the courts are functionally illiterate and 60

percent of incarcerated juveniles read below the

5th-grade level.95 Overall, the literacy problems

of the criminal offender population are three

times as severe as those of the general population. 96

Although educational programs have long been

offered in jails and prisons, these programs are

becoming more important with new Federal and

State directives mandating participation and with

additional funding targeted specifically on literacy for prisoners. The literacy policy for Federal

prisoners mandates minimum participation and

provides economic incentives to continue beyond

the minimum level. The Federal Bureau of

Prisons 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.
122 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

their educational attainment, to be tested when

they enter a Federal facility; with a few specific

exemptions (e.g., reportable aliens), all who test

below 8th-grade equivalency on any of the six

subtests must enroll in adult education for 120

days or until a GED is achieved. Those with

limited English skills must attend an ESL program until they function at the 8th-grade level of

competency skills on the Comprehensive Adult

Student Assessment System (CASAS) test. Although inmates may opt out of the ABE program

after the minimum mandatory period, if they do

not continue to the specified level they cannot be

promoted in prison industries above the entry job

level.

Mandated participation for inmates has required increased financial commitment to literacy. With implementation of mandated GED and

ESL standards, the Federal Bureau of Prison’s

budget for literacy services jumped from 25

percent of its total budget in fiscal year 1988 to 40

percent in fiscal year 1991.97 Teachers in Federal

prisons are generally full-time civil service educators; they have either teaching degrees or

college degrees plus teaching experience, or have

passed the National Teachers Exam.98

These Federal policies directly affect only 5

percent of the inmate population.99 Almost threequarters of all incarcerated offenders-750,000-

are in long-term prisons and reformatories run by

States; 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 for

inmates. Even more (962) operated secondary

101 Many of these are man- academic programs.

dated literacy programs: in 1992, 17 States and

the District of Columbia required literacy programs in their prisons.l02 Most of the remaining

States have nonmandatory literacy programs. of

the States reporting mandatory literacy programs,

the level of literacy ranged from a low of the 4th

grade to a high of 9th grade in all subjects. Staff

in State and local facilities are generally part-time

teachers from the K-12 sector, but some facilities

hire their own full-time teaching staff.103 Many

inmate literacy programs use the services of

volunteer groups like LVA and LLA.

Most State and local correctional education

activities are supported predominantly by State

and local tiding. However, literacy programs in

nonfederal facilities are also supported through

two new Federal grant programs under the 1991

National Literacy Act. Although authorized at

$10 million, appropriations were $5 million for

fiscal year 1992. The legislation authorized competitive grants to State or local correctional

agencies for either programs in functional literacy

or programs to develop and improve prisoners’

life skills to reduce recidivism.

While prisons provide a “captive” audience

for literacy programs, they create unique challenges. The overcrowding found in many prisons

reduces availability of classroom space. Classes

are often overbooked, library resources are limited, 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~~ o

f 

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.
Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources | 123

study or tutoring in private are restricted. Prison

routines and work time often conflict with class

time. Students may be moved from one institution

to another without regard for their academic

programs and with few mechanisms for transferring educational records, credits, or maintaining

continuity with teachers or tutors in new facilities.

Disciplinary actions can remove a prisoner from

an academic program and those housed in maximum security settings are often unable to participate in classes or tutoring. When crises occur,

“lock downs” can mean the indefinite cancellation of classes for all inmates, with little or no

notice to teachers.

The transient nature of jail populations creates

special problems; most jail inmates are moved out

within 2 weeks, and almost all within 6

months, l04 making education programs difficult

to structure. However, many consider jails a

critical time to reach offenders and start them on

alternate paths before they become hardened

criminals.

Technology in Literacy Programs for Inmates

Early applications of technology in prisons

were disappointing. In the 1970s, mainframe

computers were linked by telephone lines to

“dumb” termin als onsite in several Federal

correctional institutions, but the cost of leases and

monthly telephone charges, the inflexibility of the

system, and limited courseware all led to dissatisfaction.105 However, more powerful, flexible, and

engaging technologies have led to renewed interest in technology.

New mandates for literacy in prisons have

made correctional institutions an appealing technology market for several reasons, including the

collective purchasing power of large correctional

systems and the opportunities they provide for

.“(,

A series of interactive satellite teleconferences jointly

produced by PBS, correctional educators, and literacy

volunteer organizations provided information on

literacy programs for incarcerated adults.

linking software across servers. In 1990, the

Federal prison system initiated a competitive

bidding process for an audio-based integrated

learnin g system (ILS). The ILS that was selected106 has been placed in 24 Federal facilities,

with an average of 12 terminals at each site.

Students typically spend approximately one-half

hour of their 6-hour instructional day working on

their own on the system. Teachers have found the

range of software gives them an efficient way to

manage and individualize instruction, since they

typically have no two students working on the

same subject at the same level at the same time.l07

A number of State prison systems also have

purchased various ILSs on a statewide basis to get

a competitive price and to assure that teachers

throughout the prison system will benefit from the

technology training provided by the vendors.

104 A -eyof ~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 mp~to systa, manufactured by The Roach COT.

lm McCOllurq op. cit., footnote 98, 1993.
124 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Texas recently purchased a different lLS108 for Several other States have made or are considering

correctional facilities throughout the State; 36

prisons now have computer laboratories equipped

with 20 workstations each. Included in the overall

purchase price is a training package that supports

several days of intensive instruction at a central

training facility for two or three instructors; when

they return they are “local experts” and train

other prison instructors in technology use.l09

similar systemwide technology purchases for

these reasons.

Other technology configurations have also

been adopted. For example, the computer training

facility in the Los Angeles County jails uses an

open architecture in a closed environment (see

box 4-F). The 12 jail sites housing some 25,000

inmates contain about 180 computers, mainly
Chapter 4-The Literacy System: A Patchwork of Programs and Resources | 125

Apple Macintoshes, a result of the educational educational backgrounds and ranges of literacy

coordinator’s personal collaboration with Apple

in developing program materials. Much of the

software used at the jails has been developed by

the teachers themselves, including literacy materials incorporating vocabulary and idioms frequently used at the jail.

Many of the features that make interactive

technology viable for adult learners are especially

useful for inmates. Allowing material to be

individualized and paced at the learner’s speed is

important for prison populations with variable

needs. Working on a computer offers privacy for

learning and a sense of control-features generally missing in prison life and therefore highly

valued. Furthermore, group interaction with some

applications develops important social skills that

many inmates lack. Technology is seen as a tool

for the future and using computers improves

prisoners’ sense of self-worth.

Prison walls can be scaled via the technology—

telephone/computer links can connect inmates

with teachers or tutors outside the walls of the
126 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

prison, while prison libraries, often woefully

understocked, can be upgraded through links with

libraries on the outside, databases, and other

information resources. In youth correctional facilities, incarcerated juveniles can finish high school

programs and participate in classes through

linkups with local high schools, community

colleges, or technical institutes. For the inmate

who must be isolated, education can still take

place even though he or she cannot “attend”

class-via personal lessons on a computer, watching a televised class or tapes, or participating in a

distance learning class via audiographics, satellite, cable, or other available technology. Since

teachers and tutors in prison are available on a

part-time basis and are often affected by security

restrictions, technology can be a personal “secure’ tutor.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

It is not surprising that this patchwork of

programs and providers has been unable to meet

the challenges of providing comprehensive, intensive, long-term adult literacy service to the

growing numbers of adults in need. With their

limited resources and capabilities, predominantly

part-time or unpaid staff, unstable funding, and

lack of coordination, America’s adult literacy

programs serve at best less than 10 percent of the

target population each year with low-intensity

services of quality ranging from excellent to poor.

High-quality adult literacy programs, of which

there are many, are all the more impressive for the

limitations under which they must operate, and

the difficulties of the multiple demands and

pressures adult leaners face.

Despite the diversity of programs and services,

a number of common issues appear, including:

the need to enhance the professional status of

adult literacy staff; the problems of providing

comprehensive services; concerns with accountability and assessment of progress; the need for a

research base on effective practices; the potential

for encouraging partnerships and vehicles for

coordination; and the promise of technology as a

tool for more intensive individualized instruction

as well as for better teacher training, recordkeeping, and information sharing. These issues are

described in chapter 6.
The Federal

Role in Adult

Literacy

Education 5

s

ince the mid- 1960s, the Federal Government has played

a critical role in providing education services to adults

with inadequate literacy skills.1 Unlike elementary and

secondary education, where a mature State and local

infrastructure existed before the Federal Government entered the

field, public adult education is in many ways a Federal creation.

The main engines of the Federal role in adult education are the

categorical grant programs-chief among them the Adult

Education Act (AEA)-that support adult literacy and basic

skills education. The Federal role is more than the sum of its grant

programs, however. The Federal Government influences adult

literacy services in other important ways-through executive

branch initiatives and regulations, Federal leadership and public

awareness activities, census counts and studies documenting and

defining illiteracy, research and development, and congressional

and departmental budget decisions. This chapter traces the

evolution of the Federal role in adult literacy over time, analyzes

current Federal efforts, and considers Federal policy on technology 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 the

college 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 of

spedlc programs, this chapter employs the terms used in the relevant legislation

Otherwise, this chapter uses the term “adult literacy education” or ‘‘b=ic sm

education” when referring to the broader OTA definition set forth in chapter 2 of this

report.

127
128 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

more, depending on the definition used-that

in some way aid adult literacy and basic skills

education. Although the individual programs

have solid records of accomplishment, together

they create a Federal role that is complicated,

fragmented, and insufficient, and which, by its

very nature, works against development of a

coordinated Federal adult literacy policy.

■ Legislation enacted since 1986 has increased

appropriations, created new programs, attempted

to build capacity and coordination among

existing programs, and assigned new literacyrelated missions to programs with broader

goals, such as welfare reform, immigration

reform, job training, and prisoner rehabilitation. Whether adult education providers will

have adequate tools and resources to carry out

their new jobs will depend on how well the new

laws are implemented and funded.

■ Total Federal spending for adult literacy is hard

to calculate because specific expenditures for

literacy education are not available for the Job

Training Partnership Act (JTPA), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Even

Start, and other key programs. However, the

Federal Government currently spends at least

$362 million for adult literacy and basic skills

education, more than double the amount of 5

years ago. Although Federal literacy dollars are

a critical source of sustenance for State and

local programs, these dollars are small in

comparison with other major Federal education

expenditures and meager in terms of the total

population in need.

■ Though the U.S. Department of Education

(ED) remains the primary Federal player in the

adult literacy field, new legislation has expanded the influence of the Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS) and the

Department of Labor (DOL) at the Federal

level, and their counterpart agencies at the State

level. These shifts in agency responsibilities

portend changes in who is served, what services

they receive, and what outcomes are expected

of them.

 New Federal initiatives are increasing the

emphasis on workplace literacy, family literacy, and literacy for adults with special needs,

such as the homeless, the incarcerated, welfare

mothers, and certain refugees. By channeling

more funding toward special groups, however,

the Federal Government may be inadvertently

limiting opportunities for millions of adult

learners, including many limited-Englishproficient (LEP) adults, who do not meet these

criteria but have the potential to quickly become functionally literate, self-supporting citizens.

 Different and sometimes incompatible Federal

funding streams, eligibility restrictions, and

accountability requirements are a considerable

source of frustration for State and local literacy

practitioners and drive State and local delivery

systems in ways that may not always reflect

adult learner needs or promote efficient management practices.

■ Congress has sought to improve the quality and

effectiveness of federally funded adult education programs by instituting outcome-based

evaluation, and by strengthening teacher training, research, dissemination, and other components of the adult literacy infrastructure. Further work is needed to improve the knowledge

base about adult learning, and to ensure that

evaluation standards and quality indicators are

appropriate, measurable, and consistent with

long-term program goals.

■ By sending mixed and sporadic messages about

the use of technology in adult literacy programs, the Federal Government has failed to

exert the leadership necessary to overcome a

cautious attitude toward technology among

some adult literacy practitioners and to realize

the potential of technology to improve instruction and program management.

■ Congress has enacted several requirements and

incentives aimed at fostering coordination across

Federal, State, and local literacy programs. In

addition, States and local service providers are

undertaking their own coordination initiatives.
Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 129

Although promising, these efforts can only

accomplish so much without further changes in

law and departmental policy to make programs

and requirements more consistent and complementary.

GROWTH OF THE FEDERAL ROLE IN

ADULT LITERACY

Since the founding of the republic, the literacy

of adult Americans has been an abiding Federal

concern. Although the nature of Federal involvement in adult education has changed considerably

over two centuries, the rationale has remained

much the same. Our democratic system presumes an educated citizenry. Literacy affects

our economic prosperity, social welfare, national

security, and the future of our children. And the

persistence of illiteracy drains the public till.

Historical Perspective

Through most of our history (see box 5-A), the

Federal Government demonstrated its concern

about adult literacy in very limited ways.2 From

the 19th through the early 20th century, general

literacy instruction, like the rest of education, was

not considered a Federal responsibility. Adult

education programs were conducted by religious

groups, settlement houses, charitable organizations, public schools, and other private and public

institutions.3 The FederaI role was limited mostly

to documenting literacy and illiteracy rates

through the decennial censuses and providing

some adult education for selected civil servants.

In the first half of the 20th century-as waves

of immigrants reached American shores, as mass

Army testing revealed serious basic skills deficiencies among World War I recruits, and as

Federal surveys and special commissions called

attention to the plight of educationally disadvanWorld War I mass testing found that 25 percent of

army recruits were illiterate and lacking basic skills.

It was not until World War II that literacy materials

were developed and distributed to military personnel

in response to test results and public pressure.

taged adults-pressures for Federal action mounted.

In response, the Federal Government took several

steps that might be considered early uses of adult

education as a social policy tool. Among these

were the enactment of education programs for

immigrants in 1918 and for adult Native Americans in 1921, the initiation of a literacy campaign

under the Works Progress Administration in

1936, and the development of literacy materials

for military personnel at the end of World War II.

The Modern Federal Role Takes Shape

In the early 1960s, as the Federal Government

became more active in education, Congress paved

the way for a stronger interventionist role in adult

education. In 1963, Congress amended the Manpower Demonstration and Training Act to provide basic skills education for unemployed adults;

then in 1964 it created a State adult education

program 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 Adult

Educatioq A History of the AduZt Education Act (Washingto~ DC: 1980); Marie Cos@ AduZt Liferacy/Illiteracy in ffie United States (Santa

Barbara, 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.
130 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

1914

1917

1918

192a

1929

1933

1945

1955

1%3

1964

1966

1969

1970

1972

1974

1975

1978

1983
Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education

War on Poverty program overseen by a new

Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO).

The modern Federal role really took shape

in 1966 with passage of the Adult Education

Act, still the cornerstone of the Federal role

today. Prior to 1966, few States had invested in

adult basic education on their own.4 The AEA

transferred administrative responsibility for the

State grant program from OEO to the U.S. 0ffice

of Education in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and broadened the program to

encompass basic education, English as a second

language (ESL), and citizenship education. States

received funds based on their numbers of adults

without a high school diploma, and demand for

services soon exceeded expectations. In subsequent years, the act was amended several times to

encourage secondary-school completion programs,

place more emphasis on special populations,

build teacher training capacity, and broaden the

base of service providers.

Beginning in the mid-1960s and continuing

through the 1980s, Congress also enacted several

other laws with implications for literacy policy:

e.g., the Vocational Education Act, the Library

Services and Construction Act (LSCA), the JTPA,

the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)

literacy program, and the Indian Education Act.

Public Awareness, “Bully Pulpit,” and

National Leadership

President Herbert Hoover’s 1929 advisory

committee on national illiteracy was an early

effort to publicize illiteracy problems and rally

public, private, and volunteer support-the bully

pulpit approach. The Right to Read initiative,

begun in 1969 under President Richard Nixon,

was another such campaign; 6 years later the

effort was downgraded in the bureaucracy, its

goal of eradicating illiteracy by 1980 far from

131

. ——.

BOOKS

Many approaches have been used to gain public

support and stimulate action to improve literacy. This

1938 poster by Rockwell Kent was part of the Federal

Government’s effort to stress the importance of

reading.

being achieved. In the 1980s, the Adult Literacy

Initiative under the Reagan Administration once

again sought to raise public awareness, promote

volunteerism, and coordinate literacy activities

across the Federal Government.5

The Federal Government also helped shape

literacy policy through efforts to document and

define adult competencies. The 1975 Adult Performance Level survey and the 1986 literacy

survey 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” without

mean@@l new funding or consistent programma tiC SUppOIt, and as such would OIdy “. . . sedate some people with the notion that ‘something

important’ was now going to be done. ” Jonathan Kozol 11/iterate America (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986), p. 51,
132 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Assessment of Educational Progress helped call

attention to the continuing problem of illiteracy

and spur national efforts to rethink literacy in

functional terms.

Congress “Discovers” Adult Literacy:

1986 to the Present

In the late 1980s, “Congress discovered adult

literacy.’ ‘6Passage of the 1986 Immigration

Reform and Control Act, which authorized the

State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants

(SLIAG) program supporting English literacy

instruction, set off a wave of legislative activity

that continued into 19917 (see box 5-B). The wave

of legislative activity crested in 1988, the year in

which the AEA and other major education programs came up for reauthorization and also an

election year.

The laws enacted since 1986 expanded existing

literacy programs, created new programs, and

attached new literacy mandates to programs with

broader purposes. Many gave public adult literacy

programs “new jobs to do”: integrating immigrants into the mainstream through the Immigration Reform and Control Act; moving people off

welfare through the Family Support Act; breaking

the generational cycle of illiteracy through the

Even Start Act; reducing recidivism among exoffenders through the Crime Control Act; and

increasing employability through the Omnibus

Trade and Competitiveness Act, the Carl D.

Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology

Education Act, and amendments to the JTPA.8

The executive branch also launched new literacy initiatives. President George Bush’s 1989

Education Summit with the Governors produced

six ambitious education goals for the year 2000,

including Goal #5:

Every adult American will be literate and will

possess the knowledge and skills necessary to

compete in a global economy and exercise the

rights and responsibilities of citizenship.9

HHS provided seed money to all Head Start

grantees for family literacy activities. The Bureau

of Prisons raised the compulsory education participation requirements for Federal prisoners to a

high school diploma equivalency level. DOL

channeled discretionary funding into workforce

literacy projects.

These past 6 years of activity have transformed

the Federal role in adult education. In one sense,

Congress has “. . . tied the fortunes of the federal

human service agenda to the effectiveness of the

literacy system in performing the new jobs

assigned to it. ’ ‘10

To improve existing literacy programs and

provide resources to fulfill these heightened

expectations, Congress in 1991 passed the National Literacy Act (NLA) (see box 5-C). The

NLA set forth a capacity-building agenda aimed

at providing more resources, more professional

staff, better coordination, higher program quality,

and a stronger research base. It also amended the

AEA, 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 movement

helped highlight weaknesses at other levels of education. Public, private, and volunteer literacy organizations began forming coalitions and

identifying common goals. Perhaps most importan~ the political climate of the fmt term of the Reagan Administration-characterized by

domestic budget cuts and few new social progmm—had begun to ~ and it could be argued that the Democratumtrolled Congress was

anxious 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 1991

1986 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 education

services 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 to

literacy effort.

1987 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act: literacy programs for homeless adults.

1988 Hawkins-Stafford School Improvement Amendments: Adult Education Act revised to improve

planning and evaluation and better seine special populations. New programs: workplace literacy

partnerships, English Literacy grants, Even Start program for educationally disadvantaged parents and

preschool children, and bilingual family literacy program for limited-English-proficient families.

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act: basic skills education for dislocated workers under JTPA

Title III and a Student Literacy Corps of undergraduate volunteer tutors.

Family Support Act: overhaul of Federal welfare system; mandates literacy education for welfare

recipients 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 emphasis

on 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 mandated

literacy test.

Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations: compulsory education requuirements for Federal prisoners

raised to high school diploma equivalency level.

Head Start Family Literacy Initiative: Department of Health and Human Services encourages all

Head 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 ROLE

definition of literacy. Whether the NLA will What is the result of 25 years of direct Federal

provide literacy programs with the additional attention to the literacy problem? Few would

funding and tools they need to fulfill the new deny that Federal seed money, especially the

demands 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
134 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

adults who otherwise would have remained un- orities, target populations, services, and instrucserved. 11 Yet all together, some observers contend, “. . . the Federal initiative in adult literacy

has been minimal, inefficient, and ineffective. ’ ’12

The Federal Government also has been a

pervasive and powerful influence-arguably the

most powerful influence-on the provision of

adult education services at the State and local

level. Federal programs and policies affect State

and local funding, administrative structures, pritional approaches.13 Nevertheless, a picture emerges

of a Federal partner whose influence can be both

beneficial and counterproductive (with the difference not always readily apparent); a partnership

with as yet untapped potential to improve the

coordination and delivery of adult education

services.

Some cautions are in order. The State and

Federal 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; and

with local educational agencies, community colleges, city agencies, and community-based mgani@ions.
Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 135

somewhat contemporaneously, so it can be hard

sorting out where Federal influence ends and

State influence begins. Moreover, States take

very different approaches to the same set of laws,

programs, and guidance coming out of Washington, with States often adding interpretations and

requirements on top of Federal ones. These

differences among States are attributable not only

to such factors as size, demographics, wealth,

history, and political climate, but also to State

leadership and philosophy. Some States have

charted their own courses in adult education,

independent of Federal policy, and serve as

beacons for the Nation.

To assess the Federal role in greater depth, the

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) has

analyzed major Federal laws and regulations and

found several significant themes and trends that

cut across programs and agencies.

The Number of Federal Literacy Programs

As recent studies have shown, determining

how many Federal programs support adult liter14 Only a handful ‘f

acy is a difficult proposition.

Federal laws have adult literacy or basic skills

education as their primary purpose. Others authorize literacy education as a means toward

another end. Some Federal programs give State or

local entities discretion over how much to spend

on literacy activities. Should all of these be

counted as Federal literacy programs? What

about programs, such as those run by the military

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, that are not

specifically authorized by law but have been

established by the executive branch under general

legislative authorities for education? And what

about programs that seek to prevent illiteracy?

Taken to the extreme, the entire gamut of

elementary and secondary education programs

could be considered illiteracy prevention.15

Regardless of the definitions and categorizations used, it is clear that the Federal role in

adult literacy is composed of many separate

programs in several different agencies. The

most recent study, which took a very broad view,

found 77 programs in 11 Federal agencies that

provided some degree of support for adult literacy

education in fiscal year 1989; 23 of these were

what the study called ‘‘primary” programs, in

which ‘‘adult education is explicitly stated as a

primary objective in the program’s authorizing

legislation." 16 Any analysis of the Federal role

must at some point draw distinctions that could be

viewed as arbitrary, and therefore any count of

Federal adult literacy programs should be viewed

as just a broad indicator.

OTA’s analysis of the Federal role relies on a

somewhat smaller core group of programs that

together comprise the bulk of the Federal effort in

adult literacy and basic skills education (see

appendix B). These programs include those with

literacy as a primary, explicit mission, as well as

a few others-like the JTPA, JOBS and refugee/

immigrant programs—that have the potential for

significantly influencing adult literacy and basic

skills 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 Assessment

of the Federal Initiative in the Area of Adult Literacy (Washingto% DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987); and Judith A. Alamprese

and Donna M. Hughes, Study of Federal Funding Sources and Servicesfor Adult Education (Washingto% DC: Cosmos Corp., 1990). The

problems associated with defii the Federal literacy effort were illustrated by controversy sumounding publication of the Literacy

Management ]q%nation Project Report (LMIPR), which concluded that there were 79 literacy-related programs in 14 Federal agencies. ‘he

House Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education accused the report of promoting ‘‘miatio~on” and mlits own repom concluding that 48 percent of the pmgrarns mentioned in the LMIPR were not conducting adult litemey activities at al~ and

32 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.
136 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

OTA’s analysis suggests three important findings about the number of Federal programs:

■

■

Even a rather narrow approach to counting

programs turns up 29 literacy-related programs

in 7 Federal agencies-bolstering the contention that Federal literacy programs are fragmented and mismatched.17

The separate categorical program remains the

preferred congressional approach to addressing

the national illiteracy problem, and the number

of programs has increased in recent years.

Most of the programs are relatively small (in

Federal terms). Of the 19 programs with

identifiable adult education tiding, only AEA

basic grants have appropriations over $100

million; while 16 programs have appropriations under $10 million.

How did the Federal role come to be characterized by multiple categorical programs spread

across several agencies? This may reflect the

multiple dimensions of the illiteracy problem—

economic, occupational, social, cultural, and

educational-that call for different responses.

Federal legislation also tends to be “reactive,”

attacking urgent problems with narrow, selfcontained responses. Furthermore, categorical

programs are easier to track, audit, and evaluate

virtues in a climate with increasing demands for

‘‘accountability. Another reason may be the

jurisdictional organization of Congress and the

executive branch, which tends to discourage

crosscutting legislation or broad, systematic policy development. A final set of factors is political.

Sponsoring a separate bill under one’s own name

is often a more attractive option for a member of

Congress than offering an amendment to someone

else’s bill or refashioning an existing program.

Are there too many Federal programs? Many

State administrators and local service providers

feel that “. . . the proliferation of programs has

too often resulted in a fragmented delivery

system” 18 or in “. . . multiple delivery systems,

none of which provide the comprehensive, longterm services needed to meet the challenge of

improving the basic skills of millions of adults. 19

The problem, they say, is not so much with duplication of services-with such great need, additional funding sources are always welcome. Rather,

the problem lies with duplicative administrative

tasks, different funding streams, incompatible

service criteria, and an abundance of paperwork.20

State and local administrators reserve particular complaints for the small categorical programs,

which some view as ‘‘short-term, unstable, fragmented’ funding sources .21 Some Federal discretionary grants must be recompleted annually,

which makes budgeting and staffing of local

programs difficult and unstable. Under those

Federal programs that seek to demonstrate new or

innovative approaches, funding often ceases once

the new approach is tested, which discourages

some grantees from applying at all.

Agency Roles

Although 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~ -tLiteraq: 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 vocational

educatio~a placement that some have characterized as being “. . . buried among higher priority progr8ms within the Department of

Education.” 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 of

the Interior administer literacy programs for

Native American adults. Basic skills training for

the workforce is addressed by ED and DOL.

Programs for incarcerated adults exist in ED and

the Department of Justice. Programs fostering

volunteerism for literacy can be found in ED, the

ACTION agency, and the new Commission on

National and Community Service.

New Federal programs have enhanced the roles

of DOL and HHS in the delivery of adult literacy

services, although ED remains the major Federal

administering agency. The growing influence of

other Federal agencies has brought a new set of

State entities into the literacy mix alongside State

education agencies (SEAS), most notably agencies for welfare and employment training, but also

agencies for libraries, refugee services, corrections, and higher education, as well as the

Governors’ offices. This shift has increased the

complexity and, some say, the fragmentation of

administrative structures. Each Federal or State

agency has its own mission, constituency, and

rules and regulations-which may or may not be

compatible-and each tends to address literacy

education ‘‘. . . from the vantage point of [its]

own legislative mandate. ’ ’23 Many of these entities also have their own funding streams. As

figure 5-1 illustrates, complex relationships can

arise from the interweaving of multiple Federal

and State agencies, funding streams, and service

providers.

Some literacy administrators, usually those

representing traditional adult education providers, see the involvement of new agencies as a

negative trend. Because education is not the

primary mission of welfare, employment, and

training agencies, they note, these agencies are

not usually staffed by education professionals and

may not be attuned to the structures and approaches of adult education organizations and

institutions. Others see these new players as

bringing a fresh perspective to service delivery

and a whole new set of funding partners into the

literacy mix.

In addition, a whole separate Federal-to-local

funding stream exists, composed of programs in

which the Federal Government makes direct

grants to the local projects, bypassing the State.

Whether these programs are duplicative funding

sources, ‘‘. . . unlikely to leverage State financial

organizational and administrative resources,"24

or whether they cut out a layer of bureaucracy

depends largely on one’s vantage point.

Federal Dollars

At least $362 million was appropriated in fiscal

year 1992 for adult literacy from the Federal

Government (see table 5-l). This is more than

double the $179 million appropriated in fiscal

year 1988 for roughly the same group of programs

(see figure 5-2). Closer examination of Federal

funding reveals some interesting findings. Compensating for inflation, funding for literacy programs has grown 175 percent for the programs

included in the $362 million. This growth has not

been uniform: appropriations for the AEA more

than doubled after a period of stagnant funding;

other programs, such as AEA English literacy

grants, were cut; and some current programs

included did not exist in 1988.25 It could be

argued that much of the increase in spending

merely restored purchasing power lost earlier in

the 1980s, as a result of budget cuts and freezes.

Nevertheless, the increase is significant because it occurred during a period of limited

growth in domestic programs and because

even modest new dollars can bring meaningful

benefits to the field.

Total Federal literacy funding is likely much

higher 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.
138 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Figure 51—Programs, Agencies, and Funding Streams: The Massachusetts Example

State participation in multiple Federal basic skills, workforce training, and related programs often produces complex

interagency relationships and funding streams at the State and local levels, especially when the State funds its own programs

with similar goals. The range of workforce development and basic skills programs in the State of Massachusetts, though far

from the most complex State example, suggests the complex webs that arise from the interplay of different funding streams.

FEDERAL AGENCY IMASSACHUSETTS STATE AGENCY AND PROGRAM I

LOCAL PROVIDER

r

DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES

E

KEY

AEA = Adult Education Act CBO = Community-based organization

SLIAG = State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants LEA = local education agencies

ABE = Adult Basic Education SDA = service delivery area

JOBS = Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Rehab. = rehabilitation

JTPA = 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 year

1992 funding 1992 funding

(in millions) (in millions)

Department of Education

Adult Education Act (AEA) Basic Grants .............$ 235.8

AEA State Literacy Resource Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0

AEA Workplace Literacy Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3

AEA English Literacy Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0

AEA National Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0

Literacy for State and Local Prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0

Commercial Drivers Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5

Adult Education for the Homeless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8

Special Programs for Indian Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Even Start Family Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (;2)

Bilingual Family English Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1

Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA)

Title Vl, Library Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LSCA Title 1, Public Library Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8% )

Student Literacy Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4

Migrant High School Equivalency (HAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3

Department of Health and Human Services

Job 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 Labor

Job 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . o

Department Of Defense

Army Basic Skills Education Programs (BSEP):

BSEP I & II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 6.5d

Navy Skills Enhancement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1d

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs Adult Education . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 3.4

Department Of Justice

Bureau of Prisons Literacy Program .................$ 16.1d

ACTION

Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) Literacy

Corps.........................................$ 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 of

expenditures for adult basic skills under such

large programs as JTPA, JOBS, and SLIAG can

be significant:

■ A 1990 DOL report estimated that in 19868

percent of JTPA Title II-A enrollees and in

1984 6 percent of JTPA Title III enrollees

received basic skills training. 26 If even 1

percent of the $2.35 billion currently appropriated for these two programs were used for basic

skills, it would constitute in excess of $20

million.

Under the Job Corps program (Title IV of

JTPA), $40.8 million--or 7.2 percent of the

appropriation for Job Corps center operations—

was spent on basic education in program year

1990.27

The 8-percent “Governors’ set-aside” under

JTPA totals $142 million nationwide; nearly all

States offer some adult literacy programs with

this money.28

Under the JOBS program, States report spending a total of $14.5 million in combined Federal

and State funding for adult basic and general

equivalency diploma (GED) education, with

26 U.S. Department of Labor, ‘‘Major Federal programs Supporting Adult Literaey Efforts in the U.S. Department of Labor, ’ unpublished

repo~ 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.
140 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Figure 5-2-identifiable Federal Funding for

Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Education,

Fiscal Years 1988-92

400 $ millions

300-

200-

100

c)~

i

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

---- Constant $ — Current $

NOTE: Constant dollars have been calculated using the Impliat

Deflator for State and Local Government Purchases of Serviees.

Separate computations were made for the forward-funded programs

authorized by the AEA by applying the price index for the succeeding

fiscal year in which funds are appropriated.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

the amount from Federal sources alone unavailable.29 Expenditures of JOBS money for education through the high school level vary widely

by State; one study found a range from $0 to

over $4.8 million in fiscal year 1991.30

JOBS expenditures on basic skills would be

higher if States would “draw down” their full

JOBS entitlements.31

The SLIAG program injected significant new

money into the adult literacy stream. However,

the fiscal year 1992 appropriations were deferred and the authorization is slated to expire.

Despite recent growth in Federal funding,

the question remains as to whether the Federal

Government is doing "enough" about the

problem of adult illiteracy. Placing the Federal

commitment in different contexts sheds some

light on the issue. Although AEA funding has

grown to $270 million, it still constitutes just 1

percent of the total ED budget. Compared with

other multibillion-dollar programs-vocational

education, special education, Chapter 1, or student aid-the AEA remains modest (see figure

5-3). And compared with the total Federal funding commitment to other multifaceted domestic

problems-building the Interstate Highway System, providing Food Stamps, or preventing and

treating drug abuse, to cite just a few—the $362

million in identifiable Federal expenditures for

literacy appears disproportionately small (see

figure 5-4).

Another way of looking at spending is in the

context of need for services. From 1990 to 1991,

the Federal AEA programs served 3.6 million32—

between 5 and 10 percent of the illiterate population, depending on which definitions and estimates are used.33 This is far less, for instance, than

the 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 HUmSII

Serviws, personal communication May 1, 1992. This figure does not include self-initiated edueatiom or the $300 million HHS pmvidcs in

childcare for JOBS participants.

30 JSnL. ~g~~d~eLfie,]~p~e~n~ng JOBS: InitiaZState Choices (Albany, NY: The Nelson A. RockefellerInstitute of GOv-lm4

1992).

31 GAO es~t~ that in fiecid year 1992 about 38 pereent of the Federal appropriation-or nearly $372 fni.lliox+xxM y have gone unspent

because States were not meeting matching requirements. See U.S. Genend Accounting Office, We~are to Work: States Begin JOBS, But FiscaZ

and Other Problems May hnpede Their Progress (WashingtoxL DC: U.S. Govanment Print@ Oflicq 1991), p. 44. According to fiscal year

1993 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 the

pm- 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 60

percent, depending on the age group used)

estimated to be served.34 As the pool of adults in

need of services increases by an estimated 1

million annually due to legal and illegal immigration, 35 and perhaps another 1 million due to

school dropouts, it must be asked whether Federal

funding is running to stay in the same place.

A reliance on funding from multiple Federal

sources may exacerbate the touch-and-go funding

situation of many local literacy providers. Federal

discretionary grants or contract letters sometimes

do not arrive until well after the project period has

begun, a particularly troublesome problem in

competitive grant programs and in reimbursementbased programs such as JOBS and SLIAG. AEA,

JOBS, and JTPA also pass through dollars on

different timetables.

Figure 5-3-Funding for Select Department of

Education Programs, Fiscal Year 1992

* $ billions

C7 6.9

I

I

I

J.AEZl

u. [

1.2

m

2.9

Adult Vocational Special Chapter 1 Student

Education education education aid

Act

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

Figure 5-4-Funding for Select Federal Domestic

Priorities, Fiscal Year 1992

25 $ bi!lions

1 22

20 1

I 17

15

10

5

0

Adult Substance Highway Food

literacy abuse aid stamps

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

The situation is further complicated because

some Federal programs are forward-funded (grantees know the amount of their awards before the

beginnin g of the year in which the funds are

obligated); some are current-year funded (funds

arrive during the fiscal year); and some operate on

a reimbursement basis (agencies receive reimbursements for funds they have already spent).

State programs may operate on a different fiscal

year than the Federal fiscal year, confusing the

situation still more.36

Finally, Federal programs have different provisions for carrying over unobligated funds. AEA

funds can be carried over for 27 months and JTPA

funds for an additional 2 years. JOBS does not

allow funds to be carried over but permits

obligated funds to be liquidated during the 12

months 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 -ep- cycle, reg~dl~s Of Whm the state gets the do~.
142 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

New Emphases

The past 6 years of legislative activity have

produced marked changes in emphasis in Federal

literacy programs. In general, the new emphases

recognize that there are diverse types of “literacies’ and that improved literacy can have a

multiplier effect, in terms of better jobs, improved

parenting, reduced welfare dependence, and less

criminal recidivism.

One new emphasis is workplace literacy. Since

1988, several new Federal programs have focused

on improving workers’ basic skills, including the

workplace literacy partnership program, national

workplace literacy strategies, and a commercial

drivers program37-all in ED; and a national

workforce literacy collaborative in DOL.38 In

addition, workforce development efforts target

those on the margins of the labor market. New

amendments to the JTPA and Federal vocational

education legislation emphasize basic skills instruction as a component of job preparation for

unemployed adults, displaced workers, displaced

homemakers, single parents, and disadvantaged

youth. Federal workplace literacy efforts amounted

to about $21 million in fiscal year 1992. It

remains to be seen whether these efforts are

sufficient to meet the educational needs of

working adults with basic skills deficiencies-a

group some have called “. . . the most seriously

neglected national priority in this [literacy] field.’ ’39

Family literacy is a second new emphasis in the

Federal framework. The Even Start program,40

the Head Start family literacy initiative,41 the

Bilingual Family English Literacy program,42 and

certain provisions of the Library Literacy program

43 give an intergenerational focus to the

Federal role that was largely absent before 1988.

The JOBS program, too, might be said to consider

intergenerational issues by targeting Aid for

Dependent Children (AFDC) parents of young

children. In comparison to need, however, the

total Federal family literacy effort is still in the

budding stage.44

A third new emphasis is mandatory participation—a marked departure from the traditional

adult basic education (ABE) approach, in which

participants enroll voluntarily and set their own

goals. The most far-reaching mandates are in the

JOBS program, which directs States to require

certain welfare recipients-primarily young custodial parents with inadequate basic skills-to

participate in educational programs, if childcare

is provided and to the extent that State resources

permit. The frill effect of this mandate has not

been felt yet due to limited State funding and the

ability of States to fulfill Federal participation

requirements 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~ dOd 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 Workforce

Collaborative 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@ofihstitu&, 1989), pp. iV-V.

40 The Even s~pm~~er~~r1 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 ~tef-yfit=y into ~~ msu~ ~viti=.

42 Tide ~ of the El~_~s~on~ Educwon &t ~tho~s this p~~ for limit~-EIlgliSh-pl13fiCiUlt pm~ts ~~~.

43 Libs~i~ and Construction Ac4 Titles I W Vf.

4.4 ~q for ~pme toM~$85 fion ~ ayw 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 not

available, 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.
Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 143

In many States, AFDC clients are being placed in education programs to improve their literacy skills. The New

Chances Multi Resource Center in Minneapolis provides GED and life-skills instruction to teenage mothers with

Federal funding from the JOBS programs.

smaller program in the Department of Agriculture, the Food Stamp Employment and Training

program, also mandates education and training

for certain Food Stamp recipients. As noted in

chapter 4, mandatory participation is becoming a

trend in programs for incarcerated adults, as well.

A fourth new emphasis is improving the quality, effectiveness, and infrastructure of adult

literacy programs. Over the years, Federal adult

education programs have been criticized for

devoting relatively little attention to teacher

training, research, and data collection. The 1988

AEA amendments and the 1991 NLA set forth a

new knowledge-acquiring, capacity-building, and

program improvement agenda for the Federal

Government and the States. The 1991 act, in

particular, authorizes a National Institute for

Literacy, State resource centers, a National Adult

Literacy Survey, and a national workplace strategies demonstration program, and requires indicators of program quality in AEA programs.

Many people in the field consider the new

capacity-building provisions-particularly the National Institute and the State resource centers—to

be the most significant provisions of the 1991

law.46 Several new research and implementation

issues have arisen as a result of legislation

enacted since 1986 and could form the core of a

46 Fome~t PO ~q pr~ident, sou~fi Institute for 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, Division

of Adult Education and Literacy, U.S. Department of EducatioxL personal communication, Dec. 10, 1991.
144 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

.

research agenda for the National Institute and

State resource centers. Areas for study include the

effects of mandated participation, differences in

learning styles among target groups, effective

uses of technology for instruction and management, and the effects of competition for program

slots when there are waiting lists.47 Thus, the

success of many of the new Federal programs

hinges in part on how well and how expeditiously

this ambitious new knowledge-acquiring and

capacity-building agenda is implemented.

Definitions of Services

OTA finds that Federal literacy laws, collectively speaking, take a haphazard approach to

defining key services and activities. Different

terms are used to mean roughly the same thing,

and many critical terms are not defined at all. For

example, all the following terms are used to

describe allowable services in different Federal

laws: adult basic education, adult secondary

education, literacy training, basic skills education, basic skills training) remedial education,

English as a second language, English literacy

instruction, and English language instruction. In

many cases, these terms are not defined in law or

regulation; where they are, they are sometimes

defined differently across programs.48 Vagueness

is especially pronounced in the JTPA: the terms

basic education, remedial education, and literacy

training are used in ways that imply different

meanings, yet none are defined.

This inconsistency and vagueness may be

attributable to the pluralistic needs of the eligible

population, to the different historical roots of the

various Federal literacy efforts, or to everchanging perceptions of what constitutes an

adequate level of literacy. Nevertheless, with key

terms left up to guesswork, the possibilities for

multiple interpretations and misinterpretations

abound, even as the chances of accurately assessing the extent of the problem diminish.

Section 3 of Public Law 102-73, the 1991

NLA, seeks to improve this situation by instituting a statutory definition of literacy with a

functional orientation, one that ED intends to

apply over the long term to all its programs:

An individuals’ ability to read, write, and speak

in English, and compute and solve problems at

levels of proficiency necessary to function on the

job and in society, to achieve one’s goals, and

develop one’s knowledge and potential.

Whether other agencies will follow suit and adopt

this as a consistent Federal standard remains to be

seen.

49

Target Populations

Until fairly recently, most Federal aid to adult

education was relatively untargeted. The bulk of

funding was (and still is) distributed through AEA

basic grants, open to any adult with educational

need, regardless of income, country of origin, or

other restrictions. Programs in other agencies

dealt with a handful of special target groups, such

as military personnel.

New Federal laws have increased the amount

of Federal funding with restricted eligibility,

shifting the Federal emphasis somewhat toward:

■ Low-income adults, through the JOBS and

JTPA programs;

■ Parents of young children, through the family

literacy and JOBS programs;

■ Groups with special needs (i.e., State and local

prisoners and the homeless); and

47 meN~~~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 defii

literacy 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 ~.
Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 145

Highly defined subcategories of newcomers

(eligible legalized aliens, refugees, and Cuban

and Haitian entrants).

The general intent seems to be to drive more

resources toward groups that Congress feels may

have been neglected or undeserved by traditional

programs.

50

Targeted Federal programs seem to be accomplishing their intended effect of channeling more

funds toward adults with special needs and

encouraging States and local providers to reach

out to groups, such as the homeless and welfare

mothers, whose access to general ABE programs

has been limited.51 As a result of the JOBS

Program, for example, more welfare clients are

being referred to adult education programs and

almost one-half of the States report shifting the

emphasis of their welfare-to-work efforts away

from immediate job placement toward basic skills

and long-term education or training.52

An analysis of targeting provisions raises

several issues, however. First, a question arises as

to whether the growth of targeted programs

means a diminished emphasis on other adults who

may not fit into Federal ‘‘boxes’ ‘—working

adults, certain LEP adults, educationally disadvantaged adults above the poverty line, adults

with learning disabilities, and high school graduates who have not mastered basic skills. All of

these groups must compete for spaces in AEAfunded programs, other public programs, or

private/volunteer programs. Given current funding levels, it is unrealistic to imagine that they

will all be served. Yet the Federal laws appear to

expect that literacy programs will be able to serve

all of the new target populations without diminishing services to the groups traditionally enrolled in ABE. Some State and local practitioners

feel that targeted programs require them to be

more responsive to Federal guidelines than to the

community needs.53

This inadequacy in the Federal framework is

particularly pronounced regarding the LEP population, the fastest growing group in adult education. Here the Federal role is a “. . . combination

of generosity and neglect. ”54 Those eligible

under SLIAG and the Refugee Resettlement

program benefited from significant Federal funding. The rest of the LEP population-including

most immigrants, undocumented aliens, and nativeborn Americans-must seek help through the

AEA or nonfederal programs, unless they are

fortunate enough to live in a community that has

received a Federal LEP discretionary grant or a

bilingual family literacy grant. Although ESL

enrollments in Federal AEA programs now comprised 35 percent of the total,55 services still fall

far short of need. According to one local ESL

director in Massachusetts, the number of slots

available for working LEP adults-the majority

of their waiting list-has decreased as the proportion of their budget coming from special Federal

programs has gone up. Adults eligible for SLIAG,

refugee programs, JOBS, and needs-based programs 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~l

relatively unrestricted, as are such programs as library literacy and VISTA. And the new emphasis on workplace literacy for employed adults

might 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 titsome new F~e~ id-, ~ch M wo@~ce lit-y and welfare refo~ were ac@y piO13C4Xd by ~

States.

52 U.S.h~dhountingOffIce, 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.
146 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

the wait for those left behind and discourages

them from seeking help.56

Recent legislation has not clearly resolved

whether limited Federal resources should focus

on those adults with the most severe educational

needs, who incur the greatest social costs, or on

those closest to functional literacy, with the

greatest promise of becoming productive workers

in the shortest time. The current mix of Federal

programs leans somewhat in the direction of the

former, but with enough departures in favor of the

latter to suggest that the Federal Government is

trying to be all things to all people. As many

program people note, when the nun-her of ‘priority’ groups proliferates to a certain point, the

whole concept of priority loses its meaning, and

it becomes hard to distinguish the true priorities.

Are Federal JOBS requirements really expanding the total pool of resources for adult literacy

education or merely changing the composition of

adult classes by displacing “slots” available for

nonwelfare adults? Many States, in compliance

with HHS regulations57 are placing JOBS clients

in education services paid for by sources other

than JOBS funds. In one 1991 study, 26 States

reported that 40 percent or more of JOBS

participants were placed in activities paid for by

other providers.58 Research also suggests that

many States do not have enough program slots to

fill the demand for JOBS services; over one-half

of the States cited or expected shortages in

alternative, basic, and remedial programs for

JOBS clients, particularly in rural areas.59

Finally, the Federal concept of compartmentalization by target group is somewhat at odds with

how most local programs prefer to operate,

accepting all comers and grouping by type and

level of instruction.

Administrative Entities and

Service Providers

The Federal Government has played an important role in the development of public infrastructure to serve illiterate adults. Until recently, SEAS

and local education agencies (LEAs) dominated

the scene. The creation of new programs, the rise

of DOL and HHS as key players, and the

revamping of AEA distribution requirements are

bringing about changes in State roles, administrative structures, funding streams, and the mix of

service providers.

The 1991 amendments to the AEA require a

range of service providers to have “direct and

equitable access’ to Federal funds. In effect this

change signals a shift away from LEAs and

school-based models toward community-basal

organizations (CBOs) and other diverse providers.

60 These amendments have potentially far-

-reaching implications for service delivery, as

States revise their allocation systems to comply

and as previously unfunded organizations compete for direct grants. The Texas Education

Agency, for example, has drafted amendments to

its AEA State plan that allow all eligible grantees

to apply directly to the State for competitive

grants, but that also encourage eligible recipients

to participate in a consortium, with a single fiscal

agent applying on behalf of several service

providers. Massachusetts, by contrast, is likely to

make very few changes in its competitive process.

Broadening the base of service providers as

required 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 wm~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 private

nonprofit providers.
Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 147

set of service delivery issues: how to guarantee

quality control throughout a larger, more diverse

network; how to establish economies of scale and

efficient management practices; how to provide

technical assistance to local organizations that

have not worked with Federal requirements

before; and how to assure coordination and avoid

duplication.

New legislation also increases the role of the

private sector. The workplace literacy program,

for example, makes businesses and labor unions

direct grantees and primary partners in delivering

services. Other programs give private-sector

groups responsibility for planning, advising, coordinating, developing curriculum, providing technology, and, in the case of JTPA, overseeing

programs.

Finally, the Federal role affords greater recognition to volunteer literacy efforts through such

programs as the VISTA literacy corps, the library

literacy programs, the Student Literacy Corps,

and the Commission on National and Community

Service, and through AEA amendments requiring

States to describe how they will use volunteers to

expand the delivery system.

Services and Activities

Until recently the Federal Government has

been cautious about prescribing the types of adult

education services or the quality and intensity of

those services. Aside from limiting the amount

for adult secondary education and specifying

which support services are allowable, the AEA

has been relatively flexible. Critics have argued

that the flexibility in the law regarding instructional services-together with limited Federal

funding and an input-based evaluation system—

has helped create an adult basic education model

that provides low-intensity services for a short

time to many people and that relies on part-time

teachers and volunteers.

In general, the Federal framework seems to be

edging toward greater prescription regarding

activities and services. Under the refugee resettlement program, for example, English language

instruction must be related to ‘‘obtaining and

retaining a job” and must be provided outside

normal working hours to the extent possible. The

Even Start program requires each project to contain

certain minimum elements—such as screening,

support services, and home-based programs. In at

least some cases, this type of Federal prescription

seems aimed at ensuring quality control.

These more prescriptive service requirements

seem to be having an effect at the State and local

level. Many local providers have responded to

JOBS minimum 20-hour requirements by mounting a high-intensity program for JOBS and other

clients who have time to devote to these programs. As implementation progresses, this program will provide a good case study of the effects

of participation mandates and of a more intense

level of services.

A related trend is toward specifying minimum

levels of participation and a minimum intensity of

services. For example, in the JOBS program,

reimbursements are based on average numbers of

clients who receive a minimum of 20 hours of

service weekly, and individuals are deemed to be

participating satisfactorily if they attend 75 percent of scheduled JOBS activities. The Bureau of

Prisons also mandates a minimum of 120 hours of

literacy instruction for inmates below the GED

level. Although the AEA remains relatively

nonprescriptive, the newly mandated indicators

of program quality being developed by the

Secretary of Education could also have an impact

on modes of instruction and intensity of services.

Federal laws are also becoming somewhat

more open about funding support services, such

as childcare, transportation, outreach, and counseling. New Federal programs have also helped

move services to nontraditional locations, such as

job sites and homeless shelters. Federal family

literacy programs, which emphasize services for

both parents and children at a single site, are also

helping to change traditional assumptions about

how and where services are delivered.
148 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Regulations have raised the compulsory education

requirements for Federal prisoners to high school

diploma equivalency level. At the Maryland State

Penitentiary, inmates use the library to expand their

skills and pursue personal interests.

Accountability Requirements

Most Federal adult literacy programs contain a

range of fiscal, reporting, and evaluation requirements aimed at ensuring that programs serve the

intended clients and use sound financial and

management practices. The most common fiscal

requirements call for State and local matching,

limit administrative costs, require maintenance of

effort, and prohibit supplanting of State and local

funds. Of particular significance are matching

requirements. These vary considerably across

programs. JTPA, for example, is 100 percent

federally funded; other programs are 50 percent or

less. This means that the Federal Government has

"

. . . a differing locus of leverage. . .“ for each

program-’ ’[o]bviously an agency can push harder

when it kicks in the lion’s share of the money. ’ ’61

Most programs also have annual reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, each of which

may seem sensible in context, but which

cumulatively may produce a substantial burden for participating agencies. State and local

providers often find multiple Federal accountability requirements “. . . cumbersome, confusing,

and costly . . .“62 and a considerable source of

frustration. Several State and local administrators

report that because accountability is so different

from one funding source to another, a program

that gets three or four different discretionary

grants must have as many accountability systems.

One formal evaluation concluded that when local

programs obtain funds from multiple sources,

they pay an information burden price, since they

often must collect the same information in

slightly different forms to satisfy different reporting requirements. Further frustration occurs when

Federal requirements change in midstream, even

after a law is well in place.63

Needs-based programs and reimbursementbased programs, such as JOBS, SLIAG, and

JTPA, seem to generate the most criticisms from

local providers,64 and programs admini stered by

HHS and DOL seem to breed more complaints

about requirements and paperwork than ED

programs. Some of this maybe attributable to the

sheer size of the HHS and DOL formula grant

programs. Another likely reason is that Congress,

61 ~top~rKin& “CO mmonalities Among Educatiou Training and Human Service Programs,” h4ah”ng the Connection: Coor&”nating

Education 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.
Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 149

responding to public concerns about fraud and

abuse, has made a concerted effort to tighten

eligibility and related requirements in Federal

welfare, job training, and social service programs.

The result is an accountability approach that

closely tracks individual clients, whereas education programs tend to use aggregate accountability and sampling.

Some local programs resolve the incompatibility of various Federal requirements by establishing self-contained classes of all SLIAG-eligible

adults, for example, or all JOBS participants,65 in

order to leave a clear accountability trail (whether

or not it is sound educational practice). Others

forgo participation in certain programs, feeling

that the added paperwork is not worth the

burden. @ Some States, such as Texas, have tried

to standardize fiscal and accountability requirements for all adult literacy programs or develop a

single eligibility process for needs-based programs, to the extent possible within the parameters of Federal laws.

Several points need to be considered when

weighing criticisms of Federal accountability

requirements. First, local people are not always

clear about which requirements are federally

imposed and which are State-imposed. Second,

States interpret the same Federal requirements in

very different ways and with different amounts of

paperwork required. Third, those who complain,

with legitimacy, about Federal paperwork and

regulations still acknowledge the need for accountability for taxpayers’ dollars.

Evaluation Requirements

Evaluation requirements are a particularly

important type of accountability mechanism and

they, too, differ from program to program, ranging from the very loose (such as a requirement for

self-evaluation) to the very prescriptive (such as

the JTPA performance standards or the bilingual

family literacy technical evaluation standards).

Most Federal literacy programs come down

somewhere in the middle, with a broad requirement for grantees to conduct an evaluation using

objective and quantifiable measures.

In keeping with a national trend toward standardsetting in education and stricter accountability in

human resource programs, Congress has strengthened evaluation and program improvement requirements for a number of literacy-related programs.

67 Specific mechanisms differ by program.

The JTPA, for example, places relatively few

conditions on grantees before they receive funds

but is specific about results (performance standards).68 The JOBS program specifies inputs and

outcomes, with individual needs assessments,

employability plans, and participation requirements up front and standards of satisfactory

progress later.

Performance or outcome standards, as pioneered by the JTPA, are becoming more common

in a range of programs. The JTPA itself has

become more performance-driven since 1983,

with financial incentives and sanctions for failure

to meet standards. In the JOBS program, HHS

must develop performance standards by 1993.

Other new amendments charge the National

Institute for Literacy and the State resource

centers with advising and providing technical

assistance on evaluation and require States to

evaluate 20 percent of their AEA-funded programs each year. In addition, the National Literacy Act of 1991 requires that:

. . . the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate

experts, educators and administrators, shall develop indicators of program quality that may be

used 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
150 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

assistance under this title as models by which to

judge the success of such programs, including

success in recruitment and retention of students

and improvement in the literacy skills of students.

Such indicators shall take into account different

conditions under which programs operate and

shall be modified as better means of assessing

program quality are developed.@

With all the evaluation data being generated by

Federal requirements, there are still some gaps in

the area of adult literacy. Much of the information

produced by federally mandated evaluations focuses on specific Federal program issues, rather

than on the best instructional practices and adult

learning models. In addition, good mechanisms

do not always exist for managing and analyzing

evaluation data and disseminating it to practitioners.

State and local reactions to Federal evaluation

requirements raise some important issues that

merit consideration as Federal agencies implement new provisions to strengthen evaluation. At

the local level, it is not uncommon for a JTPA

participant and an AEA participant to sit beside

each other in class, work with the same teacher

and instructional materials, and yet be judged by

different evaluation or performance criteria. From

the local perspective, some of these differences

may seem unnecessary and at times unfair,

especially if some of the funding is tied to

outcomes.

While State and local adult literacy professionals would like a higher degree of compatibility,

they do not, as a rule, believe that all programs

should be measured the same way. Criteria for

judging a workplace literacy program, for example, are likely to differ from those used to evaluate

a family literacy program.70 In addition, there

appears to be continued support at the State and

local level for accountability systems flexible

enough to be “. . . driven by the individual

learner’s goals,’ with measures that evaluate how

well those goals are being met.71

A second issue is whether evaluation standards

are consistent with long-range program goals. For

instance, JTPA performance standards are sometimes criticized for overemphasizing job placement, earnings, and corrective action (a criticism

addressed in the new reauthorization of the

JTPA). Some practitioners say this discourages

programs from providing longer term basic skills

services to the most educationally disadvantaged,

especially if the education services are not likely

to lead directly to employment. State and local

practitioners also express concern that overambitious standards in a variety of programs can lead

to “creaming’ of those most likely to succeed or

to overenrolling clients in hopes that a sufficient

number will meet the standards by the end of the

program.

ENCOURAGING TECHNOLOGY USE

The Federal framework sends mixed and sporadic messages about the role of technology in

adult literacy programs, and States and local

service providers have responded to these signals

in different ways.

Federal Provisions for Technology

Several provisions of law and regulation acknowledge, allow, or encourage the use of technologies for delivering literacy services or managing programs (see box 5-D). Some of these are

longstanding in Federal law: the JTPA explicitly

allows 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 in

scrap met& while an English literacy program in a hospital interw“ewed patients about the quality of their eommunkations with participating

hospital 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.
Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 151

Box 5-D-Key Technology Provisions in Federal

Literacy 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 technologies. 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. Will

study use of technology to increase literacy knowledge base.

AEA Workplace Literacy Competitive priority to projects in retooling industries “ . Projects may update

worker basic skills to meet technological demands. Secretary may consider

whether applicants have “interactive video curriculum” in making national

strategy grants. National strategy grant recipients may use funds to establish

“technology-based learning environments,” but Secretary may limit

expenditures for hardware and software.

AEA English Literacy Secretary considers use of new instructional technologies in making national

demonstration 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 m

workplace literacy and produce video materials.

Job Training Partnership Act Funds may be used for advanced learning

(JTPA) Title II-A

technology for education. Funds

may be used for commercial ● technology training packages if brought

competively and include performance criteria.

No special technology provisions AEABasic Grants commercial Drivers Program

McKinney Homeless ED Program for Indian Adults

Even start - -

student Literacy corps JTPA Title II

JTPATitle III Job corps

SLIAG VISTA LiteracyCorps

JOBS (Welfare Reform) Refugee Resettlement~

Head Start Family Literacy

-:~~=&=~-t~~~JO-*~d

Basic Skill& AsshtmmAtO

SOURCB: Nancy Kobar, “Pmflka of Mq@rIWezal Litemcy Ffo#am& “ OIAconrn@wre.polqJ* 1992.

technologies, and the Department of Defense is a State resource centers are encouraged to conduct

leading user of adult learning technologies. 72 research and provide technical assistance on

Other provisions affecting technology are more technology. The relatively new workplace literrecent. The National Institute for Literacy and acy partnership program also recognizes the

72 ~Old H. p~~, Cc~~@ ~ ~~wo~o~: ~ ROle Of mblogy in hnpmvhg ~tU-_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.
152 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

This videodisc program incorporates text and pictures

to help adult literacy students improve reading skills

at Temple University’s Center for Learning and Adult

Literacy Development.

relationship between basic skills and workplace

technology demands.

By and large, however, Federal adult literacy legislation has not kept pace with the

reality or promise of technology. The AEA

basic grant program contains no provisions explicitly authorizing use of technology, neither do

Even Start, SLIAG, refugee resettlement, and

homeless education. JOBS regulations mention

funding for automated management systems but

do not mention use of technology in service

delivery. No programs contain capital budgets for

equipment purchase or explicit funding for teacher

training in technology.

Further, most statutory and regulatory provisions that do recognize technology are options,

not mandates. In several programs, Federal

administering agencies may consider the use of

technology when making competitive grants. In

other cases, State and local agencies may use

Federal funds for technology. The mandates that

do exist-such as those relating to the National

Institute for Literacy and the DOL National

Workforce Literacy Collaborative-generally affat decisions at the Federal level, not the State

and local level. The only quasi-mandate at the

grantee level is in the ED fictional literacy

program for State and local prisoners, which

requires the use of advanced technologies “if

possible.’

Federal intent regarding technology is further

obscured by mixed messages. Some laws that

explicitly mention technology as an allowable

activity also place a cap on the amount that may

be spent for hardware or soilware. (Examples are

the State resource centers and the workplace

literacy program.)

Moreover, the references to different technologies in laws and regulations are somewhat arbitrary and ill-defined. Various Federal laws mention all the following types of technology without

defining them: state-of-the-art technologies, interactive video curriculum, technology-based

learning environments, new instructional technologies, technology-based instruction, advanced

learning technologies, and commercial technology training packages.

Other Federal requirements not directly related

to technology may subtly discourage its use. For

example, performance standards may dissuade

service providers from making long-term equipment investments or trying out new technologybased instructional approaches, for fear these will

not lead to immediate increases in student learning or employment.73 Eligibility requirements

may in effect prohibit federally funded hardware

and software from being used by noneligible

learners after hours. The absence of multiyear

contracts in programs such as JTPA may discourage long-term investment in technology .74

Some Federal agencies are undertaking their

own efforts to encourage wider and better use of

technologies. DOL and ED have supported literacyrelated technology demonstrations with discretionary money. States have used AEA section 353

73 mker, op. cit., footnote 72, p. 55.

74 mid.
Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 153

experimental funds to promote use of technology?75

Why has the Federal Government taken a

cautious approach to technology? First, the Federal Government traditionally has tended to be

suspicious about capital expenditures in education, especially for expensive equipment that may

become obsolete or sit untouched because people

are not properly trained. Second, because adult

education funding is so limited compared to need,

many policymakers see the technology issue as a

tradeoff between ‘‘live’ teachers or computers.

Third, the pressure for greater Federal leadership

is not there, because the adult education field is

still in its adolescence regarding technology.

Finally, many Federal agencies lack the technical

expertise to develop a thoughtful technology

policy .76

Federal leadership could do a great deal to help

the field mature technologically, in terms of

research, training, evaluation, dissemination, and

adoption. The Office of Educational Research and

Improvement National Center for Adult Literacy,

the National Institute, and the State centers offer

promising starting points, but these efforts are in

the early stages.77

A final issue for Federal consideration is the

use of technology for program management. The

growth of Federal literacy-related programs with

strict eligibility and documentation requirements

has created new data collection and reporting

burdens that could be greatly eased through

technology-based management systems. Technology also holds promise for better coordination

across programs and agencies. A related question

is whether Federal policy should encourage broad

integration and sharing of instructional and management technology across programs, or whether

technology issues should be addressed independently by each program.

State and Local Reaction to Federal

Technology Policy

States and local service providers appear to

respond in different ways to mixed Federal

signals about technology. Some States and local

sites are making increasing use of technology in

their federally funded adult education programs .78

In the JTPA program, the majority of service

delivery areas use computers for instruction or

management. 79 (Often this equipment was purchased with private contributions, Governors’

8-percent money, or national demonstration dollars rather than regular JTPA funds.80) Yet despite

the existence of successful and sophisticated

models, the use of technology is not particularly

widespread in federally funded adult literacy

programs.

Why is this so? First, many State administrators and local service providers are reluctant to

spend limited Federal dollars on equipment and

software, believing that they are ‘too expensive’

or would drain funds away from direct services.81

When tight budgets force a choice between

buying equipment and paying a salary, an investment in upfront equipment may seem out of the

question.

Second, the absence of explicit authorization in

many Federal programs for hardware and software or for technology-based instruction seems to

have a chilling effect. Although only a few

programs actually limit the use of funds for

equipment, 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 ~dlo~ 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.
154 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

believe such expenditures are discouraged by the

Federal Government or interpret Federal silence

as lukewarm support. Some State and local

program people also seem to perceive, correctly

or incorrectly, that Federal a administrators are

wary of equipment and software purchases, and

that if programs make these purchases, they do so

at risk of being closely monitored down the road.

Third, the nature of small, highly targeted, or

competitive grant programs may present obstacles. In general, expenditures under targeted

programs may be used only for services to eligible

populations; unless the local target group is large,

it maybe hard to justify a technology expenditure.

Moreover, as noted above, competitive grants are

often a short-term and unreliable funding source,

and a small one at that. A decision to purchase

equipment and software might eat up the entire

grant amount, leaving nothing for training, accessories, or instructional services and producing no

measurable student outcomes when evaluations

come due.

Fourth, some State and local program people

feel that there is not yet enough research documenting the effects of technology-based instruction for adult learners, and that technology may

not be appropriate for some types of learners.

These beliefs seem to be reinforced when State

and local people have had prior negative experiences with inappropriately used technology, inferior learning packages, or lack of training. This

finding indicates a need for both better research

and improved dissemination of existing research,

as well as a willingness to experiment, make

mistakes, and learn from them.

Fifth, State leadership also seems to be an

important influence on the use of technology in

federally funded programs. A lack of State

encouragement can have a dampening effect at

the local level, while a more aggressive State

policy can help overcome initial local reluctance.

In Texas, for example, where the State has

encouraged the use of technology, the majority of

the adult education cooperatives reported having

access to computers for instructional purposes

and administrative purposes; almost one-third

had access to integrated learning systems; and

some had more than one system, with a wide

variety of software being used.82 Feedback and

evaluations from technology-based programs have

been quite positive, and Texas officials would

like to expand their use. The major obstacle is a

lack of funding for capital expenditures.83

COORDINATION AMONG ADULT

LITERACY PROGRAMS

Recent analyses of the Federal effort in adult

literacy have concluded that it is fragmented,

poorly coordinated, spread thinly across many

agencies, and insufficient in some major ways.84

Recognizing these problems, Congress has added

a range of provisions affecting Federal, State, and

local coordination to many literacy-related statutes, most recently the National Literacy Act (see

appendix C).

Federal Requirements

The largest programs-AEA, JOBS, and JTPA—

have many coordination mandates. Among the

most typical are requirements for consultation

with other agencies and programs, joint plan

review, consultation with broad-based advisory

councils, and State plan descriptions of coordination methods. Many programs also include directives to coordinate or collaborate with relevant

agencies or service providers at the Federal, State,

and local levels. These requirements tend to be

specific about the programs with which agencies

82 ~XM ~~tion Agaq, “survey of Computer Usage in Adult Education in ‘IkXM,” titmm 1992.

83 Evelyn ~~~u@on S-G‘fkxas Education Ag~, PACO-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 Coumil

for Effective Literacy, 1985); and Pi% op. cit., footnote 12.
Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 155

must coordinate or consult; most frequently

mentioned are JTPA, vocational education, elementary and secondary education, vocational

rehabilitation, special education, and employment and training programs.

Some statutes give Federal agencies, and to a

lesser degree States, joint tasks to carry out. ED,

DOL, and HHS are jointly charged with implementing the National Institute for Literacy and

providing technical assistance for the JOBS

program. Building on this base, the three agencies

have undertaken additional shared efforts on their

own: sponsoring joint regional planning meetings, initiating relationships at the regional office

level, and sitting in on each other’s informational

meetings. 85 The National Institute for Literacy

and the State literacy resource centers have also

been given a range of coordination tasks.

The Federal framework also contains some

funding incentives for coordination. The Governors’ 8-percent education-coordination set-aside

under the JTPA is one strong motivator. Other

programs, such as workplace literacy, Even Start,

and library literacy, attempt to build coordination

from the ground up by requiring or urging local

programs to be run as partnerships involving

more than one agency. In several competitive

grant programs, grantees that can demonstrate

collaboration or coordination receive priority in

selection. Several programs also contain provisions discouraging duplication of services.

Nevertheless, the Federal framework does not

go as far as it might to foster coordination. Many

of the smaller literacy-related programs do not

require or suggest any interagency coordination. 86 In addition, the coordination provisions

that exist do not usually specify the nature or

degree of coordination expected. As past experience with coordination mandates demonstrates, it

is relatively easy to prove that a plan has been

reviewed, or an interagency meeting convened. It

is harder for the Federal Government to assess

whether meaningful coordination is occurring, let

alone take enforcement action if it is not. Finally,

there is a subtle contradiction in the Federal

framework: the same Federal laws that mandate

coordination have also created an assortment of

programs that, by sheer numbers, make the

coordination process more difficult and complicated.

Forging strong collaborative relationships is a

time-consuming process and results may not

show up immediately. Because of these difficulties, State and local agencies are in effect their

own overseers, and the will to achieve results

becomes a deciding factor.

State and Local Impact

It is difficult to assess the real effect of Federal

coordination requirements on State and local

practice. Many successful models of coordination

predate or were developed independently of

Federal mandates. In addition, grant recipients

can comply on paper without really changing

their behavior. Nevertheless, coordination requirements in Federal law seem to be having

some effect on State and local practice. Coordination requirements in the JTPA, for example

among the earliest mandates-have helped produce a wide range of models and strategies,87 and

many relationships forged under these efforts

have carried over into other areas. More recently,

the JOBS program coordination requirements

have compelled States to make interagency decisions 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.
156 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

In many communities the library is an important partner in family, workplace, and adult literacy efforts.

Flexible Federal dollars have also helped

grease the wheels of coordination. The JTPA

8-percent education-coordination grants seem

particularly important. In 1990, five States had

specifically earmarked a portion of this set-aside

to support an entity within the Governor’s office

to coordinate statewide literacy efforts.89 LSCA

Title I funds provide another example: in Kalamazoo, Michigan, for instance, these funds help

support a literacy coordinator, maintain a literacy

network, and provide a literacy clearinghouse.90

There appears to be widespread agreement that

Federal mandates alone cannot make coordination happen; individual will and personalities are

critical. 91 On the reverse side, no matter how

strong the will to coordinate, State and local

initiatives can only go so far until they run up

against a wall of Federal requirements that cannot

be changed without legislative or regulatory

action.

What changes do State and local practitioners

recommend to eradicate these obstacles? Although some State and local administrators advocate program consolidation or Federal agency

reorganization as solutions, these are by no means

universal recommendations. A more common

recommendation is for Congress and the executive branch to take steps to put the Federal house

in order by standardizing requirements, eliminating unnecessary complexity, and charging FedtW 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.
Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 157

eral agencies to undertake joint ventures and

forge collaborative relationships. Support for

compatible reporting requirements seems particularly strong, with recommendations that Federal

agencies decide on standard protocols for evaluations, performance outcomes, eligibility, and

reporting timetables. Similarly, the recommendation to move toward compatible application

cycles, carryover procedures, and finding cycles

(including multiyear grants) is a popular one.

Many people also feel that additional, flexible

funding specifically for coordination would help.

FEDERAL POLICY ISSUES

Programs and Dollars

Several factors have shaped the Federal role in

adult literacy education, but perhaps none more

than funding limitations. In essence, the Federal

Government has attempted to solve a large,

multifaceted problem in a piecemeal fashion. The

current array of modest to small programs provides something for almost every type of literacy

need and not very much for any, with inefficiencies for all.

Since funding exerts some control over policy,

it may make sense for Congress to frost faceup to

the issue of whether adult literacy is a high

enough national priority to warrant greatly increased outlays. If the answer is yes, this points

toward one set of policy options, which may

include a new wide-scale program, with higher

visibility in the Federal bureaucracy, that expands, subsumes, or replaces existing efforts. If

the answer is no, then policy discussions ought to

center on how to use the dollars available more

effectively.

One such option is to focus Federal leadership

on a few, clear priorities, including any of the

following:

Building capacity and/or improving quality

across the whole literacy system;

Serving a few high-priority target groups, with

the aim of reducing costs for other social

programs down the road;

Raising the literacy level, and with it the

competitiveness, of the American workforce;

and

Reducing illiteracy in future generations

through family literacy.

Any of these choices would suggest a reduction

in the number of Federal programs, and perhaps

a dramatic refashioning of the Federal role. Some

caution might be advisable before a ‘‘block

grant” approach is taken, however; funding that

is too flexible could easily become diffused

across the vast pool of literacy needs, and

diffusion is already a problem.

In sharpening the focus of the Federal role,

Congress might also consider whether the practice of attaching literacy mandates to programs

with other goals has expanded funding, participation, and delivery mechanisms for adult literacy,

or whether it is has shifted the composition and

added to the waiting lists of existing programs.

A final issue is how the Federal Government

can make more of its leveraging potential, for

example by catalyzing additional private dollars

for workplace literacy or providing incentive

grants for States to develop cost-effective models

of service delivery.

Services, Quality, and Capacity Building

If Congress decides that this is an area where

more aggressive Federal leadership could make a

difference across the system, then several options

seem feasible.

Building on the missions of the National

Institute for Literacy, the National Center for

Adult Literacy, and the State resource centers,

Congress could expand the funding and scope

for research, evaluation, and dissemination of

the best instructional practices, curriculum,

technology, and training methods. This type of

capacity-building agenda could serve as a

homework for the entire Federal role.

Professionalization of the literacy field could

begin with a significant Federal staff develop-
158 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

ment and preservice training effort for instructors and leaders, as has been done in the

mathematics/science education and medical

fields. Such approaches as extending grants or

loans to talented undergraduates, sponsoring

summer institutes, strengthening university

programs, and providing high-quality training

opportunities could help draw new people to

the field and upgrade the skills of existing

practitioners, including volunteers. Attention

would have to be paid, however, to the substandard pay and working conditions associated

with adult education programs.

In programs as diverse as Chapter 1 and

vocational education, the Federal Government

has enacted new “program improvement”

provisions to identify the weakest local programs and prod them to change their practices.

A similar approach could be considered for

adult education, although first some consensus

would have to be reached about what constitutes success and how to measure it. The

forthcoming AEA indicators of program quality could serve as a starting point for a new

assessment approach that looks at delivery

systems, instructional approaches, and service

intensity, in addition to learner outcomes.

The Federal Government could do more to

encourage policies supporting alternative delivery systems for adult literacy services, such

as programs in the workplace, the home, o r

other nontraditional sites. This would require

new approaches to crediting student time on

task for mandated programs where participation is counted by hours of attendance in a

classroom setting, but would offer greater

flexibility to the learners.

Target Groups

To date the Federal Government has avoided

making hard choices about who should receive

highest priority for Federal funds. As States strive

to meet mandatory participation levels in the

JOBS program, without fully reimbursing local

providers for the costs of JOBS services, it is

possible that local programs may be forced to

make the hard choices themselves, which could

lead to polarization among different groups and a

backlash against Federal mandates.

Congress could confront the issue directly by

deciding on some clear priority groups. A key

issue is whether to concentrate on adults who are

closest to achieving functional competency and

economic self-sufficiency, or on adults who have

the most severe disadvantages.

Technology

Federal leadership in adult literacy technology

holds promise for improving instruction, coordination, and management. Stronger leadership

could be exerted in several ways:

Stimulating capital investment, through such

approaches as a revolving loan fired, incentives

for private-sector donations, and technology

pools that serve several Federal programs;

Removing disincentives in Federal law to use

of technology;

Supporting research, development, and dissemination and encouraging private-sector software development;

Building on the Federal Star Schools program

and other distance learning efforts to reach

underserved populations of and to expand

training and staff development for adult education teachers and volunteers; and

Piloting use of technology to help manage

complex recordkeeping and accountability requirements for multiple Federal programs.

Coordination

Fragmentation at the Federal level undercuts

Federal mandates for coordination at the State and

local level. Federal leadership is urgently needed.

A logical first step would be to develop a common

framework to guide Federal accountability, reporting, and eligibility requirements; definitions;

and funding cycles. The Federal Government

could back up the requirements that already exist
Chapter 5-The Federal Role in Adult Literacy Education | 159

in Federal law by providing some incentives, or

“glue money,’ for States and local providers to

develop, extend, and improve good models of

coordination and effective use of technology.

A stickier issue is whether agency responsibilities should be reorganized to cut down on

fragmentation. To some extent the answer would

depend on which literacy priorities Congress

chooses to emphasize. A Federal role structured

around upgrading the workforce, for example,

would suggest a different configuration of agency

responsibilities, with a stronger role for DOL,

than one centered on educational capacitybuilding and teacher professionalization.

CONCLUSION

In assessing the overall impact of the Federal

Government on adult literacy, one must not

become so caught up in the criticisms of the

Federal role as to forget the positive contributions

it has made to the field. The fact that States and

local agencies continue to participate in Federal

literacy programs year after year, with all the

accompanying administrative challenges, suggests that the benefits of participation must

outweigh the drawbacks.

The main benefit is not hard to find. Federal

dollars continue to be critical to an underfunded

field, and States and local service providers

continue to do what they must to receive them.

The choice between turning people away and

dealing with regulatory complexity is not a

difficult one for most literacy providers. In fact,

the lengths to which some programs will go to

keep their doors open is often remarkable.

Still, it seems fair to ask whether the total

Federal literacy effort—given its limited funding,

its variable quality and intensity, its scant coverage of the eligible population, and its lack of a

cohesive, overarching policy-is really making a

dent in the problem of illiteracy. The answer

seems to be it is making a real difference in the

lives of millions of people, an accomplishment

that should not be underestimated. With increased

funding, better coordination, greater leadership in

the areas of technology and instructional quality,

and a richer base of research knowledge, Federal

programs could make a difference for millions

more.

A final observation: it is beyond the scope of

this chapter to analyze the effects of other Federal

legislation-such as housing, health, nutrition,

tax, and elementary and secondary education

policies-on the functional literacy of adult

Americans. Suffice it to say, any policy choice

that widens or reduces the gap between the haves

and have-nets, in this generation or the next,

ultimately influences the status of adult literacy in

the United States.
Improving the

System:

Promising

Roles for

Technology 6

A

dult literacy programs, regardless of funding source or

sponsor, share many of the same difficult problems and

critical 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 d

administrative issues concerning funding and coordination.

Technology offers promise for dealing with many aspects of

these common concerns.

FINDINGS

■

■

■

Recruiting adult learners and retaining them in programs long

enough to make significant changes in their literacy levels are

persistent concerns for literacy programs of all types. Technology has been used successfully to draw learners into programs,

hold their interest, and adapt instruction to their needs and

levels.

Mandated literacy for special populations is affecting literacy

programs in a number of ways. The target groups that must be

served differ substantially from those who enter programs

voluntarily-in terms of education level, motivation, need for

support services, and higher incidence of personal problems

affecting their literacy quest. Programs must adapt considerably to serve these groups effectively, and these adaptations

will likely affect all those served by the programs.

A.

One of the major challenges for programs is finding curricular

materials appropriate for adults, flexible enough for their

multiple learning styles and relevant to learners’ goals and

needs. Survival skills, getting and keeping a job, workplace

content, 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 for

the individual learner offer great promise as

tools for creating pertinent and engaging curriculum.

Program evaluation and assessment is stymied

by a reliance on school-based models o f

effectiveness, such as gains in grade-level

equivalents on standardized tests. Multiple

measures of effectiveness are needed, including

performan cc-based assessments. An effective

program must take into account the reality that

a learner’s personal literacy goals may be

different from the outcomes measured for

evaluating a program’s overall success.

Maintaining up-to-date student records and

program accounting data is costly, timeconsuming, and difficult for most programs.

Computer-based solutions such as databases

cont aining information on student progress

make it possible for programs to streamline

operations as well as keep better track of

students and their educational needs. Another

solution has been the use of personal student

data cards; these minimize repeated placement

testing and expensive intake procedures, benefiting both programs and learners.

Professional development of adult educators is

unlikely to be achieved without changes in

State credentialing requirements, development

of master’s level programs in adult learning and

literacy, and creation of career ladders for those

in the field. Better communication is needed

between programs and colleges and universities that could provide preservice and inservice

training to staff and volunteers. Technology

offers a promising resource (via computer

networks, distance learning systems, software,

and video materials) for training staff and

volunteers, sharing information about promising practices, and reducing the isolation of

many programs.

a Lifetime

Limited, unstable and short-term funding from

multiple sources affects many decisions about

staffing, services, and instructional methods,

making it difficult to plan, purchase materials,

or serve more than a small percentage of those

in need. Tight budgets and limited planning

capabilities especially affect the ability to make

technology a central part of instruction or

program management.

Different and sometimes incompatible Federal

funding streams, eligibility restrictions, and

accountability requirements are sources of

frustration for State and local literacy practitioners and drive these programs in ways that

may not always reflect local learner needs or

promote efficient management practices. Technology offers resources for improving coordination and consolidating service to improve

efficiency, while still allowing local flexibility

and control.

RECRUITING, RETAINING, AND

SERVING LEARNERS

Bringing learners into literacy programs and

keeping them long enough to meet their goals are

continuing concerns for programs of all types.

Recruitment and retention go hand in hand

because the same problems that keep learners

from entering programs in the frost place resurface

as factors contributing to the inability to stay with

a literacy program. Indeed, many who enter

literacy programs drop out and are then targets for

renewed recruitment drives.

Recruitment Issues and Strategies

Many factors make adults reluctant to enter

literacy programs. Most common among these are

the stigma of admitting one’s problems, conflicting 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 are

overwhelmed by how much time would be

required to meet their goals. Remembering that

they were unable to succeed as youngsters when

attending school all day, every day, they wonder

how much progress can be made attending only a

few hours a week.2 For many, the memory of

school and their past academic failure makes the

idea of returning to school—the scene of so much

prior humiliation-a frightening or undesirable

prospect.

Public information campaigns have sought to

encourage those with literacy needs to come

forward. A string of Federal initiatives-from the

1969 “Right to Read Initiative,” the 1980 Adult

Literacy Initiative, and Barbara Bush’s advocacy

of literacy for all Americans, as well as the private

sector’s Project Literacy US (PLUS) and countless State and local efforts-have presented

literacy as a problem that can be solved if those in

need sign up and others volunteer time and

assistance. The message has been delivered

through public service announcements on radio

and television, on posters, and in newspapers and

magazines. However, as discussed in chapter 3,

many of those needing help have coped adequately in the past, or cannot be convinced that

classes will really help them. Often, as one

educator noted: ‘‘A person with low literacy skills

who has a job which does not demand higher

skills will not appreciate the need for instruction

until he or she loses that job, the job is eliminated,

or the job’s demands begin to escalate because of

global competition.’

With this in mind, some workplace programs

have used video as low-pressure but effective

recruitment tools to encourage employees to enter

their voluntary literacy and training programs.

For example, the United Auto Workers and

General Motors, with a grant from the U.S.

Department of Labor, developed an interactive

videodisc to illustrate how quickly the skills

needed to succeed in the auto industry are

changing. 4 Workers touch the screen to interact

with the material and test their knowledge in

various skill areas. In one plant, the program was

set up in the cafeteria so that employees could

work on it for as long as they wanted; many

returned over and over, or kept at it for several

hours on their own time, trying various selfassessments to see how close they were to having

the skills needed for working in the year 2000.5 In

another recruiting approach, the United Auto

Workers-Ford video “The Breakfast Club” suggests that there’s no stigma attached to improving

one’s academic skills at all levels.6 Participation

in Ford’s Skills Enhancement program is encouraged by showing a variety of employees including

a young engineer working on his master’s degree,

a worker with many years of seniority pursuing

his high school diploma, and a Rumanian immigrant studying English. The message is clear:

everyone can pursue higher educational goals

with the help of the Skills Enhancement Program.

Literacy programs have discovered that computers can be powerful vehicles for attracting

learners and drawing them into programs. For

example, 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 the

end of the third year, improvement seems to have leveled off for those with literacy levels below the 7.S-grade level. Thorruu Sticht, “How

Fast 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 commuuicatioq

September 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 June

1992.
164 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Center’s popular “Playing to Win” program,

now in its 10th year, attracts more than 500 people

a week. The center’s president explained the

drawing power of technology:

Why might a learner respond so willing when a

computer is mentioned? Because he or she is no

dope, because people who can’t read, write,

calculate or communicate as well as society could

wish are not totally unaware. They know that this

is a technologically-based world . . . that acquiring comfort and skill with technology is just as

important from their point of view as learning to

read, write and calculate more successfully.7

Many adult learners associate technology with

tomorrow’s skills, not yesterday’s failures. They

find that using computers legitimizes literacy

studies; they are proud to be “learning computers’ when in fact they are also learning with

computers. It can be like starting fresh for those

who have associated traditional classrooms or

textbooks with their past school failures.8 Others

who were frustrated and embarrassed by their

slow progress in prior literacy classes or tutorials

savor the privacy offered by computers and

headphones so that “. . . the guy next to you

doesn’t have to know what you’re working on.”

They also appreciate the infinite patience of

computers. “They will read something over 100

times without (the computer)

that word; I just told you that

saying ‘You know

word. ’ “g

Retaining Learners Long Enough to

Meet Goals: The Problem of Attrition

Once learners have come forward and secured

a place in an adult literacy program, the next big

issue is keeping them involved long enough to

meet their goals.l0 Student attrition is a central

and vexing issue. The statistics are bleak:

Between 15 and 20 percent of all clients who go

through the intake process never actually receive any instruction.11

In the first 5 weeks, from one-quarter to almost

one-half of all adult learners stop going to

class .12

After 40 weeks, only about 12.5 percent of

those who began classes are still active13

overall, attrition rates are in excess of 60

percent in many adult basic education (ABE) and

general equivalency diploma (GED) courses and

over 70 percent in some State literacy programs .14

(See figure 6-l.)

Many overlapping factors conspire against

completing a program. A longitudinal study of

students enrolled in adult literacy programs in

New York City in 1988 found that less than 1 in

10 (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 United

Nations, 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) ~gequivalency diploma (GED) dmiXlis~OrS at the 1992 Joint ABI@!D Armud Natiorud Admuus “ “ trators Conference and of statewide literacy

and ABE adrmms “ “ trators in Pennsylvania and Georgia at their 1991 and 1992 professional development conferences. B. Allen Quigley, “l%e

Disappearing 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 to

Adult Education Act-funded programs. Data based on Development Associates, Inc., “Second InteAm Reporu profile of Client

characteristics,” draft repq 1993.

12 Lauren Seiler and Peter Nwakeze, “Attrition in Adult Education: Causes and Recommendations,” Literacy Harvest: The Journal of the

Literacy 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”
Chapter 6-Improving the System: Promising Roles for Technology I 165

Walk in

the door

start

classes

Figure 6-l-The Pattern of Attrition

in Literacy Programs

-4—- . 

-. .-—.

. . —

I

‘–:-EIT

.@...

I

Of all learners

who walk in the

door and go

through the

retake process...

80-85°/0 actually

start classes.

After the first 5

weeks only half to

three-quarters of

this group remain.

After 40 weeks,

only about 12.5%

of those who

began classes are

still active.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993, based on data

from Development Asadates, Inc., “Second Interim Report: Profile of

Client Characteristi~,” draft report, 1993; and Lauren Seilerand Peter

Nwakeze, “Attrition in Adult Education: Causes and Recommendations,” Literacy Harvest: The Jouma/of the LiteraeyAssistance Center,

vol. 2, No. 1, winter 1993, p. 26.

learned enough.l5 The vast majority left without

completing their educational goals. The reasons

for leaving were categorized as follows:

Situational deterrents (64 percent): work,

health, childcare, family, transportation, or

other external problems;

Institutional deterrents (11 percent): uninteresting or inappropriate programs;

Dispositional deterrents (3.6 percent): tired of

school or were not accomplishing goals; and

Combination of situational, dispositional, and

institutional deterrents (7 percent).l6

is uncommon to have information on why

students drop out, for most who leave literacy

programs just stop coming and the factors creating the dissatisfaction leading them to ‘‘vote with

their feet’ are never known or addressed. Furthermore, because many learners leave programs and

then return at a later date, there is reluctance to

record a learner as ‘‘terminated. ’

Many programs have begun to develop recordkeeping systems to help them analyze patterns of

attrition. For example, volunteer organizations

have developed software packages to help local

programs maintain computerized databases on

learners and tutors, allowing for more systematic

analysis of retention factors.

17 These systems are

part of a general effort to improve retention by

providing “better matches” between tutors and

learners, but there is little data to confirm that this

makes learners stay in programs longer.l8

Even mandatory programs find retention a

problem. Education programs for welfare recipients 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<im Of

correlation between tutor and learner similarity and learner achievement. However, the researchers suggest that the data on which the analysis

is 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.
166 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Distance learning

projects bring

instruction to

students in remote

locations. This

class is being sent

from Kirkwood

Community College

to centers spread

across a 4300-mile

service area.

attendance. l9 Only when basic needs are satisfactorily cared for can one concentrate on the

difficult task of learning. For those whose financial, emotional, and health situations keep them

on the edge, the recurring problems and crises of

day-to-day life take precedence over long-term

learning goals. Most programs try to deal with the

situational, institutional, and dispositional factors

that drive students from programs, but it is a huge

job.

Community-based organizations are especially

sensitive to the need for providing the comprehensive services that remove some situational

barriers. Often their literacy activities are part of

a broader program that seeks to help clients deal

with the myriad issues of housing, employment,

childcare, health, and personal relationships. Counseling and social services are as central to their

mission as literacy classes. Offering service in

storefronts, libraries, community centers, or housing projects can bring programs to people in

places where they feel most comfortable, while

alleviating some transportation problems.20

In some rural areas, where distance and lack of

public transportation are significant problems,

distance learning projects have brought programs

closer to participants; e.g., adult high school

completion programs offered by Kirkwood Community College’s telecommunications networks

(see box 6-A).

Scheduling programs to accommodate the

learners’ needs helps boost retention. For example, many programs try to schedule classes in the

morning for women whose children are in school;

daytime classes also attract women whose safety

concerns make them unwilling to attend night

classes. However, since many adult literacy

teachers 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 Through

Telecommunications: Kirkwood Community College

For more than a decade, Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has sought ways to extend its

reach to all learners, especially those most cut off from educational services in the past. While the college offers

a 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 college

credit 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 high

schools, community centers, and businesses.

Students in these distance learning classes are typically older adults who cannot easily come to the Cedar Rapids

campus or are uncomfortable with the idea of attending classes on campus with students much younger than they

are. Many build up their confidence once they see that they can compete successfully with ‘‘regular’ college

students. 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 1,500

students each semester) and by the quality of the instruction. Evaluations of student performance consistently

indicate that the distance learning students perform at least as well, if not better, than traditional on-campus

students. Some distance learning courses are also offered in conjunction with area high schools, allowing

advanced students to earn college credits while still in high school.

Kirkwood also offers alternative programs for students who have dropped out of high school, through

secondary-level courses available at learning centers throughout their service area, High school credit courses

have been developed using a self-paced format of instruction. These 40 courses complement the traditional

courses and individual tutorials. Nearly 400 students took alternative high school classes in the 1992-93 academic

year, 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 alternative

approaches to delivering instruction. Past assumptions have been proven false, challenging conventional wisdom

about who can benefit from alternative educational approaches:

Older students perform as well as younger students; high school level curriculum is as successful as college level

curriculum. It is no longer valid to assume that older adults would have an innate fear of technology, or that ABE

or 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 the

telecommunications-based college credit programs, Kirkwood plans to take the next step and offer adults without

high school degrees expanded educational opportunities via live interactive telecommunications. In the 1993-94

academic year, the college will work with high school dropouts in off-campus sites, offering distance learning

courses that include career development, technical mathematics, and environmental science. The college

envisions adding other technologies, including computer-assisted instruction and multimedia courses to augmemt

this program. They also hope to extend similar strategies to adult basic education programs in the near future. The

Dean of Telecommunications sums up Kirkwood’s attitude and hopes for the future this way: “Telecommunications technology and related instructional technologies certainly hold the promise of extending greater

opportunities 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~
168 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

teaching K-12), daytime classes can be difficult to

schedule. 21 Workplace programs, held on site

between shifts, make it easier for employees to

attend. Finally, for some learners, classes can be

supplemented with or substituted by study at

home, through the use of televised literacy

programs such as those offered by Kentucky

Educational Television or other public broadcasting stations. These offer the ultimate in convenience, safety, and privacy for learners.

Maintaining regular contact with learners increases likelihood of improving student retention.

This may mean serving fewer students in order to

do a better job of providing necessary support

services such as case management.22 This involves greater use of counselors or social workers

who can provide regular visits to schools or to

students’ homes to see how students are doing and

why they may be missing classes. Teachers or

volunteer tutors are often reluctant or unable to

take on this role.

Serving Learners: Balancing Supply

and Demand

While recruitment and retention are important,

the problem goes beyond that. The larger issue is

serving all those in need.23 Although there is

variation among local and statewide efforts, on

average, most estimates indicate that fewer than

10 percent of those in need are being served.24

Furthermore, mandated programs are changing

the concept of recruitment, often forcing programs to serve one group of learners-those

required to attend—at the expense of others who

come voluntarily.25 English as a second language

(ESL) programs are often oversubscribed, and

many agencies are forced to put a cap on these

services so as not to overwhelm and consume

their total adult literacy program.26 A survey

taken in New York City in 1988 suggested there

were 10,000 people on a waiting list for ESL

classes, with indications that the numbers have

grown since then.27

Technology is extending the range of services.

Ironically, as technology makes it possible to

reach more people, through hotlines, referral

services, and programs brought close to home via

distance learning activities, demand is likely to

increase. Some communities are finding ways to

expand services by involving community resources that can provide technology assistance,

often by enlisting the aid of local businesses.

Others are tapping into existing public programs

like Head Start or public welfare agencies and

working with them to offer instruction in these

settings (e.g., setting up computer-assisted learning laboratories in daycare centers or in the

welfare office-see chapter 4, box 4-E) or

through 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, but

requires 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 ~~testit 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 Robert

A. 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, and

at 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 Literacy

Assistance Center, vol. 2, No. 1, winter 1993, p. 6.
Chapter 6-Improving the System: Promising Roles for Technology | 169

provide televised literacy instruction learners can

watch at home. These models to ‘‘transform the

service delivery system via technology” are

encouraging, but still limited; most programs

facing increasing demand still continue to try to

do more of the same, using existing approaches

that are already overburdened and limited in their

success.

INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES

At the heart of every adult literacy program are

three central issues: what is taught, who teaches

it, and how progress is measured. Concerns with

each of these are shared across programs of all

types.

Curriculum: What Works?

Although the instructional goals for ESL, ABE,

GED, and high school completion programs are

similar across programs, adult literacy programs

use a variety of instructional approaches and

materials. Some espouse structured phoneticsbased approaches while others prefer whole

language materials for beginning readers. Many

create materials relevant for their own learners,

attempting to ‘‘use whatever seems to work, ’ but

then find that what works for some students may

not work for others.28 Many programs have the

desirable goal of creating individualized instructional plans for each student; however, these must

be developed around the philosophy of the

program, the time and talents of staff, time

available for instruction, and resources (e.g.,

books, hardware, and software) at hand. Compounding this difficulty is the fact that the student

clientele keeps changing. And, while many of the

teacher-developed curriculum materials are good

and could be shared or replicated, there have not

been, until recently, any formal mechanisms to

share, evaluate, or disseminate locally developed

materials.

Effective instruction is built around a learner’s

interests. These ESL students celebrate Cinco de Mayo

in their Hispanic heritage project.

Furthermore, while there is considerable evidence of what works, the information is not

systematically made available to practitioners as

a basis for effective practice. Even large curriculum development projects have no system for

broad distribution. For example, over a decade

ago a California adult literacy curriculum support

project led to the development of the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS).

It was designed to provide accurate placement of

students in education programs from beginning

through advanced levels of ABE, ESL, and

preemployment training, and to establish a uniform method for reporting progress, while providing linkages to competency-based instructional

materials and instruction. Since 1983, CASAS

has been validated by the U.S. Department of

Education as an exemplary program for national

dissemination through the National Diffusion

Network, and agencies implementing CASAS

report significant gains in student retention. It has

been used effectively in a range of agencies—

community colleges, school programs, correctional 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.
170 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Act (JTPA) programs-throughout California

and several other States.29 However, because of

the diversity of programs and lack of systematic

information-sharing, CASAS and other effective

programs are not known by practitioners apart

from those directly involved with them.30

The problem is repeated as adult literacy

programs seek information on effective ways of

teaching with technology. The most common

software information resource is word-of-mouth,

particularly recommendations from other technology-using teachers .31 While sources for evaluation do exist,32 more than 60 percent of organizations contacted in a recent survey never consult

these sources; most did not even know that these

sources were available.33 If a State or region has

an agency that provides information on technology for adult literacy, most computer-using

provider organizations in the area will take

advantage of its services.34 However, these State

and regional resources are limited.

A promising resource is California’s Outreach

and Technical Assistance Network (OTAN) (see

figure 6-2). OTAN combines a computerized

communications system with regional resource

libraries that disseminate commercial and teachermade materials, including training packets with

accompanying videotapes, resource documents,

and public domain software. OTAN is both an

electronic archive and a distribution source for

materials, reports, and studies. Several States

have signed on to OTAN, hoping to tap into its

base of materials and expertise; however, since

much of the material is geared to the California

curricula, its use is limited in programs that take

a different, less structured approach. Nevertheless, OTAN is seen by some as a model for other

State information and dissemination systems, and

as a resource for teacher trainin g, the area

discussed below.

Helping Teachers, Administrators, and

Volunteers Do Their Jobs

It is difficult to define adult education as a

profession when most teachers and instructors are

part time, certification is rarely required, and no

career ladder exists for moving ahead in the field.

Furthermore, university programs for specializing in adult literacy are limited, with little

agreement or research base specifying what kind

of training is needed.

There is a critical need for professional development, both for teachers and for volunteers in

adult literacy programs. Teaching adults demands

a different set of skills and sensitivities than those

required for teaching children. These take time

and training to develop, but the transition is often

assumed to be automatic. Furthermore, even

those with experience teaching adults in community colleges or workplace training programs may

not be familiar with the special challenges of

teaching adults with low literacy skills. Staff

development for ESL instructors appears to be an

even 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 varied

enormously, with instruc tion and materials based on what was available in a center and the background of the instructors. The State director

described the situation as a “hodgepodge.” Maryland used CASAS as a model for a cmnpetency-based curriculum but localized content for

h4a@nd: questions deal with Maryland geography, industries, and other locally relevant topics. Chuck lhlber$ director of Adult and

Community 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 repor4

June 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 guides

and 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 language

acquisition and may lack the ability to work with

culturally diverse groups and their special needs .35

Even when programs strive to provide training for

their staff and volunteers, they are constrained by

number of factors:

Minimal State and local policies and certification requirements;

Limited inservice training requirements;

The part-time nature of adult education teachers and volunteer instructors;

The high rate of staff turnover;

The lack of a unified research base on best

practices; and

Limited financial resources for training. 36

Most States do not require special certification

in adult education for those who teach in literacy

programs.37 Some require an elementary or secondary teaching degree only, some require a few

hours of additional coursework or experience, and

almost one-half of all States have no certification

requirements for adult educators (see figure 6-3).

While it is true that some districts and local

programs may impose more stringent requirements on teaching staff, it must be said that

statewide teaching requirements for adult literacy

instructors are less stringent than requirements

for K-12 educators. It is ironic that those with the

least professional background are asked to

help those who need the most help-those for

the System: Promising Roles for Technology I 171

whom our past education efforts were not successful.

Although inservice training and staff development programs might provide satisfactory alternatives to ABE certification, only 12 States

require some type of inservice training.38 The

range of training required is enormous: from 4

hours of preservice and 4 hours of inservice

training, to 50 hours of staff development annually. 39 Many local ABE and ESL programs have

more stringent staff development requirements

than the States, however.

ABE and ESL teachers tend to be part-time

employees of adult education programs; 90 percent are paid on an hourly basis and do not receive

benefits.40 Volunteers account for between 25 and

75 percent of total adult education staff members

in each State, and these numbers exclude volunteers working in noninstructional activities.41

This dependence on volunteers and noncertified,

part-time instructors keeps program costs down

and reduces incentives to increase funding levels.

It may also be responsible for the comparatively

low salary levels and status of adult educators.

Since so many adult education staff are school

teachers during the day and adult education

instructors after hours, they have very little time

for training, unless weekends or summer vacations are sacrificed. There is little incentive to

participate in training, especially since most of

the inservice training and staff development

activities 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).
172 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Figure 6-2-Outreach and Technical Assistance Network (OTAN)

OTAN provides training, technical assistance, information, and communication links for adult literacy staff. The range of

services on the OTAN forum is shown in the menu below. In its first year of operation, the OTAN forum received more than

11,000 queries.

MENU

About the OTAN Forum has a general

explanation of the OTAN project and a ~

detailed description of the electronic communication system.

Lesson Plans area IS under construction.

You will find sample lesson plans which you

can adapt to fit the needs of your students.

The Master Calendar will display the

latest information on what events are

happening 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 California

Department of Education.

H

fl~$” Public Domain Software IS free to be down0

loaded and used at your agency.

El FllI$’ Demo Software maintains a library of

demonstration software from commercial

sources. Again, you may download and

use at your agency.

Legislative Information offers up-to-date legislative information as it relates to adult education.

Reference Materials contains bibliographies

B

OTAN Resource Centers are located

of reference information, research reports, lists of

library 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 adult

education funded areas of adult school instrucA

Want Ad users can post/review ads related

tion. They include: goals, purpose, objectives, to job opportunities in education.

instructional strategies, times of instruction, evaluation, and repetition components.

Hi! The Round Table is the online discussion area.

Users can post or respond to others.

a

Curricula Resources list various instructional

materials in print, video, or software format. Free

instructional materials are also posted.

e

UWM Upload Area is where users can place files

that they want to share online.
Chapter 6-Improving the System: Promising Roles for Technology I 173

Using the OTAN Forum: One Example-Here a teacher chooses “lesson plans” from the Forum, then selects a

particular 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 Information

 OTAN Forum S

gg

~::~&’ pJ

About 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

E~

OTRN Forum

Table of Contents - “Lms$on Plansm

b Ho- to use Lesson Plans LLUEST 2K Dec 6 90

13 ESL Lesson PI ans Jan 31 92

CI Metropol I tan ESL LP

0 ESL 01 t$j Iia-e LP/ltllEP FIRCH! UERSST

~ ESL 02 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 06 Direct lone LP/ltflEP RRCHIUERSST 9K Jan 31 92

● ********* 7 House Proble~e LP/llREP

ESL LESSON PUN #6

8 Go TO DOC LP/ll13EP

9 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 simple

directional vocabulary.

- .

/

2. respond physically (moving

to directions given them in a

3. !increase their verbal Contrl

L

I

● ☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛

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 movie

theater. (see drawings Attachment #1) Teacher asks for the name of the place along with

associated vocabulary. Teacher writes the name on the board and calls for specific names

of it and writes them under the general name.

The board is as follows:

GROCERY STORE / HOSPITAL

Lucky / O’Connor Hospital

Frys / San Jose Medical Center

Food Villa / Valley Medical

Safeway / Good Samaritan

SOURCE: Outreach and Technical Assistance Network, City of Industry, CA, 1992.
174 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Figure 6-3-State Certification Requirements for Adult Basic Education Teachers

D

1

w

. ,. c1 No State certification requirements

,0 Q

e

.

~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 onetraining 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.
Chapter 6-Improving the System: Promising Roles for Technology | 175

instructors. When turnover is high, programs are

encumbered with the need to provide introductory

staff training almost continually.

While there is a clear need for training adult

educators in the theory and practice of adult

learning, the research base is limited. 44 The

intellectual underpinnings for adult learning theory are diverse and multifaceted.45 Woven within

the theoretical base are many strands: theories of

cognition, which are themselves far from consistent; understandings derived from developmental

and educational psychology; theories of second

language learning; and a social science focus that

suggests adult learners can only be understood in

the socioeconomic and cultural context of their

lives and experience. In addition, there are

conflicting views as to the appropriate way to

teach reading. Finally, there are also diverse

views and approaches to instructional management—including conflicting views regarding group

instruction versus one-on-one instruction, social

interaction versus private time spent alone at a

computer terminal, networking across distances

via technology versus social contact in a school

setting. Perhaps most significant is the concern

that, as one practitioner noted:

Research has shown that some of the most

successful teaching has occurred among those

who are willing to abandon traditional teaching

methods and to adopt methods and materials that

are relevant to the learners. Yet we persist in

assuming for a major part of our adult literacy

system that adequate preparation for adult literacy

instructors or facilitators consists of traditional

teacher training.46

Because there are few State and local policies and

guidelines regarding certification, it is difficult

for programs to know what adult literacy teachers

Good teaching is both art and science. In a televised

lesson, this teacher uses real life applications to make

math exciting for his students watching all around the

country.

should be expected to know, and to develop

appropriate training programs.

Finally, very limited funding is available for

training adult education personnel. The major

Federal source of support for adult literacy staff

development is Section 353 of the Adult Education Act (AEA), which authorizes States to set

aside at least 10 percent of their basic grants for

training teachers, volunteers, and administrators,

or for special projects. In fiscal year 1990, States

spent a total of $15.8 million under Section 353.

The National Literacy Act increased the set-aside
176 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Training adult literacy staff is a major problem.

Technology offers a resource for sharing promising

practices.

for special projects to 15 percent and specified

that at least two-thirds of the set-aside must be

devoted to staff development. Even with this

increase, the amount spent for adult education

training will still be limited; it is estimated that

less than $3 million per State will be devoted to

training adult literacy personnel.47

Technology offers both short- and long-term

solutions to the problem of training adult literacy

teachers and volunteers. Several media suggest

themselves. As video cameras and VCRs become

more common, training videos can be taken home

for viewing and then discussed in group training

sessions. Workshops can be taped for viewing by

absentees or new employees. Exemplary teaching

models or sample lessons can be demonstrated in

videos or live over interactive telecommunications networks. As a part of the selection of new

teaching staff, applicants can be taped presenting

a demonstration lesson. Current staff can submit

videos to demonstrate their competence as a

means of improving program evaluation.

Computer networks like OTAN (see above)

can be used to help teachers, administrators, and

volunteers share information, techniques, and

curriculum. Some groups have used telecommunications for live interactive teleconferences on

topics of common interest to adult literacy

teachers and volunteers across the country. For

example, the American Correctional Education

Association, Literacy Volunteers of America, and

the Public Broadcasting System jointly sponsored

a series of teleconferences on the topic of literacy

instruction in jails and prisons. Because prisons

are often located in isolated settings, personnel

who teach in these settings are particularly cut off

from traditional professional development opportunities. In another example of distance learning

applications, the Los Angeles County Education

Department uses its satellite educational telecommunications network (ETN) to reach adult educators on a regular basis.48 “The Adult Learners

Channel” on ETN broadcasts programs of interest to adult learners, teachers, and administrators.

California plans to use ETN to train all the ESL

adult literacy teachers in the State through ESL

Teacher Institute training modules. Recent programs and series for the ESL staff development

series include the “ESL Tool Box” and “Adult

Life Skills ESL Starter Kits” for teachers, programs for vocational ESL instructors, a series for

volunteer ESL tutors, and activities for develop47 pe~vfi ~~W~~-, ~c, et & ~po ~it., fm~ote 35, p. Il. ~sfi~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 ~wof 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 any

site in California or other States capable of receiving the Ku-band satellite system can participate in the live programs. Viewers can telephone

studio presenters for “nmnediate discussion and questioning, or telecasts may be interrupted by taping programs for later viewing, allowing

participants to discuss ideas and issues among themselves. Los Angeles County Office of Educatiorq Downey, CA, Educational

‘Iklecommunications Network brochures, 1992.
Chapter 6-Improving the System: Promising Roles for Technology | 177

ing adult ESL mentor teachers. Other programs

for adult education administrators cover topics

such as recruitment and retention strategies and

new statewide standards and frameworks.49

Evaluation and Assessment

State and local literacy practitioners seem far

from satisfied with current instruments for both

student assessment and program evaluation and

are concerned about their being used inappropriately to judge people and programs.50 Assessments of student progress and evaluations of

program success are often used interchangeably,

but they are not the same.

Most programs evaluate effectiveness by assessing academic progress (e.g., how many students move to higher levels or the grade-level

gains they make on test scores). Effectiveness is

also measured by how many acquire a high school

diploma or pass the GED. Other indicators of

effectiveness vary for specific programs. For

example, workplace literacy programs may measure success by reduced employee absenteeism

and turnover, by higher productivity and safety

records, and by lower product defect and error

rates. Prison literacy programs consider longterm improvements in postrelease employment,

parole, and recidivism as overall measures of

success. Many programs also consider program

effectiveness in terms of significant changes in

lifestyle, such as the number of students moving

off the welfare rolls and into jobs.

Federal program evaluation procedures are

changing as programs receiving Federal funds

must set up systematic evaluation procedures

showing effectiveness. Counting numbers of

those who come and go, or using school-based

models of grade-level gains, will no longer

suffice. As the goals of programs change, the

methods of evaluating success will also need to

change. Moving from a 3rd- to a 4th-grade

reading level may not be as important to the

learner, or the sponsoring agency, as being able to

fill out a driver’s license application or planning

a week’s worth of balanced meals on a budget. As

one adminis“ trator noted: “It’s just as legitimate to

help people meet short-term goals, such as filling

out a job application, as it is to enroll them in a

long-term program and measure success by whether

they got a high school diploma or advanced so

many grade levels. ”51

In compliance with the National Literacy Act,

the Department of Education developed model

indicators of program quality that will influence

adult literacy programs of all types (see table 6-l).

Beyond the question of program evaluation is

the issue of individual student assessment. Students are tested when they first enter programs, as

a basis for placement; they may or may not be

tested when leaving programs. For many, testing

is a stressful event, reminding them of past school

failures; for others, it is enough to keep them out

of programs in the first place. Yet those who enter

and exit programs several times often have to

repeat the same tests time and again. Some

systems have moved to credit-card sized “smartcards,’ ‘ that store a student’s test results and

educational program information, enabling the

learner to pickup where he or she left off without

repeated testing when reentering literacy programs.52

49 ~s ~eles Com~ CM&X of Educatiom ‘‘ETN Timcs,’ a monthly program directoxy, October 1992.

~ U.S. ~artment of IMucatiow A summary 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 ~~tfi~~.”~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 $100

scanner. 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 educational

needs.

Program has curriculum and instruction geared to individual student

learning styles and levels of student needs.

Program has an ongoing staff development process that considers the

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

m

r

- .

a’

-.

3

m

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 is

important to learners to know they are making

progress, even if the steps forward are small and

slow. One of the appeals of computer-based

programs is the reinforcement given when learners succeed. For example, in most computerbased instructional programs, when a certain

number of correct responses are given, the student

is automatically presented more challenging material. In this context, tests are not so much

anxiety-provoking events as ongoing checks on

one’s understanding. Integrated learning systems

(ILSs), with their comprehensive instructional

and management software packages, are attractive to some literacy programs because of this

capability to blend instruction with assessment on

a regular basis, and maintain up-to-date records of

progress and areas where more help is needed as

guides to both instructors and learners. The

volume of curricular materials stored in ILS

programs can accommodate learners at many

levels, allowing students to move ahead in a

systematic fashion. Reports on student progress

can be accessed immediately and compiled easily

for overall program evaluation purposes.53

There is some concern among practitioners

whether existing assessment tools—multiplechoice paper-and-pencil tests or their computerbased equivalents with their grade-level equivalency mindset—are adequate to meet the

demands of new outcome-based assessment systems. Performance measures fit more appropriately with competency-based approaches to instruction, as learners demonstrate learning in the

context of such goals as interpreting documents,

filling out forms, solving work-related problems,

or preparing their own written or video reports .54

Some programs are using performance assessments, such as portfolio collections of student

the System: Promising Roles for Technology | 179

work illustrating progress over time. As with all

performance assessments, concerns are raised

about aggregating data and the reliability and

validity of these measures. Nonetheless, educators and learners alike are excited about the

impact new forms of testing have on teaching and

learning.

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

Programs of all types are coping with the

central issues of how to provide better service in

light of problems with funding, requirements for

serving more learners through mandated programs, and issues of coordination.

Funding

Limited funding for literacy programs is in

some ways the most critical crosscutting issue,

because it constrains everything else that happens

in literacy programs-staff training, intensity of

services, availability of technology, innovative

assessment, and other issues. Further, limited

funding severely restricts the vision of all involvedadministrators, policymakers, instructors, and

students. Why recruit more adults if you cannot

serve them? Why enroll in a program that puts

you on a long waiting list? Why advance teachers’

training if you cannot pay them a competitive

salary when they finish? Why learn about technology if your program cannot afford it? Why

enact a comprehensive Federal program if appropriations will never be provided?

Public support for adult literacy has been

adversely affected by the downturn in the economy, as fiscal belt-tightening continues at every

level—Federal, State, and local. Support from the

private sector-an important resource for many

programs, 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 alternative

testing approaches discussed in the report have particular relevance to adult literacy programs.
180 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

share of the corporate and philanthropic pie.

Although corporations and businesses may support local literacy efforts in the communities

where they are located, only a few large foundations provide significant funding for literacy

efforts throughout the country .55 Furthermore,

private sector support for adult literacy is uncertain as foundations and businesses change their

funding priorities and targets of support from year

to year.

Ironically, although technology is expensive,

some programs have used it as a magnet for

additional funding. In some cases it can be easier

to get grants and special donations of technology

than support for overall program operation. However, many programs will not spend their own

limited resources on technology unless the State

or some funding agency makes it a priority.56

Even those who are informed about technology’s

potential for adult literacy and eager to use it as a

resource for instruction and management are

hobbled by the reality of the cost factors associated with technology: the costs of purchasing

enough updated hardware and software, the

ongoing expense associated with maintenance,

and the time and resources necessary to train

teachers and volunteers to work with technology

as a teaching tool.

Mandated Programs

Recent Federal and State legislation requires

certain groups of learners to attend literacy

programs-generally welfare recipients and inmates meeting certain educational criteria. These

mandated activities affect programs in a number

of ways. Since the learners who must attend

programs differ from those who enter voluntarily—

they tend to have lower average academic achievement on entering, greater need for support services, a higher incidence of personal problems,

and, by the nature of their required attendance, a

different set of motivational factors-programs

must 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 transportation

must usually be provided. More intensive programs are more expensive, thus making less

funding available to support those who come on

a voluntary basis.

Programs often must engage in more comprehensive counseling or case management for

students entering from welfare programs. These

additional costs are sometimes covered by

schools’ administrative overhead, sometimes by

a share of increased revenues for serving welfare

recipients, and sometimes by reimbursement

directly from welfare departments.57 Often the

programs are paid based on the number of

students and hours spent in a program, which

affects recordkeeping and attendance polices.

Monitoring attendance on a more rigorous basis

means that adult literacy programs are pressed to

increase the accuracy and verifiability of attendance data to meet the needs of the welfare

programs and to stand up to court challenges.58

The relationship between teacher and student

changes, as does student motivation; rules for

attendance and testing for progress are no longer

optional.

In Wisconsin, some of the larger school districts have developed computer-matching systems to identify welfare recipients in the districts’

data systems and track their attendance. But

monitoring has, in general, become a burden for

many programs, and teachers especially find it

unpleasant to act as “cops” to adult students,
Chapter 6-Improving the System: Promising Roles for Technology | 181

whose benefit checks may be reduced for poor

attendance. Added to this is the difficulty and

sensitivity of monitoring some, but not all participants, when some students’ attendance is mandated and others’ is voluntary .59 This has been a

particular problem in community colleges, night

schools and GED programs, and community

programs, where students work on individualized

programs and detailed attendance and recordkeeping may not be a normal practice. It makes it more

likely that welfare recipients will be directed to

school-based programs, with their more orderly

tradition of attendance and recordkeeping, and

less to community-based programs that have a

more informal, open approach to attendance.

Other problems in the mandated welfare programs have been created by having to deal with

participants who have already initiated education

programs on their own-yet now are forced into

programs requiring attendance and different arrangements. An important issue for self-initiated

participants is their use of proprietary schools.

State welfare agencies may be reluctant to accept

these programs when they have higher tuition

costs and less well-regulated educational offerings. 60 Also at issue is how to measure ‘ ‘satisfactory progress,” which in turn affects testing

policies that may impact all students in a program.

Lack of Central Focus and

Problems of Coordination

The education of America’s children has a

clearly defined tradition of control by the State

education agencies and local school districts, with

some assistance from the Federal Government in

clearly defined areas. In contrast, adult education

has no comparable comprehensive administrative

system for organizing thousands of public and

private programs in communities across the

Nation.

Is diversity an advantage or a problem? On the

one hand, the cornucopia of adult literacy programs and providers enriches the field with a

multiplicity of resources, approaches, and techniques. On the other hand, this potentially rich

resource is squandered without a system that

makes it possible to share what works and avoid

what does not, that fills in gaps and avoids

duplication. A complicated web of service providers makes it difficult for policymakers to see

the whole picture, define problems, and identify

pressure points where long-term change can be

instituted. There are also considerable “turf”

battles that can stand in the way of creating

effective partnerships.

Furthermore, many literacy program sponsors

have other goals and responsibilities that often

make literacy service a secondary, rather than

primary, goal. Literacy is a means to an end in

many of the programs that have the greatest

potential for serving learners: in jobs programs,

prisons, Head Start programs, workplace programs, and so on. When funding is tight, literacy

efforts may be considered expendable. Literacy

languishes at the margins.

Federal coordination mandates and incentives

for partnerships are producing some positive

results, but they are still far from a comprehensive

solution. It is too soon to know if the National

Institute for Literacy will be able to take on the

role of stimulating cooperation and fostering

partnerships. 61 Many States and local service

providers have gone beyond what is required by

law and developed their own approaches for

improving coordination of adult literacy pro59 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 199

the search for a permanent direetor is now under way.

331-048 0 - 93 - 7 Q~. 3

. With the appointment of 9 of the IO board members,
182 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

l!!

The State of California has supported the development

of a multimedia ‘kiosk that provides information on

public services (see left). Kiosks like the one above

grams with each other and with human service

agencies and education and training programs.

State Coordination

At the State level, coordination of human

service programs has been a front-burner issue for

several years, producing a variety of models.62 In

fact, most States have undertaken some sort of

initiative to “. . . bring coherence to the fragmented array of programs and providers that

make up the current delivery system for adult

literacy and basic skills services.” Even so,

"

. . . much work remains to be done. ”63

The nature, extent, and success of State literacy

coordination efforts vary widely, with some

States already into their second generation of

“have been placed in shopping malls and libraries as

part of an experimental project.

initiatives. 64 Among the most common State

coordination mechanisms are:

New State agencies with broad education and

training or human service functions;

Coordinating bodies and councils;

Formal and informal interagency agreements or

working arrangements among relevant State

agencies;

Jointly funded programs or funding contingent

on interagency involvement;

Incentives, set-asides, or demonstration grants

for local coordination, using State funding or

discretionary Federal dollars;

Common program definitions and assessment

procedures;

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 Mdt

E2iucation 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.
Chapter 6-Improving the System: Promising Roles for Technology | 183

Joint databases to exchange resources and

information; and

Programs that provide technical assistance and

training on coordination to State staff and

substate entities.

Some of these State mechanisms affect only State

agencies, while others seek to foster coordination

at the local level.

Perhaps the most prevalent mechanism is the

State-level coordinating body. In 1990,40 States

had a coordinating body for adult literacy.65 These

bodies differed significantly in terms of membership, breadth and authority, funding sources,

staffing structures, and relationships with local

entities. A primary activity of these groups was to

raise public awareness about literacy issues.

Some groups had broader responsibilities, including directly funding literacy projects, helping

States develop policy, providing training and

technical assistance, or establishing new initiatives to improve literacy services.66 Several State

umbrella groups have a scope that extends beyond

literacy, addressing coordination of workforce

development or human service programs.67

While having a State-level mechanism is an

important first step, it does not guarantee that a

coordinated system will naturally evolve.68 These

bodies must also be given the tools to do their

job-the power to mandate interagency agreements and collaborative planning, the authority to

forge meaningful relationships with local delivery systems, and permission to manage funds

from several sources.69 (See box 6-B.)

Several coordinating groups have begun by

identifying all Federal and State resources or

programs relevant to the coordination process-a

sort of interagency matrix-then developing broad

policy statements or strategic planning agendas,

and creating interagency agreements to carry out

specific components of these agendas.

Some States have given teeth to their agreements and plans by enacting State legislation,

providing “carrots” such as State incentive

grants for certain types of coordination or

‘‘sticks’ such as State mandates for coordination.

From 1986 to 1990, 30 States enacted some form

of literacy -specific legislation, in most cases

providing State funds or authorizing new State

agencies 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 among

the most vulnerable. In at least three States—

Massachusetts, Michigan, and Mississippi-a

major literacy council or initiative was discontinued or downgraded following a change of Governors.

71 Reductions in Federal or State funding can

also negatively affect coordination; staff are cut

and forced to try to do more with less money,

coordinating bodies lose funding or members,

and State agencies guard the dollars they have

more carefully. There is concern that coordinating

bodies not become yet another State agency or

service provider, losing their special neutral

character and competing with other State or local

entities in an already complex field.

Local Coordination

How do local literacy providers respond to

multiple Federal, State, local, and private pro-
184 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

o

●

●

●

9

●
Chapter 6-Improving the System: Promising Roles for Technology I 185

Services to Clients at the Duchess County ACCESS Center

i

Recruitment and outreach 1

# I 1

Direct II Referral I

I

Media

! [

I

Orientation 1: pre-assessment

Orientation II: EDP meeting 1

It

1 1

GED/academic

!L I 1

, I Support services I

I I 1

Counselingkase management

I

Childcare/family literacy

I

Transportation I

I I I

i

Review/adjust EDP

Self-sufficiency

J

I

KEY: EDP = employability development ptan; C3ED = general qulvalency diploma.
186 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

grams? Some respond by treating each program determine if the individual might be better suited

separately. One study found that local adult to receive Adult Education Act-funded serveducation sites did not generally coordinate ices.’ ’72 According to this same study, Federal

AEA-funded services with those supported by accountability and reporting requirements were

other adult education and training programs. “For largely responsible for these practices. “Local

example, a potential student entering . . . as a programs believed that they needed to operate the

result of a JTPA recruitment or referral receives programs separately in order to ensure that they

JTPA services. . . . No assessment is conducted to were complying fully with all Federal require-
Chapter 6-Improving the System: Promising Roles for Technology | 187

Cambridge Community Learning Center, Fiscal Year 1992 Funding Sources

City of Cambridge $277,500 ABE, ASE, ESL, adult diploma Annual allotment

Iooal public funds
188 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Coordination of literacy services requires leadership

at all levels. Houston’s Mayor Bob Lanier brought city

leaders together and told his Commission on Literacy:

‘‘1 will do whatever I can to help. ’

ments’’ 73-even when this degree of separation

was not mandated by Federal law.

Other local providers use more creative approaches, such as channeling funds through a

single fiscal agent who contracts with other

community agencies, or combining funding from

different programs to support a single class of

learners (see box 6-C). However, coordinating

funding from different sources does not necessarily reduce, and may actually increase, recordkeeping, management, and reporting burdens as local

programs struggle to leave a clear accountability

and audit trail. Technology can reduce some of

this burden if agreement can be reached on

developing common data elements, definitions,

data collection procedures, and reporting formats.

Some Federal programs make local coordination difficult because of their requirements concerning location of classes, student eligibility, or

intensity of service. Examples include workplace

literacy programs that must be conducted at the

job site, family literacy programs with strict

eligibility as to the kinds of children and families

that can be served, or Job Opportunities and Basic

Skills programs requiring 20 hours of instruction

per week, an almost impossible schedule for

adults working full time.

A FINAL NOTE

As the above issues illustrate, all policieswhether at the Federal, State, or local level—have

two interrelated goals: serving more learners with

highquality programs that meet their educational

goals, and operating programs more efficiently

and effectively. The efforts of thousands of

dedicated adult literacy volunteers and staff are

especially impressive for their persistence in the

face of severe constraints. But it is difficult to

look at a system that, at best, may serve less than

10 percent of those in need and say it has come far

enough. It is impossible to look at a system that

has, at best, met the full literacy needs of fewer

than one in 10 of these learners and say it is

successful. The system as it stands cannot be

expected to meet the current problems, much less

ever increasing demands as the horizons of

literacy continue to push forward. New approaches and solutions are required. Technology

is increasingly being considered an engine for

changing the ways adult learners can be served.

This is discussed in greater detail in the next

chapters.
Today:

Practice vs.

Promise 7

A

dvances in technology have “upped the ante” for adult

literacy by redefining the skills people need to function

successfully at work and in everyday life. At the same

time, technology offers new tools with enormous potential for improving adult literacy-provided that learners and

education programs can obtain and use them effectively.

Computer and video technologies, telecommunications, and

consumer electronics all have features well-suited to adult

education. Within each type of technology, an array of hardware,

software, and learning materials is available. Hardware for

literacy ranges from interstate satellite networks to pocket-sized

language translators; from dazzling multimedia systems integrating words, pictures, sound, and touch, to the familiar telephone.

Software ranges from basic drill programs that permit learners to

practice a skill repeatedly, to sophisticated simulations that allow

adults to interact with realistic reproductions of work or social

situations.

As earlier chapters have suggested, technology has the

potential to attract and motivate adults with limited literacy

skills, give them greater privacy and control over their learning,

adjust instruction to different paces and learning styles, transport

education to new locations, reach more students at lower cost,

train teachers, and improve program management and coordination. But is this potential being met? To answer that question, this

chapter explores several questions:

How much real access do literacy programs and learners

currently have to hardware and software?

How do literacy programs use technology now, and how could

they use it more effectively?

What are the barriers to broader access and more effective use

of technology?

189
190 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Computers are the most widely used technology in literacy programs, but even the use of

this technology is limited. It is estimated that

not more than 15 percent of literacy providers

use computers regularly for instruction. Still

rarer in literacy programs is the use of newer,

computer-related technologies—digitized

speech, videodisc players, and CD-ROM (compact disc-read only memory)-that offer promising multimedia applications.

As literacy educators gain more experience, the

uses of computers move far beyond traditional

drill and practice. However, even experienced

programs generally use technology as a supplement to traditional classroom-based instruction, rather than as a fundamental tool for

learning.

Video technology is surprisingly underused

given its familiarity and availability. Lower

end, inexpensive technologies-such as audio

recorders, closed-caption decoders, and handheld electronic devices-are largely ignored.

Available computer software does not adequately meet the demands of literacy programs.

Courseware for video and other technologies is

even more limited.

A significant amount of hardware and software

in businesses, homes, schools, colleges, and

libraries is underutilized for literacy education.

The promise of technologies to enable adults to

learn anywhere, any time, is still largely

unexplored. Technology is rarely used to reach

learners outside of classrooms or to provide

flexibility for learners.

Significant barriers that inhibit widespread

access and effective use of technologies include

the cost and funding of technology, a highly

fragmented marketplace, the lack of information about technology applications,

institutional challenges faced by a

literacy field.

ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGIES

FOR LITERACY

and the

diverse

Recent advances have made technology more

adaptable than ever before for adults with limited

literacy skills. Computers with speech synthesizers can transform written text into spoken words,

which is especially helpful to limited English

proficient (LEP) adults and those with minimal

reading skills. Touch screens, pointing devices,

and icons have made computers less intimidating

and easier to operate. Hand-held electronic devices make it possible for adults to learn on the

bus, at home, on a coffee break, or in a waiting

room. Distance learning technologies can extend

opportunities for education and peer interaction to

adults in remote locations. And the diversity of

technologies means that something is available

for almost every type of learning style or program

need (see box 7-A).

In order to take advantage of these features,

however, adult learners and literacy programs

must have access to hardware and equipment and

to software and other learning materials. Determining the extent to which literacy programs have

access to technology is difficult because data are

so limited, especially for some of the newer

technologies. To supplement the limited existing

research, the Office of Technology Assessment

(OTA) initiated several studies and made staff

visits to technology-using literacy sites.1

Access to Computer Hardware

Having 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~ SL

Productions, “Observations: lkchnologies for Litemcy in Mississippi and New York City,” OTA cmtnwtorreport and video footage, April

1992; and Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. and Wujcik and Associates, “The EdwXtiOllld Soihvare h+farke@ace and Adult Literacy

Niches,” 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 and

vocabulary (especially useful with beginning readers and English as a second language students); presentation

of information through multiple media (e.g., text, graphics, moving pictures, sound) to reach learners with

different 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 literacy

programs; sharing of courseware and effective practices; large installed base in order to reach many prospective

learners 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, translating

between English and another language, hearing correctpronunciation of unfamiliar words, reading books on tape

or electronic books.

SOURCE: Ofnce Of’lkebnology &WXmne@ 1993.

programs with computers are most often found in Correctional facilities are another group of

public schools, community colleges, and large

corporations--institutions that have funds for

hardware purchases, a prior commitment to learning technologies, and opportunities for buying in

quantity at reduced prices. Although literacy

programs benefit from being located in such

institutions, it is rarely the literacy program alone

that drives hardware acquisition.

literacy providers likely to have access to computers. Federal prisons, for example, were early users

of computer-based training in basic and vocational skills. Although comprehensive statistics

are not available regarding technology access in

correctional institutions, 35 of 65 Federal prisons

use computers in their educational programs, as

do the correctional systems in such States as
192 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Texas, New York, Michigan, and Minnesota and

such large cities as Los Angeles.*

Reliable estimates of access to computers

among community-based organizations (CBOs)

are particularly difficult to obtain, because these

providers are so diverse. An OTA survey of 33

technology-using programs found that communitybased literacy programs had fewer computers

than programs in public schools, businesses, and

community colleges.3 Even so, many communitybased and volunteer literacy programs do acquire

hardware. A 1991 survey conducted by Literacy

Volunteers of America (LVA) reported that 72

percent of LVA programs were using computers

in some capacity (though not necessarily for

instruction). 4 In addition, the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), which funds many CBOs,

encourages computer-based instruction and allows Federal funds to be used for hardware and

software (see chapter 5). Similarly, the Federal

Job Corps program for severely disadvantaged

youth has promoted the use of computers for

education and training in its centers.5

Furthermore, most literacy programs with computers do not appear to have access to newer more

powerful, computer-related technologies-such

as scanners, speech boards, CD-ROM, videodisc

players, modems, and touch screens-that make

the technology more accessible and open up

promising multimedia applications for adult learners. Typically, the 33 technology-using programs

surveyed by OTA had stand-alone computers

with color monitors and mouses. About one-half

of the programs surveyed had some hardware

with speech capabilities. Scanners, which allow

teachers and students to customize software by

copying photos, drawings, and text into their

computer applications, appeared in only one-third

of the sites. Videodisc players, CD-ROM, modems, and touch screens were even less available. 6 Access to newer technologies seems to

depend on whether a “critical mass” of technology resources exists in a literacy education

setting. Programs with relatively fewer computers

(less than 15) also tend to have fewer of the more

advanced technologies.7

Little is known about which factors create

demand for instructional computers or how much

technology planning precedes acquisition. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the motivation to

purchase hardware comes from any of four

sources: word-of-mouth success stories, the desire to attract students, the initiative of a technology crusader on staff, or an attempt to serve more

learners when space, time, or personnel axe

limited. 8 Very few literacy providers, especially

those outside of community colleges or large

school districts, appear to develop a comprehensive, long-range technology plan. Even

workplace literacy programs operated by businesses sometimes fail to tap in-house technology

expertise from other departments.9

Access to Other Hardware

Estimating 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 pmwith 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-
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 193

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 determining

computer availability. While statistics exist about

the presence of these technologies in different

institutional settings, it is unclear to what extent

video and telecommunications technologies are

actually being used for adult literacy education.

OTA studies indicate that very few literacy

providers use video and telecommunications

technologies, even when a parent institution, such

as a public school, has access to hardware.

Community colleges, for instance, frequently

use broadcast and cable television to offer collegelevel telecourses. Over one-half of the community

colleges responding to a recent survey reported

having a distance learning program,l0 but few use

these for adult literacy education.

The private sector also appears to have access

to video technologies that are used for general

training activities. Training magazine reports that

92 percent of U.S. businesses with 100 or more

employees use videotape materials for training

purposes, 20 percent use interactive videodiscs,

and 10 percent use videoconferencing, with

higher percentages among larger businesses. This

survey did not distinguish between training for

basic skills/literacy and other types of corporate

training, although 19 percent of the businesses

reported providing some kind of remedial courses

in reading, writing, basic mathematics, or English

as a second language (ESL).ll

A potential source of telecommunications hardware for literacy programs is the Federal Star

Schools Program. The 10 telecommunications

partnerships created by this program have provided over 3,000 elementary and secondary

schools 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@oqm: 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 such

a course.
194 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

helping build a statewide fiber optic network in

Iowa. Although the program is primarily a K-12

venture, several of the Star Schools projects are

serving adults with limited literacy skills or adults

who want to learn English.12

Personal electronic devices, such as language

translators, hand-held dictionaries, and encyclopedias, are available in a limited number of

literacy programs, although almost one-half million of these products are now in public schools

and providers such as correctional institutions are

beginning to acquire them. Several million individuals also own hand-held language devices.13

To date these devices have had limited learning

applications. Most were developed for a limited

purpose, with preprogrammed contents on a

microchip. Now that vendors are placing content

on cartridges (e.g., whole books) sold separately

with features like a built-in dictionary, these

products are likely to become more serviceable

for literacy in the future.

Availability y of Computer Courseware14

A second prerequisite to using technology is

access to appropriate computer or video courseware or other technology-based learning materials. Although it is estimated that as many as 2,000

computer software products are marketed to the

literacy community, relatively few are specifically designed for use in literacy programs.l5

Most of the marketed software products are

“stand-alone,” designed to run on an individual

computer. Stand-alone products are generally

quite affordable-most cost less than $100 per

program-although a few exceed $1,000.16

Reading/language arts was the most commonly

addressed subject among the 1,451 stand-alone

software products identified by OTA, accounting

for more than one-half of the products (see table

7-l). Mathematics was the next most popular

subject, with about 22 percent of the products.

Also common were so-called productivity tools,

such as keyboarding, word processing, and spreadsheet software. Other subjects, such as social

studies, science, job preparation, life skills, and

problem solving, accounted for less than 10

percent each of the products. Most stand-alone

software was targeted at adult basic education

(ABE) programs, followed by ESL, and general

equivalency diploma (GED) preparation.17

These stand-alone programs are only one type

of courseware for literacy. Larger, more expensive integrated learning systems (ILSs) are also

aimed at the adult literacy community. An ILS is

a special type of computer network that typically

includes a centralized ‘‘server, linked to lesspowerful terminals. It also includes instructional

software 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 ~Usisk presid~~ F*_ Resources, The Educational Division of FIXUWUI“ Electronic Publishers, Inc., personal

communication 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< 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 Interest

Section So*are~”st 1991 (Al~“ VA: Tkachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 1991); and Education TuRNKEY Sysx

he. (compiler), “~h’fEducatiotud systems EdUCtltiOtMd !$oftware and Coursew~” Unpubwed do Cumeng September 1991. Additional titles

were 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.
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 195

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 topics

Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 21.6 Grammar and punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 30.5

General purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 8.6 Spelling and vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 30.2

Life skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 8.4 Reading comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 28.5

Social studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 7.6 Basic reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 26.9

Problem solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.5 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 14.0

Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4.0 Distribution of language arts products (total=769)

ESL/LEP specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.4

Career guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.7 Mathematics topics

Computers and keyboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.1 Basic skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 71.9

Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.3 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 30.4

GED specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.2 Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9.9

Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 covered

more 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 use

computer-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 activities

and a curriculum framework correlated to a

widely used test instrument; and a management

system that sequences student activities, records

student performance, and generates summary

reports. The OTA survey identified nine ILS

products that are marketed to adult literacy

Programs. l8

Despite this volume and variety, OTA finds

that available computer software is not adequately meeting the demands of literacy programs. Literacy providers canvassed in site visits,

surveys, workshops, and personal interviews

agree that more appropriate applications are

desired-applications that cater to adult interests

and tie directly to the context of learners’ lives.19

Many of the existing software products were

designed for children and young adults and may

be inappropriate for adult learners. As one adult

educator noted:

Most of the software that is on the market has

been written for “larger markets” and then sold

to “submarkets” as being appropriate for their

populations. This is an immediate turn off to

teachers of adult literacy who are very concerned

with the dignity of adult learners and want to use

technology as a motivator. Sitting at a computer

is an “adult activity” and should not be under18 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 Adult

Literacy 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~” OTA

contractor repor4 October 1991.
196 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

mined by programs that are written for kindergarten to grade three.20

Many subjects and applications are not wellcovered. Among them are writing; problem solving and critical thinking; adult-oriented courseware for GED preparation and ESL; career

planning, preemployment skills, and workplace

readiness; life skills; parenting skills; and reading

and language arts for nonreaders and low-level

readers, especially products that take advantage

of human speech.21

Availability of Other Courseware

and Programming

Video courseware and programming for

adult literacy are extremely limited in quantity

and scope. Other types of learning materials,

such as courseware for consumer electronics, are

rare.

Video courseware can include content on

videotape, videodisc, or CD-ROM; live interactive distance learning courses; and television

programming for broadcast, cable, and satellite

transmission. They range in sophistication from

the basic and inexpensive, such as “teacher and

blackboard” public access television courses; to

the slick and expensive, such as professional

videotape productions involving location filming,

professional actors, scriptwriters, teachers, and

editors. The formats for video courseware vary

from interviews, lectures, and discussions, to

dramatizations, demonstrations, and storytelling.

A recent report surveying the current availability and use of broadcast-quality video programming identified five literacy series created for

broadcast and cablecast. Kentucky Educational

Television (KET) accounts for four of the five

series 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 in

partnership with Prentice Hall. It consists of 33

5-to 15-minute segments designed for use by a

teacher. Although the series is carried into 800,000

homes and learning centers throughout one-third

of the State, it is not designed for free-standing

home viewing.

The most widely used video courseware for

adult literacy is KET’s GED on TV (see box 7-B).

This series is distributed to literacy programs in

all 50 States, many of which use it to supplement

classroom instruction. The three other KET products include Another Page, which is designed to

teach reading skills at the 5th- through 7th-grade

level; Learn to Read, a 30-segment series aimed

at beginning readers; and Math Basics, a new

series of 11 half-hour segments.

Over 750 training and education courseware

titles exist for videodisc; however, only about 50

target basic skills.23 Several other video titles

relevant to adult literacy address issues such as

parenting skills, health, consumer issues, jobreadiness, and staff development.

An Untapped Base of Technology

OTA finds that a significant amount of

technology in businesses, homes, schools, colleges, and libraries could be tapped for literacy

and learning. Many companies have an impressive base of technology that is used for training.

Large corporations also own videoconferencing

and other telecommunications equipment, but it is

used primarily for executive business meetings,

X)k-mr, &tor, ~~on ~umtion ~~plowent Rop @@tREEP), 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 for

the 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 1991

training. 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 for

technology, 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 Your

Future, ” 1992 Ten-YeurForecast (Menlo Parlq CA: Institute for the Future, 1992), pp. 159-164; and “IndustryReport 1992,” op. cit., footnote

11, p. 46.
198 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

evenly distributed within institutions, however, ondary schools are not open in the evening and

nor a& they used exclusively for student instruc- because some school computers are restricted to

tion,25 let alone for adult literacy. In addition, the use by special programs (e.g., the Federal Chapter

majority of community colleges use distance 1 program), adult education programs often do

1earning 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 schools

computers. Because many elementary and sec- have televisions, 98 percent have videocassette

zK~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”
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise I 199

recorders (VCRS),27 and61 percent have access to

cable, although schools in the poorest communities are often the least likely to have cable.28 A

growing number of public schools have videodisc

players, satellite dishes, and interactive distance

learning systems. 29 Despite the fact that many

adult learning programs are held in public

schools, use of these school-based technologies

for adult literacy instruction is rare,

Perhaps the greatest untapped resources for

literacy are home technologies (see figure 7-l).

Telephones and televisions are the most widely

available. Ninety-three percent of households

have telephones,30 but over one-third of these are

rotary or pulse phones, which limits their access

to hotlines, voice mail, and audio text.31 In 1990,

98 percent of households had at least one television, over 72 percent of households owned VCRs,

and 55 percent subscribed to cable. Only 3 percent

of households had a home satellite dish system,

mostly in rural areas or small towns.32

Home computers are far from pervasive, especially among low-income and minority households, but the number is growing. In 1989, 17.3

percent of adults had a computer in their home, up

from 9.1 percent in 1984. However only about 58

percent of adults who have access to a home

computer report actually using it. Home computers were used most frequently by adults for word

processing (62 percent of users), video games (44

percent) and household records (36 percent) .33

Figure 7-l—Technologies in the Home, 1990

~—- –- 1

Telephones

Touch-tone

dialing

Television %

Videocassette

recorders

Basic cable 55%0

subscribers

Video game 35% machines

Personal

m

16%

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, Computer

Use in the United States: 7989, Special Studies Series, No. 171

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, February 1991 ), p. 23; extrapolations to 1990 based on rates

of change between 1964 and 1989. Video game data from Julia Marsh

and Lawrence K. Vanston, Interactive Multimedia end Telacommunicatbns: Forecasts of Markets and Twhnologies (Austin, TX: Technology

Futures, Inc., 1992), p. 67. Telephone data from the U.S. Department

of Commerce, The NTbl /nfrastrucfure Report, NTIA Spa”al Publication 91-26 (Washington, DC: October 1991 ). Touch-tone data from an

AT&T survey ated in Bob Bentz, “Reaehing Rotary Dialers With Voice

Recognition,” ktfoteti, July 1991, pp. 64-65. All television data from

Henry T. Ingle, “A Nation of Learners: me Demographics of Access to

Vieo and Telecommunications Technology,” New Msions for L4Ao:

Use of Cable, Satellite, Broackast, and Interactive Systems for Literacy

and 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 York

NY: 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 Visionsfor

Video: 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).
200 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Game machines such as Nintendo or Sega are

one of the fastest growing consumer technologies. As of 1990, at least 35 percent of households

were estimated to have acquired home video

game machines.34 In the past, software for these

machines has been strictly entertainment. Recently the attachment of compact discs to these

technologies and the advent of more powerful

microprocessors have facilitated the introduction

of new kinds of video game machines. As new

devices, e.g., compact disc-interactive (CD-I), are

brought to market, the manufacturers are negotiating with educational developers to create products for their platforms. In some cases, educational titles are included with the purchase of

hardware. This trend is expected to continue.35

USES OF TECHNOLOGY

Most literacy programs do not have access to

technology. But what about those that do? How

are they using it? Are the technologies bringing

the expected advantages? Are they realizing their

promise? Because systematic data are not available to answer these questions, OTA has taken

some ‘‘snapshots” of technology use in literacy

programs through a survey of software use in 33

programs, 36 6 intensive case studies,37 and many

site visits.38 (For a list of all the sites, see

appendix G). Taken together these sources suggest some patterns and lessons regarding technology use.

General Findings About Technology Use

Preceding chapters of this report have already

mentioned several potential advantages of technology. These are summarized in boxes 7-C and

7-D as a way of framing the discussion that

follows about how programs are actually using

technology, what they are learning about its

strengths and drawbacks, and whether technology

is fulfilling its potential.39

In its site visits and surveys, OTA found that

for most programs “technology’ means computers; other technologies are used only sporadically.

In addition, the proportion of programs that use

computers regularly for instruction is surprisingly

small-probably not more than 15 percent of all

literacy providers.40 Research shows that when

computers are first introduced into educational

settings, they are used in ways that often mirror

current instructional practices,41 and literacy is no

exception. Educators who are least experienced

with technology tend to use computers more for

drill, practice, and automated tutorials than for

other types of activities,42 reflecting the overall

prevalence of drill and practice in literacy instruction.

As programs become more experienced with

technologies, they are more likely to use them as

tools to assist all learning, and in ways that go

well beyond drill and practice. Literacy providers

with more technology experience use computers

with word processors, spreadsheets, desktop pub34 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~ltE~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: Bank

Street College of Edueatioq September 1990).

42 siv~~~ ~d Bialo, op. cit., f~~ote 1, p. 53.
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 201

‘H $

Many adults use computers in the LA Times Learning Center.

lishing, and databases-the same ways they are

used in the ‘‘real world. ’43 Students learn to use

computers for practical things like writing letters

or resumes, planning a budget, creating a business

card or publishing a community newsletter.

Educational games and simulations are also more

common in sites with more computer experience.

44

All of the technology-using programs surveyed

by OTA also reported using computers for

administrative purposes, such as general correspondence, registration and scheduling, recordkeeping, budgeting and payroll, student tracking,

evaluation and planning, and mandated reports.45

The clearest finding from the case studies is

that most programs are using computers principally as a supplement to a traditional program

of classroom-based instruction. Two programs

drawn from OTA’s case studies illustrate this

point.

The Metro Campus Adult Learning Center is

located on the fourth floor of the Cuyahoga

County Community College in Cleveland, Ohio.

Students, who must have at least a 4th-grade

reading level to enroll, attend either a basic skills

course or GED classes. primary funding for the

program is from JTPA: many of the students are

single mothers who receive Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC). The center has a

computer laboratory with 31 Tandy computers,

26 of which have no hard drives. All are linked to

one of two file servers that contain PLATO

courseware.

46 The computer laboratory is open to

students between 8:30 am and 4 pm. Classes are

from 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 grade

levels 4 through 12.
202 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

other 2 hours they spend in a classroom that segments, because most of its students generate

primarily 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 include

by the PLATO system and can be accessed ABE, pre-GED, life skills, counseling, and career

readily 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 spends

established by the Baltimore City Literacy Corpo- half of the time (1 1

/2 hours) doing classroom

ration. Classes here are set up in 6-month work; the other 1 1

/2 hours are spent either in the
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 203

computer laboratory (3 days a week for a total of components from WICAT to supplement class4 1/2 hours per week), a life Skills ClaSS (1 day), or room activities. Considerable diversity of lessons

a career preparation class (1 day). The Ripken characterizes activities in the laboratory; in 1 site

Center has a laboratory with 14 IBM-compatible visit at least 10 different applications were being

personal computers, one of which operates as a used among the 15 students in the room. Word

file server. These computers are setup to use the processing software is also available and many

WICAT system;47 teachers select appropriate students use it regularly.

47 me WICAT system is an integrated learning Syskm.
204 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Making computers a more fundamental part of

the education experience requires accumulated

skill and sustained effort. However, even programs with well-versed staff do not always have

enough hardware to center instruction around

technology.

Benefits and Limitations of

Technologies for Literacy

OTA found that some of the anticipated

benefits of technology are indeed being realized

in the field-the good news. Case studies suggest

caution, however, about overstating the advantages; technology has its limitations and can

create new problems and challenges-the bad

news.

The Good News

Learners like the tools. The overwhelming

majority of people interviewed were highly enthusiastic about the benefits of computers in adult

literacy. Almost everyone agreed that technology

helps attract adult learners to the programs and

keep them there. Mastering technology enhances

self-esteem and increases motivation to learn. In

addition, adults often view computers as a pathway to a vocational skill. Computer literacy

programs designed to familiarize users with word

processing, keyboarding, operating systems, and

other applications are often more popular than

classroom-oriented basic skills courses.

Information tools help teachers but do not

replace them. There is no substitute for the

dedicated and effective teacher. Contrary to the

fears of some, there is no evidence from case

studies that technology will usurp the critical

relationship between teacher and learner. Rather,

the tools can sharpen and focus the teacherstudent interaction, and can spell the teacher

during the more repetitive parts of the learning

process; they can also ease some administrative

tasks for the teacher. But ultimately it is the

teacher who must guide the use of technology and

shape its contribution

context.

Information tools do

to the overall learning

meet some of the special

learning needs of adults with low literacy skills.

Creative use of information technology can support the open-entry, open-exit programs that

many believe are essential for adult literacy

instruction. The programs currently using computers describe many advantages: technology

supports self-paced instruction, is nonjudgmental, adjusts to different skill levels, provides a

“private’ environment, and offers immediate

feedback. Technology seems to help create a

different type of educational experience, one that

does not repeat the conditions of past failures.

The Bad News

Technology can be intimidating to some learners. Not everyone is equally enchanted by information technology. Any program that hopes to

reach the full range of clients needs to provide

learnin g opportunities that include a variety of

methods. Those for whom technology does not

work deserve as much consideration and alternative learning opportunities as those who are more

comfortable with state-of-the-art tools. While

technology draws many learners into programs, it

may scare others away.

Tools require learner investment. Even the

most “user friendly’ software takes some time to

learn. Most adults in literacy programs must

invest time orienting themselves to the technology and learning how to use the tools before the

tools can improve their learning. Additionally,

since most learners have little or no access to

information tools in their everyday lives, they

may be unable to practice and gain familiarity

during relatively brief computer laboratory times

in programs.

Technical problems with hardware and software are common; special expertise is often

needed to get technology working optimally. As

programs come to depend more on systems made

up of widely differing combinations of machines

and software, they are more likely to need
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise I 205

specialized personnel to evaluate hardware and

software, perform systems integration, troubleshoot,

and switch equipment over to different applications. In most of the sites visited, there were one

or more “gurus” who, by virtue of interest and

capability (seldom formal training), had acquired

the expertise and knowledge needed to keep the

technology working for their less mechanically

minded colleagues. These gurus are critical to the

functioning of the programs-it is they who patch

together the systems with baling wire and cellophane tape—not to mention with recycled disc

drives and self-taught midnight programming.

Decisions about technology implementationwhat to buy, how to use it, what works with

different kinds of learners--often must be made

by trial and error. In OTA’s survey of technology

users, word-of-mouth-especially from adult education colleagues and educational technology

experts-was cited as the most important source

of information on software. If a State or region has

an agency that provides information on technology for adult literacy, most computer-using

programs in the region will take advantage of its

services. But technology users did not typically

consult available resources such as reviews from

online services or software guides, mostly because they did not know about these sources. In

addition, most technology applications have not

been formally evaluated. As a result almost no

data on effectiveness is available to help guide

technology implementation decisions (see the

section on “Barriers” below).

Information technology requires new skills of

teachers. Traditional methods of training teachers

and volunteers for adult literacy are not generally

oriented toward technology use. Many adult

educators lack computing experience and, even

when they can operate the equipment, cannot

keep it running smoothly. Those uncomfortable

with technology are unlikely to recommend it to

their students; some fear it will replace them, or

come between them and their students. Furthermore, effective teaching with technology requires

new approaches that integrate technology with

classroom work and make the most of technology’s capabilities.

Integrated learning systems can be a mixed

blessing. ILSs are designed to be all-inclusive,

simplified arrangements for handling the complete teaching task. They are often especially

valuable to smaller programs because they can

reduce the need for specialized support personnel.

The broad content coverage offered can provide

materials for practicing what was covered in class

as well as materials that can ‘‘ffl in the gaps’ in

a program’s curriculum. The automated management system takes care of placement, assessment,

and diagnosis, and allows for self-paced, individualized instruction and testing.

However ILSs also have some disadvantages.

Often they are difficult to customize for specific

learner needs; some have materials designed for

children that appear condescending to adults;

some lack opportunities for learner control which

can undermine motivation; and others are limited

in their ‘‘save and resume’ capabilities which

creates problems for students who only have a

short amount of time to work on lessons. Most

newer systems now targeting adult literacy are

tackling these concerns in their design and

software.

The Promise Unfulfilled

OTA finds that in many critical respects the

technologies that are accessible to adult literacy

programs are vastly underutilized and the potential of technology remains largely unfulfilled. Yet

there are enough promising, effective, and exciting models of technology use to suggest that the

potential is more than visionary and to encourage

continued implementation.

Technology is rarely used to reach learners

outside of classrooms or to provide flexibility

for learners. Information technology for adult

learning seems to have made little headway in

delivering services to learners whenever and

wherever they need it. Typically there is little use

of ‘‘distance learning” in the programs visited;
206 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Motorola employees enrolled in Project SALSA

learned at home on loaned computers and moderns.

most programs still require students to come to

program sites within specified hours. Often there

are good reasons for this-e. g., to provide social

reinforcement or to develop employability skills

such as punctuality. However, in most programs,

learners experienced major difficulties in going to

program facilities. Program administrators talked

about difficulties in providing access to the

technology whenever and wherever it was needed

-they described situations in which equipment

sat idle at some times and could not meet demand

at others. There was little evidence of ‘portable’

technologies that learners could take home or to

other learning sites.

Yet the potential remains. Individual experiments are being tried by a few; innovative ideas

bloom where nourished.

■ In a workplace literacy program at several of

Motorola’s plants in Arizona, students enrolled

in a reading course were given computers and

modems to take home. Throughout the 6-month

course, they had access to a networked reading

curriculum; families of the workers were encouraged to use the computers as well (see box

7-E).

“Playing to Win” is a neighborhood technology center in the basement of a housing project

in East Harlem, New York. The center, which

serves about 500 people and has about 40

computers, is designed to give neighborhood

residents access to computers and computerbased learning. The schedule at the center is

filled with a mixture of classes from neighboring public schools, adult literacy programs,

vocational groups, Head Start, and plenty of

open laboratory time where any East Harlem

resident can use the computers for a nominal

sum. Trained counselors are on hand to help

novices; learners can work on their own, or sign

up for workshops and classes.48

The Mississippi Mobile Learnin gLab, equipped

with 12 computer workstations, travels to

towns in northeast Mississippi and provides

computer-assisted basic skills instruction. The

laboratory offers basic computer literacy and

word processing, job skill development, ABE,

GED, and commercial motor vehicle drivers

license review. The laboratory serves six counties and stays for about 8 weeks in each

location. Each learner who comes has an

individualized course designed for him or her.49

At the Euclid Adult Learning Center, students

can watch KET tapes during classroom times.

They then complete related exercises in an

accompanying workbook. To help students

work at home, an 800 number is available that

can be accessed from any touch-tone phone. A

student can direct the phone system to a

particular lesson and can review the lesson as

many times as necessary by pressing “0.”50

Networking-of both people and machinesalso 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“
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 207

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.
208 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

the most basic level, there is far less use of

computer networks than is possible or desirable.

Although there are numerous examples of networked systems that combine electronic mail,

bulletin boards, and other capabilities to create

exciting learning environments for children,51

these methods are not being employed in adult

literacy programs. This is paralleled by a general

isolation of personnel in one facility from those at

other facilities even when programs fall under one

central administrative system. Programs often

seem to be functioning in an intellectual and

operational vacuum.

Coordination of services with other agencies is

frequently desired, but seldom achieved. Few

programs use their technology to identify or

access other social services available to adult

learners, except for some welfare reform initiatives where such coordination is mandated. In

short, the potential for information exchange is

singularly untapped in agencies visited, despite

their desire for it.

Several projects and States are experimenting

with networking and data coordination:

■ In Philadelphia ‘‘Power Learning," a pilot

project, implemented by the Mayor’s Commission on Literacy, is linking together learners

and teachers from eight community-based adult

education projects. One-hundred learners, each

enrolled in a program at one of the eight sites,

have been loaned a computer and a modem to

take home. The system allows electronic conferencing among teachers and learners, access

to PLATO courseware, and word processing.

Learners are using the computers in many

ways, but writing is the predominant activity.

Students are writing about themselves, talking

to each other online, and sending messages to

their teachers.52

The Outreach and Technical Assistance Network (OTAN Online Communication System

has been set up as part of California’s strategic

plan for adult education. This system provides

electronic mail through which people working

in adult education can contact others in California and throughout the Nation (see chapter 6,

figure 6-2). In addition, it provides an electronic database full of resources and information for teachers and administrators.53

Video technology is surprisingly underused

given its familiarity and availability. The virtual explosion of easily accessible and relatively

inexpensive video technologies, in particular

VCRs and videotapes, offers exciting new possibilities for using video as a learning and teaching

tool. Yet video use in literacy programs is limited.

Videos are used largely to provide information or

stimulate group discussions in class. A few

programs have videocameras or other video

production equipment, which they use to tape

special events or mock job interviews, but producing video or using video as a classroom

resource is a rare activity.

■

■

Examples of innovations include:

To help employees who want to improve their

reading skills at home, one company is distributing a 5-1/2 hour beginning reader video series

called I Want to Read.54 As part of the service,

this company conducts a promotional campaign with an 800 number, mails videos and

support materials to interested employees, offers telephone counseling, and helps employees

to find a community literacy program.

Arlington Community Television has produced

a 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~dGe~dH. ~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
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 209

—

that provides information critical to new immigrants, such as the useof911, emergency health

care, the supermarket, and so forth. The tapes

are produced in several languages and are being

distributed for use by individuals, ESL classes,

and refugee assistance groups.

A collaboration between El Paso Community

College and Levi Strauss is the first major

project attempting to design and implement a

video-based workplace literacy curriculum. A

series of 60 ESL videos that focus on textile

production and manufacturing techniques used

in Strauss’ 7 El Paso plants have been completed; the project is about to begin production

of another 60 episodes to teach reading, writing, and mathematics skills within the

workplace context. Using employee input and

formative research, the video series is being

designed for initial use with the predominantly

Spanish-speaking workers in these plants.ss

The Children’s Television Workshop has recently produced a children’s literacy program

called Ghostwriter. The series is targeted toward 2nd to 4th graders, particularly those who

are ‘‘. . . becoming reluctant readers and writers—who do not see the personal relevance of

the printed word or are experiencing difficulty

understanding and creating text. ’ ’56 The program, which is being broadcast on many Public

Broadcasting Service (PBS) stations during the

1992-93 television season, focuses on a multiethnic group of three boys and three girls who

solve mysteries in their neighborhood by reading and writing. Viewers are encouraged to

write and read through a host of print-based

activities like letter writing and contests.57

While not aimed at adults, the engaging format

has attracted a number of parents seeking to

enhance their literacy skills.

The Annenberg/Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) project is soliciting proposals for

funding to develop an adult television course

that teaches ESL. The course will include a

series of at least 20 broadcast-quality television

programs (30 minutes in length) with integrated print and audio materials. The first phase

(year 1) will fund one planning and formative

research effort ($100,000). Annenberg/CPB

expects to provide $1.5 million for production

and distribution (to be matched by an additional

$1.5 million in outside funds). The programs

will have wide distribution through broadcast

and cable, in community-based ESL programs,

in community college ESL programs, and

through public libraries, corporations, and other

community organizations .58

Vermont Interactive Television is a statewide

telecommunications system that allows people

all over the State ready access to education and

training resources. Currently nine sites are

connected via two-way interactive television.

Learners go to the site nearest their home and

attend classes that may be taught by teachers in

another part of the State. Learners can use the

system to work on their GED. All classes are

preserved on videotape for learners who may

miss a class or want to review material.59

Simpler, inexpensive technologies-such as

audio recorders, closed-caption decoders, and

hand-held electronic devices-are largely ignored. Although many literacy educators described the virtues of audio for learners who lack

reading skills, audiotape recorders were seldom

being 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.
210 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

of other, less well-known devices such as closedcaption decoders or hand-held dictionaries and

translators (see box 7-F).

There are some experiments that indicate these

technologies have much to offer:

The Mott Haven Library Center for Reading

and Writing in New York City (see chapter 4),

which serves mostly adults who read below

grade-4 level, has an extensive collection of

books on tape that are very popular with these

learners. The collection is large because a pool

of volunteers reads and records books; the

collection can easily and inexpensively be

updated to keep up with the interests and

requests of the learners.

The Institute for Communication Disorders

offers a special literacy program for learning

disabled adults with O to 3rd-grade reading

ability at the International Center for the

Disabled in New York City. The teacher, a

learning disabilities specialist, reports that calculators and the Franklin Speaking Spelling

Ace are extremely helpful to her students.

Cassette tape recorders, which students use to

listen to books on tape and to make audio notes,

are at the top of the teacher’s list as useful

technology.

The Arlington Education and Employment

Program (REEP) in Arlington, Virginia, and

the National Captioning Institute (NCI) have

proposed a project to use closed captioning in

ESL classes. After REEP has identified videos

relevant to their ESL curriculum, NCI will

provide captions (available at two different

paces) and will provide training to teachers

using the captioned videos. Anecdotal reports

suggest that many non-native speakers of

English find captioning helpful; NCI reports

that 50 percent of individuals who purchased

decoders in 1990 did so in order to learn

English. 60

The availability of relevant and versatile

software is limited. Providers repeatedly mentioned the need for software that addresses the

specific needs of adults with low literacy skills.

They ask for content that is meaningful to adults,

not just a refashioning of something originally

made for children. There is a great need for

high-quality programming that can be easily

customized by instructors to meet the special

needs of local client populations.

Interesting possibilities are being explored as

programs acquire technology and software that

enable them to create their own products.

Design tools, such as software shells, make it

increasingly easy to create courseware that

reinforces basic skills through materials specific to the workplace (see box 7-G).

The Correctional Educational Division (CED)

of the Los Angeles County jail system (see

chapter 4, box 4-F) has supported the onsite

development of computer software and video

programming that more closely meets the needs

of their inmate population. For example, they

have developed computer reading materials for

the 3rd- and 4th-grade reading levels that make

use of idioms frequently heard by inmates in

the jails. CED also has impressive video

production facilities; one of their main purposes is to produce short videos, requested by

teachers, to illustrate concepts or skills that

teachers find themselves demonstrating repeatedly (e.g., the safe use of hand tools).

Chemeketa Community College in Salem,

Oregon, has recently created software for

teachers called Textbook Toolbox. This software allows teachers with no programming

experience to create electronic textbooks using

60 w &~ CO= ~m d~& warranty registrations. C. Eric Kirkland, National Captioning Institute, Inc., personal eommurdeah “o&

August 1992.
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 211

Box 7-F-Closed Captioning

1 -cLaw 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 -Ud, Rxuw@mM-Wdwmity, Inst@@forthestudy

of Ahlit Litemcy, “Adult LitMacy, computer %M@ogy awl ti Hcar@gImpdra&” wqMMled~ 198% Sllsaa

B. Neuman ad Pa&Ma Ko@ino@ ‘Waptioncd lblevisim a9 ‘CamphdW Ihput’: Ef%%ts d I&dc@alwd Learning

From context for~-~:’-Research&Ql#&&m~mLz’7$ 1% pp. 94-106; a#lRoba’t

hf. 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 captions

for adults dcllildrul SIMl delivtsy

~

ofsbnulmEOus Spsnisb tmlslaa“on. ~ao~Bxecudve~, WGBH Caption

CIMUJ@g DevOlOpnMX in the lbkvidon Ldscspe,” pmsemtion St the

~w~-Oct. 17,1991.
212 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Box 7-G—Basic Skills Instruction Embedded in Job Training Materials

Jet Lmglnesam s9mFxMlofs-1

mjcffm!!wml cQmmwM_~=t~~

t~ 1) mmfESSr) Z)um!zw!x 3)

Mbm 4) QsfM!&t, Mcl tha 5)m!2wi0J.

~Tha sections wcrt( tocjether to

mllect md ~air,to~j~t fuel,

~tfJEN?9@xJlfflY movfwJMw.$lwS=l

fmm the rewof ma Sngtna (UllJs providing

the ~t that -stha -t)Tha

‘%’’’E’”’tO -

————

w

high-pressur

elr out

A

Compressor

A compressor works by

squeezing air into a smaller

space, ratsmg its pressure In a

jet engine the compressor has a

number of stages Each stage

takes the air squeezed from the

prev!ous stages and squeezes It

even smaller El I?*=

$-:

E!!m “stages

1-4
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 213

notes, sounds, graphics, movies, and dictionary

features.61

BARRIERS TO USE OF TECHNOLOGY

Why are literacy programs not taking greater

advantage of technology? OTA identified several

barriers that inhibit widespread access and effective use of technologies. They include funding,

market, informational, and institutional problems. Many of these barriers are interrelated: e.g.,

funding barriers contribute to market barriers and

vice versa.

Funding Barriers

Hardware and software cost money. Even

technology that is reasonably priced by the

standards of public schools, small businesses, or

middle-income consumers may be out of range

for literacy programs, since most cannot buy in

quantity and thus take advantage of reduced

prices. As discussed in chapters 4 and 6, most

literacy programs operate on very tight budgets

(average spending of $217 per student62), using

funding from multiple and sometimes unreliable

sources. Most literacy providers, especially small

community-based organizations, cannot afford

technology.

The median annual technology budget of the

technology-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, keyboard, and mouse. The startup price of an ILS

generally ranges from $18,000 to $65,000, including equipment, the management and instructional software, setup, and initial training. Annual

support and software updates for ILSs cost from

$1,500 to $6,000.

Newer technologies such as computer-based

multimedia systems and interactive videodisc

systems are even less affordable (see box 7-H).

Among the most expensive technologies are

two-way interactive telecommunications systems.

Initial capital costs are high, and continuing

outlays, such as subscriber fees, can also be

expensive, making distance

for most programs.

The cost of technology is

the millions of adults who

literacy-related technology

learning prohibitive

also an obstacle for

could benefit from

in the home or at

work. As noted above, televisions, VCRs, telephones, computers, and game machines are commonplace features in many homes and workplaces. But adults with limited literacy skills are

among the least affluent consumer groups. Many

cannot afford technological devices, even at mass

market prices. They are also less likely to come in

contact with technologies on the job.64

Although telephone service is often thought of

as universal, only 93 percent of households

actually have telephones (fewer than have televisions). Furthermore there are disparities related

to ethnicity-while 95 percent of white households have phones, only 84 percent of AfricanAmerican and 83 percent of Latino households do

so.

65 Those households with annual incomes of

less than $15,000 also have lower rates of phone

service. 66 A 1991 survey of cable and VCR

penetration 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
214 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 215

suddenly, as lf startled.

41 Now you may think that I

drew back - but no.

4; HiS room was as black as

pitch with the thick darkness

(for the shutters were close

fastened, through fear of

robbers), and so I knew that he

The Tell-Tale Heart

Q; I fairly chuckled at the

idea: and perhaps he heard ‘ 4 II

me; for he moved on the bed Ill

1

. .

could not see the opening of

the door, and I kept pushing lt

on steadily, steadily, I l l

Ill ~

When you m

‘

n m

-

4;; Pronunclatlon

choices: 

-

~;

this sequence happens: ~;; Syllables

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 0

P** (s*c*) ❑ nut o saue

1-

! $J E

R Fiuto

$aue

 Open

~ecall

and EJect Books

mmm

I

This software version of the Tell-Tale Heart allows the reader to choose either a Spanish or English reading of

the 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. Computin the lowest income bracket (under $15,000) ers are found in the homes of 18 percent of white

have cable and 39 percent have VCRs, compared adults, but only in 8 percent of African-American

with 69 and 93 percent respectively for those in and 8 percent of Latino adults.68 Both access to

the 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 4.6

education, and ethnicity. While 15 percent of all percent of those with less than a high school

households had a computer in 1989, only 6 degree have a home computer, compared with

percent 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. Data

collected by Nielsen in 1991.

68K “ ommski, op. cit., footnote 33.
216 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Figure 7-2-Households With Videocassette

Recorders 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 T0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of households

D Cable subscribers

a Videocassette recorders

NOTE: The average for all households in 1991 is 57 percent cable

subscdbers and 73 percent with VCRs.

SOURCE: A.C. Nielsen Co., National (50-State) Sample of 4,000

Households (Nielsen Peoplemeter Service), as reported in Boston

Consulting Group, “Public Television: Developing a Ready-to-barn

Service,” report prepared forthe Public Broadcasting Service, January

1993. Data collected by Nielsen in 1991.

school degree report using their computers, compared with 71.2 percent of those with college

degrees (see figure 7-3).

Market Barriers

The costs to research, develop, market, distribute, and support technology aimed at the specialized needs of adult learners can be very high. To

develop a courseware package, the needs of

learners must be researched, educational experts

must be consulted, and courseware must be tested

in the field. In some cases, focus groups are

convened and formal assessments conducted.

Although some technical aspects of the development process have become cheaper in recent

years, consumers have also come to expect better

presentation quality (i.e., the use of graphics and

sound) and educational value (i.e., the incorporation of critical thinkin g skills and contexts

relevant to the learners). These features increase

the cost of development.

Without some reasonable hope of a return,

companies are unlikely to invest the startup costs

for specialized technology aimed at limited,

fragile submarkets. Such is the case with the

literacy market-by any measure small, fragmented, 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 computer

at home

EZ Have access to

High school:

1-3 years 6.5% 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 (Washington, 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.
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 217

The universe of literacy programs--or potential

‘‘customers’ ‘—is small compared with other

educational or corporate markets. In addition, as

explained above, funding limitations prevent

many literacy programs from purchasing hardware, which further shrinks the potential customer base. Although individual learners theoretically comprise a much larger market, they are

least likely to be able to afford technology .70

Definitive data are not available on total sales

of literacy-related technologies, but statistics on

sales of computer software corroborate the notion

that in the large pond of the technology market,

the adult literacy market is a small fish indeed.

The entire personal software industry had annual

sales of about $4.6 billion in 1990. In that same

year, elementary and secondary schools spent

about $230 million for educational courseware. 71

By comparison, OTA estimates that the adult

literacy market had annual software sales in 1990

of roughly $10 to $15 million (see figure 7-4).72

Without a large and visible base of potential

customers or a healthy record of past sales to

attract them, even software companies with considerable expertise in "crossover marketing"

may shy away from the literacy market. Developers outside the education field seem particularly

uninterested. Consequently, most of the active

competitors in the !iteracy market are those with

a stake in larger education and training markets,

such as K-12 schools or corporate training, Some

of these vendors simply sell their existing educational products to literacy clients. Others successfully revise products originally designed for the

K-12 education market. Only a few companies

market high-quality products designed especially

for adult literacy (see box 7-I).

Figure 7-4-The Personal Computer Software

Market, 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 an

Integrated learning system.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993, based on data

from Educat Ion TURNKEY Systems, Inc. and Wujcik Associates, “The

Educational Software Marketplace and Adult Literacy Niches,” OTA

mntractor report, June 1992.

The literacy software market is in an early stage

of development. There are currently few people

with both expertise in adult literacy and knowhow in technology to develop applications for the

literacy market. In addition, slow economic

growth and a lack of other factors make it unlikely

that technology “seeding” will occur for adult

literacy. 73 However, some firms have been able

locate funding to cover the high costs of developing 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 and

Learning, ’ 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 an

integrated 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.
218 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

1 ArtharJ. S* pmsia~“ -R080wCC8, The Educational Division of FrauWn Bl CCtNXiiC Publishers, Inc.,

prsonsl Conununicatiom Oct. 28,1992.
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 219

opportunities for customization (see box 7-J).

Virtually all of the technology firms included in

OTA industry case studies raised the necessary

funding internally or through partnerships with

other groups.

Information Barriers

OTA finds that there is inadequate information available to both consumers and producers of adult literacy technologies. From the

consumer end, most literacy educators, even

those with some technology expertise, are not

aware of the range of technology options available. The problem exists at all levels but is most

obvious among novice technology users, who do

not fully understand the capabilities of technology and who rarely or never consult software

reviews. 74 Literacy program administrators often

have little training in or experience with technology, hence do not know what to look for or how

it could benefit programs.

From the vendor end, there is a shortage of

specific market information on potential or existing literacy customers and their needs. Particularly lacking is more comprehensive data on the

current uses of educational technology by literacy

programs and home consumers; their current and

anticipated expenditures for hardware, courseware, and other instructional materials; and effective product design features for hard-to-reach

literacy populations.75

Technology vendors in OTA’s case studies

adopted various strategies to cope with this lack

of information, including hiring consultants and

market research firms to conduct limited studies

or develop ‘‘best estimate’ projections; conducting their own design research during prototype

testing, rather than relying on existing research;

hiring experienced developers and marketers who

had their own information sources in the literacy

Digital books on many different topics can be plugged

into this small hand-held device, making it possible to

read and learn anywhere, anytime.

field; and refining existing products based on

feedback from their customer base.76

Both literacy programs and technology developers could benefit from more information on the

effectiveness of different types of technologies in

improving literacy skills. This is especially true

for specific subgroups of learners such as adults

with the very lowest reading skills, with limited

English proficiency, or with learning disabilities.

Similarly, there is little hard data available on the

effectiveness of some newer technologies for

adult literacy, such as interactive distance learning. Some literacy providers are reluctant to adopt

technology-based approaches because they have

doubts about their effectiveness, especially when

weighed against their cost. More evidence of

effectiveness might help persuade adult educators

to buy hardware and convince technology vendors to invest in developing better software.

Institutional Barriers

Some of the common institutional challenges

faced by literacy programs constrain their use of

technology 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
220 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

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 of

Literacy volunteers of Amdca-New York S-Inc. VOL 1, No. 1, Dccembm 1992.
Chapter 7–Technology Today: Practice vs. Promise | 221

a viable literacy market. The diverse and sometimes fragmented nature of the literacy field is one

such barrier. Different types of literacy programs,

such as ABE, GED preparation, ESL, correctional

education, workplace skills enhancement, and

family literacy, require different kinds of instructional content. The apparent need for customized

products for each submarket, however small or

seemingly unprofitable, increases development

and customer support costs and may dissuade

developers from entering the market. In addition,

the diversity of service providers means that there

is no identifiable, formal market relationship, no

clear purchasing pattern, and no single organizational structure; this makes it difficult for companies to obtain market-relevant information and

complicates marketing and distribution.77 The

fragmentation of funding sources presents still

another barrier, especially when some Federal

grant-in-aid programs limit expenditures for hardware and equipment (see chapter 5).

Another institutional barrier cited by technology developers is the lack of common performance objectives for literacy programs. Industry

respondents believed that commonly accepted

standards and objectives could reduce customization costs and over time bring down prices.

The shortage of experienced professional staff

for adult literacy, who could help develop software and programming, is also perceived as a

barrier, particularly among firms that have decided not to enter the adult literacy market.

Virtually all of the case study firms in the literacy

marketplace had a core team with directly related

experience, which the firm could supplement

through consultants and reassignment of staff

from other divisions within the company.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of technology to address the problem

of adult literacy is limited but growing. Technology has the potential both to improve the existing

system of literacy education and to reach people

in new ways. Although some literacy providers

are experienced users of technology, the potential

of technology for programs has barely been

exploited. Of equal import but even less explored

is the potential of technology to help individual

learners and give them access to information and

learnin g tools. The promise of technology needs

to be realized. There are encouraging signs that

investment and interest in technologies for literacy are increasing. Rapid technology development is occurring simultaneously with a growing

recognition of the importance of lifelong learning. These factors have created an opportune time

to stimulate the private sector, aggregate the

market, and encourage innovative uses of technology.

77 Ibid., pp. 34-35,
Looking

Ahead to a

Future With

Technology 8

T

oday’s literacy programs are unable to meet the current

demand, much less projected future requirements, for

literacy services. Many learners cannot or will not

participate in the literacy programs now in place. It may

be impossible to provide enough teachers, classes, and programs

no matter how much money is pumped into the current system.

Ways must be found to extend the range and increase the impact

of existing teachers, programs, and expertise.

This chapter looks ahead to tomorrow, with three scenarios

offering a vision of adult literacy for the next 5 to 10 years. The

scenarios combine several themes raised throughout this report.

First, they reflect a desire to go beyond reliance on school-based

programs and classroom-oriented instruction; instead, they

assume more flexible ways of providing service. Second, the

scenarios present literacy instruction integrated into and reflective of the daily activities of a learner’s life. Because adults spend

most of their time and energy either at home or at work, family

and workplace are both setting and context for much of the

literacy instruction in the scenarios. The goals of workplace and

family literacy-economic security, professional advancement,

and improving the opportunities of one’s children-are naturally

motivating to learners. Because these goals complement goals

held by our society—international competitiveness and personal

economic self-sufficiency-workplace and family literacy activities may be able to elicit broad-based support and financial

commitment. Finally, the scenarios assume a primary role for

technology-increasingly powerful, portable, flexible, and affordable 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, flexibility, and comprehensive services could be

provided to learners in contexts relevant to their

daily living and long-term goals? The scenarios

provide one way of envisioning these possibilities, using three fictional learners typical of many

who need literacy assistance. The technology

depicted in them is suggestive of possible applications, based on current trends and developments. 1 They exemplify the kind of changes

that could occur by the year 2000 and are meant

to illustrate ideas, not to make specific predictions.

Carla King: Moving Ahead With

a Changing Industry

Carla King, a vivacious 32-year-old, lives with

her mother and 10-year-old daughter Latanya in

a garden apartment on the outskirts of a small

midwestern city. Since graduating from high

school, Carla has worked in jobs as a cashier, mail

room clerk, receptionist, and school bus driver,

with her mother providing babysitting. Although

they have few extras, Carla has been able to

support the family adequately on her income,

supplemented by her mother’s social security

check. Carla hopes her 4-year relationship with

her boyfriend, a truck driver, will lead to marriage

and greater financial stability.

Carla has worked for the Cobra Alarm Company for 3 years. Cobra sells, installs, services,

and monitors alarms for residences and businesses. Working the 3 pm to 11 pm shift, Carla

for a Lifetime

monitors incoming signals that indicate a triggered alarm and responds by contacting the

police, fire, or emergency medical departments,

and home or business owners or their designees.

She also takes requests for repairs, writes work

orders, and directs the incoming calls not handled

by voice mail.

The company was founded by Scott Webster,

a 43-year-old entrepreneur. In the last 6 years the

company has grown from Scott, his brother, and

two sisters to 35 employees. Scott was able to get

his business off the ground with assistance from

the Coalition-a collaborative of local businesses

and city and State government that helps develop

and support small businesses and create jobs for

community residents. The Coalition helped Scott

obtain low-interest financing, develop a business

plan, and recruit employees from the local area.

The Coalition provides continuing support and

management expertise. The Coalition has been

particularly supportive in helping companies

develop workplace education programs.

Cobra’s 5-year business plan calls for a substantial increase in the number of large commercial customers. This change will accompany the

move to a new “smart alarm’ system. The

company plans to acquire new telecommunications and computer equipment with sophisticated voice-recognition capability that automates

telephone operations and monitors alarms automatically. Once smart alarms replace older models, human telephone operators will no longer be

needed. Customers will give oral instructions,

such as changing the party to be notified in an

emergency, directly to their smart alarm. The

alarm’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 aud

Information lkchnologies: Implications for Literacy and Lxuning, Sept. 26-27, 1991; and O’IA/Annenberg Workshop, “New Visions for

Video: Use of Cable, Satellite, Broadcas4 and Interactive Systems for Literacy andkuning,” Jan. 27, 1992. See also Robert Olsenet al., 21st

Century barning and Health Care in the Home: Creating a National Teleco~” cations Network (Washingto& DC: Institute for Alternative

Futures/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 for

the 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 to

Cobra’s central computer.

With this change to a more competitive hightech product, Scott plans to reorganize the company around the principles of total quality management. Each employee will be expected to

know several jobs well and understand the entire

operation.

Carla’s current job will phase out with the

changeover. She wants to stay on at Cobra, but

she realizes that she has little opportunity for

advancement without additional education. As a

general track student in high school, she bypassed

both challenging academic courses, such as

algebra and geometry, and practiced vocational

courses. Although her oral communication skills

are adequate, her written skills are limited. She is

concerned about the new responsibilities she will

have as a team member. Carla will be expected to

read and comprehend technical material and

diagrams, troubleshoot problems for customers.

make well-reasoned judgments using technical

information. write reports. and make suggestions

for change.

As a part of preparing for the reorganization,

Scott meets with the State government workplace

training coordinator, the community college adult

education director. and Cobra’s employee committee to design the education and training that

will be needed to move the company into its new

role. An assessment reveals that one-half of

Cobra’s employees need to improve their writing

and reading skills. One-third need to 1earn (or

brush up on) mathematics for technical work and

statistical process control.

With help from education advisers at the

community college, the company develops a

customized skills enhancement program. All

employees are given 2 to 5 work-hours per week,

company time, to participate in skills enhancement and training, providing they contribute at

least 2 additional hours a week of their own time.

Profit-sharing credits are offered to employees

who spend 4 hours per week or more of their own

time at learning activities for their individualized

learning plan. Scott admits it is unlikely he would

be able to provide these incentives without the

recently passed Federal tax credits for companies

offering workplace literacy programs like Cobra’s.

In part because there is no room onsite to

conduct classes, Scott has purchased from the

Coalition, at a reduced rate, several lightweight,

battery-operated, notebook-sized personal learning devices (PLDs) for his employees to check

out. The PLD functions like a combination

computer, television, and telephone; it unfolds to

show a screen for the display of both video and

graphic information. Screen text is as clear and

easy to read as a book. With a touch of the

network button on the screen, the PLD opens a

telephone line to transmit or receive data over a

distance. The PLD has a built-in pen-based data

entry system and touch screen, microphone and

speaker, a detachable keyboard, and an external

hard disk drive for extra data storage.

Carla likes the PLD because it is powerful and

easy to use. When she first went to her Coalition

education counselor, Carla was given a personal

interest inventory and skills assessment software

package to complete at home on the PLD. Results

were downloaded into the Coalition’s office, and

the next afternoon Carla and her counselor met

online and discussed her academic strengths and

areas for improvement in relation to the needs of

the new job. Carla’s learning style preferences

were matched to available program resources.

Carla’s profile indicated she likes to study independently and works well in small groups, but is

intimidated by structured classroom settings.

Consequently, her counselor suggested self-study

modules and distance learning options for her

personal learning plan.

The distance learning capabilities of the PLD

enable Carla to enroll in a mathematics class,

identified through a national database of distance

learning classes, that matches her learning needs

and time schedule. In this class she has two study

partners in two different cities, Using PLDs, all

three study together as if they were in the same

room. On her PLD, Carla prepares mathematics
226 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

assignments by entering data, plotting graphs,

and graphically rendering mathematical concepts. This whole process helps demystify the

subject matter, and real-world problems show her

the practicality of having good mathematics

skills. The PLD’s calculator helps her avoid

arithmetic errors and permits her to concentrate

on mathematical concepts.

Carla also signs onto a current events reading

club. Based on her interest profile, Carla is

matched with seven other young women around

the city. They meet for 2 hours on Saturday

mornings in the local library, but most of the

discussion goes on over the electronic-mail connection of the PLD. While at the library, Carla

downloads articles from The Washington Post,

The New York Times, and weekly news magazines onto her PLD. She shares these with her

daughter and mother, and together they compare

the different emphases of these news accounts

with what they see on the evening television

news. The PLD software helps Carla generate,

outline, and organize ideas for her written pieces

for the club, and the word processor with voice,

pen, and keyboard input makes writing easier.

Carla reorganizes, revises, and edits with the help

of software language aids-spelling, grammar,

punctuation and style checkers, and a thesaurus—

before sending her reports to other members of the

club.

Ten months later, Carla has overcome her

school anxieties and now enjoys her education.

She has checked out the PLD so often that she has

considered purchasing one on her own. She likes

the fact that, when she practices skills on her own

time, the software records her study time and she

receives “educredits” that can be applied to a

certificate program at the community college and

for reduced-cost purchase of her own PLD

through the Coalition’s lease/purchase plan for

member businesses. After completing the mathematics course, Carla feels ready to tackle a

module on basic principles of electricity and

electronics. This course uses multimedia software

and scientific probes that can be added to the

PLD. Course materials have

a team from the Coalition’s

been customized by

technology advisers

and Cobra technicians. The software simulates

the actions of redesigning wiring diagrams, replacing computer chips, and reprogramming a

smart alarm.

Carla uses the PLD in many more ways:

pursuing her hobby of home gardening by accessing a horticultural database, locating a Spanish

tutor for Latanya through a database of local

educational resources, and using the multimedia

encyclopedia software and other references to

assist with her school projects. Carla’s mother

communicates electronically with new friends on

‘‘ seniornet, ’ a national network she subscribes to

at a reduced rate through her church’s senior

citizens center.

Carla is making steady progress and plans to

enroll at the community college for an associate

degree in electronics next year. She will already

have several credits under her belt through her

self-study modules. Her new confidence is showing up at work, where she is participating more

actively in team meetings and suggesting new

approaches to tasks. In training sessions that

require the use of technical manuals, Carla keeps

pace with other workers. Best of all, she has been

given a promotion and pay raise to reflect her

increased responsibilities.

Dave Decker: Changing

Starting a Future

Nineteen-year-old Dave

a Life,

Decker officially left

school when he turned 16, but he dropped out

intellectually years before. He always had trouble

reading and repeated both the 4th and 7th grades.

By the time he was in the 8th grade, when he was

a foot taller and several years older than the other

kids, he knew he did not fit in. Instead, he found

a new circle of fiends-the older guys that hung

out at the pool hall, drank beer, and stole cars for

kicks. Dave and his friends were arrested several

times for car theft and vandalism. After his fourth

arrest, this time with a drunk and disorderly
Chapter 8-Looking Ahead to a Future With Technology | 227

charge, Dave’s mother refused to bail him out.

The judge ordered him to enroll in a substance

abuse program and assigned him to a detention

center for juvenile offenders.

His first week in detention, Dave’s literacy

skills were assessed using a procedure developed

by a four-State consortium of correctional educational programs, Dave took a battery of multimedia diagnostic assessments that included a series

of science experiments, writing assignments, and

social studies miniprojects. The tests required

him to read documents: write reports, memoranda, and essays; collect and interpret scientific

data to formulate and test hypotheses; draw

conclusions from multiple historical source documents and maps; apply mathematics to solve

real-life problems; and create charts and graphs in

several subject areas. Other assessment software

helped Dave learn more about his aptitudes and

interests in areas such as music, art, mathematics,

mechanics, physical strength and dexterity, leadership, and interpersonal relations. Multimedia

materials were also used to help Dave identify

possible career directions. When Dave expressed

interest in the job of a physical therapist, he called

up a database of health career simulations that let

him shadow’ a therapist for a day, ask questions

about the job, and practice providing therapy to

patients.

Dave’s assessment results—test scores and

interpretive analyses-were sent to the State

detention education offices for processing and

returned to the local staff within 24 hours. An

individualized educational plan was developed

for Dave by the second week in the program and

he signed an education contract, spelling out his

goals and the requirements for meeting them. He

was given a personal ‘‘educard’ containing data

on his testing results and plan. As he progressed

through his plan, each step was credited on the

card, and time was deducted from his open-ended

sentence.

Dave worked especially hard on language arts

skills. During class he used a small personal

multimedia computer connected with the State’s

online database of courseware and reading material. After class, he downloaded materials he

needed extra work onto a notebook-sized PLD he

checked out to use in his room and repeat lessons

as many times as he wanted. The PLD held

Dave’s attention, did not make fun of his mistakes, and rewarded him with bonus points for

center privileges when he completed a unit. It

held no preconceptions about his ability and

turned his lefthanded ‘‘chicken scratch’ handwriting into fine-looking typed words and sentences, especially when he remembered to use the

spell, punctuation, and grammar guides.

Several months after entering the center, Dave

received a card with no letter inside, only a picture

of 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 of

shock, denial, pride, shame, and tenderness. Until

then, Dave had drifted aimlessly through life, his

low self-esteem leading him to doubt his ability

to succeed at anything. For the first time he felt he

had a goal to work toward. Dave resolved to stay

sober and assume the responsibility of fatherhood.

After his release from detention, Dave returned

home. Because he had received so many educredits while in the center, his high school

diploma was finally within reach. But he swore he

would never again set foot in the local high

school, and he had to work to help support his

little girl while Kathy lived with her parents and

finished high school. Dave enrolled in a general

equivalency diploma (GED) course offered on the

local Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) channel,

watching at home in the evenings and taping

lessons he had to miss when caring for Georgette.

He spent his days working in his uncle’s feed

store, and his uncle let him use the computer to

hook up with an electronic mail support group for

teen alcoholics. Dave found it reassuring to know

that he could use the 24-hour “chat” line

whenever he needed support. Each day he also
228 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

dialed into the computer’s video connect to check

in with his probation officer.

One night, when Dave was feeling particularly

low, he was thrown out of a local bar for drunk

and disorderly behavior. His probation officer

realized Dave was at a crisis point and sent Rick

Carter over to the house. Rick, also a recovering

alcoholic, described the We Are Family (WAF)

Program he had created to help other adolescent

parents avoid the mistakes he made as an angry

young man. While most teen parents entered the

program voluntarily, for a few like Dave, participation was a condition of his parole.

Dave was reluctant, but did not want to lose his

parole or the delicate relationship he was trying to

reestablish with Kathy and Georgette. Rick explained that the goal of the program is to improve

self-esteem through increasing literacy skills,

working around three themes: parenting, health

and safety, and job preparation. Reading, mathematics, science, and writing skills are introduced

and reinforced within the three themes by professional teachers, both onsite and through distance

networks. Because the community is a rural one,

spread across hundreds of miles, they meet

electronically through satellite downlinks and

telephone/computer connections. Study groups

form around multimedia lessons, supported by a

library of interactive CDs, which students can

order up through touch screens on the television.

Those who do not have the necessary hardware

are given loaners through the library.

Dave’s work on the family skills activities

supports his evening GED studies. He recently

worked on reading comprehension by trying to

infer meaning from context clues, using a CD on

child immunization downloaded from the system.

While watching the CD, he tries out various

options that test his understanding, resulting in

scenarios created by his choices. Shocked by the

negative effect his response has had on the

characters in the story, Dave realizes he has not

understood the material sufficiently, and decides

to watch a more detailed explanation of the

concept. He can repeat portions of the CD, asking

for definitions of concepts or terms, pursuing his

own interests indepth or just following along with

the written student guide. Kathy and Dave work

on some modules separately, since he is still

living at his parents house. When they get

together at Kathy’s, they share what they have

learned with each other.

Dave spends a great deal of time with his

daughter and fully shares child-rearing responsibilities, working from 2 to 9 pm so he can care for

the baby while Kathy is at school. Dave is also

learning ways to interact with Georgette that will

help stimulate the baby’s communication skills.

He borrows paper and electronic books from the

library to read to her. His favorites are interactive

books that contain music, animation, voice narration, and video. Georgette’s favorites are any

books where her father supplies the sound effects.

His affectionate and increasingly skilled parenting of Georgette has won over Kathy’s parents,

and they see that his commitment to his family is

helping him to stay sober. They have given their

blessing to their marriage when Kathy finishes

high school.

Fifteen months out of the detention center,

Dave passes the GED on his second try. He plans

to enroll in a laboratory technician certification

program through the community college’s distance learning network. Later, after he gets his

confidence up, he may take some classes on

campus, but, right now, without a car and so little

free time, the class at the community center is all

he can handle. With a certificate, he hopes to work

in a new biogenetic laboratory that is located in

the area.

Although Dave has finished his parole and no

longer has to participate in WAF’s teen dad

program, he will continue to participate as a

volunteer. It has helped him get his life on track.

Tina Lopez: Family Support Through a

Multipurpose Literacy Center

Tina Lopez, age 24, lives in a small town in

south 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 she

was 18. When Eduardo lost his job and became

abusive they separated, leaving her to raise her

two young children alone on a small welfare

check.

Through her Spanish-speaking counselor at the

welfare office, Tina learned about the River

Family Literacy program. With 5-year-old Jimmy

and 2-year-old Maria old enough for school and

daycare, Tina has been told that, by participating

in the literacy and job preparation activities

offered through the center, her check will be

increased for each of the educredits she earns

toward her high school degree. The program

guarantees her a job paying, at a minimum, 10

percent more than her welfare check when she

graduates from the program. Her health insurance

benefits will be transferred from State support to

employer support automatically under the national health assurance program.

Tina did not like being told what she had to do,

and was initially reluctant to participate because

of unpleasant memories of school. She recognized, however, it was her only choice for a better

future. When her girlfriend Dolores showed her

the PLDs and other learning tools that participants can check out of the center’s library and

bragged about how much English she learned in

her 6 months at the center, Tina signed up.

River School, the location of the family program, is a center for community life. It houses an

elementary school, an after-school program, an

infant care and early learning center for children

from 6 months, and English as a second language

(ESL) literacy classes based around parenting

support and job preparation. The building also

contains a medical clinic, a mental health center,

a buying cooperative, and a Food Stamp outlet.

Videoconferencing booths at the school give local

residents access to case workers at the county

office for other social services not available

onsite.

Tina’s reception at the River Family Literacy

Program is warm and respectful. The director of

the program, Elena Martinez, shows great sensitivity in serving this multicultural community.

Computer-scheduled minibuses are on call to take

participants to and from the River School at all

hours.

Tina participates in the program 5 days a week.

After getting Maria settled in the early childhood

center and Jimmy in kindergarten, Maria goes

down the hall to her ESL parenting support group.

After the children and Tina have lunch together,

she goes to the job training center, where ESL

instruction is integrated with all the materials.

Tina and other family literacy participants

spend several hours each morning working alone

or in small groups, using the multimedia library

of parenting materials. Tina is working with

simulations helping her understand and handle

common childhood conditions, such as tantrums

and bed-wetting. Although the material is presented in English, at any point the user can click

to an audio assist in Spanish, Creole, Cantonese,

or Vietnamese. Materials are presented in stages

of reading difficulty geared to the user’s responses to questions that routinely check on

comprehension. If the user answers these correctly in a certain amount of time, the material

gradually increases the vocabulary and difficulty

of material. These embedded tests are so low key

that Tina moves through them without any of the

anxiety she used to associate with testing in

school. Since the tutorials are private, each

participant is moving at her own pace, but

progress is automatically recorded on the system.

Tina enjoys this activity, particularly since she

can choose the content she wants to study from a

huge topic menu. When she asks Elena about how

to deal with Maria’s tendency to bite her brother

when he pushes her around, Elena added a

segment on dealing with aggressiveness in children at that age. Tina particularly enjoys the small

group discussion sessions held after each of these

private tutorials; this is when she can discuss her

approach to these issues with the other women

and clarify points she found difficult. A trained
230 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

literacy tutor acts as a facilitator in these group

learning sessions.

“Aggressive,” “discipline,” “appropriate,”

and ‘‘sense of humor’ Tina adds these words to

the electronic pocket translator she checks out of

the library each week. Her friend Dolores has

bought her own, but Tina has been unable to put

aside the money to buy one, and cannot unless she

collects enough attendance and improvement

credits to qualify for the “top students’ discount. ” The device has a vocabulary of 25,000

commonly used words. With this device, Tina can

speak a word (in English or Spanish) into the

built-in microphone, see the word in English or

Spanish translation on a small screen, and hear the

translated word spoken, defined, and used in a

sentence. Since it can be customized by adding

vocabulary, Tina, Jimmy, and even Maria add

words they are learning together, and play word

games with it on the bus to and from the center.

Tina now knows the secret of Dolores’ English

success.

Tina goes to the after-school center to work

with the children two afternoons each week. One

of her favorite activities is creating slide shows

and videos with the children. The center has a full

supply of minicameras that the children use for

videowriting, and plug-in units for editing and

adding sound effects and graphics. Tina works

with the children to help them appreciate how

carefully they must plan and edit their materials

to create the best stories. In one project, Tina

works with Jimmy, several of his friends, and

some 6th graders from the school and their

teacher to create a history of Central American

children’s games. They record interviews with

community residents of all ages and videotape

them demonstrating the games they know. Students also graphically illustrate the games step-bystep. The 6th-grade students research the African,

European, and Indian origins of the games. The

grateful teacher lends Tina her own notebook

multimedia sketchpad so she can work on the

games project at home. The project becomes a

rich family learning experience as Tina and her

children talk about it and work together on it after

school. After her children go to bed, Tina spends

time writing storyboards, sketching graphics, and

trying out various animations. She previews

supplemental video segments downloaded from

the cable station. The county librarian is so

impressed with the final product that he requests

permission to make copies to place in the library.

It is the first real school-related success Tina has

ever experienced.

Tina soon has enough English skills to move

into the next phase of the program: job search.

Although job opportunities in town are limited,

the River Family Literacy Program has a‘ service

information kiosk’ that Tina has used for information about finalizing her divorce, changing her

name back, and other legal concerns. The kiosk

also maintains a database of job openings, salary

levels, and requirements for positions offered by

public and private employers in specified geographic areas in the region. Although Tina first

thought she would like to work at the River

Family Center, openings there are scarce, so she

has been checking the kiosk database on a regular

basis. The relatively high pay and opportunity to

work outdoors attract Tina to highway construction. Her job counselor sets up a videoconference

with women who are already working in this

male-dominated vocation so Tina can learn firsthand about working conditions.

Tina learns that to advance in the field, she will

need to read technical manuals, operate computers that control the latest road construction

equipment, and make decisions that require an

understanding of geometry and geology. She

signs up for job training to prepare her for

highway construction. Several of the courses she

needs are not available at the center, but Tina

enrolls in a geometry class at the community

college. She takes the course via satellite at River

School, because she cannot rely on her car to

make the 100-mile round-trip to the college twice

a week. She downloads mathematics software

onto her loaner PLD to help her prepare for the

examination.
Chapter 8-Looking Ahead to a Future With Technology I 231

Through her ESL, parenting, job preparation,

and mathematics courses, Tina eventually gains

enough credits to earn a high school degree after

2 years. She could have taken the GED sooner to

shorten the process, but the concept of a formal

examination scared her off. She begins to work

for a highway construction contractor. With

support from the family literacy program staff,

she and her children have tried to prepare for the

extended absences her job requires. Her friend

Dolores cares for Maria and Jimmy while Tina is

away from home, with support from the center

should any crises arise. While she is on the road,

Tina visits with her children through the videophone at the center and a videophone at her

construction office.

After 5 years, Tina has made steady progress on

her job and is the first woman in her company to

supervise a road construction crew. She has

bought her own electronic pocket translator, to

which she has added her specialized constructionrelated vocabulary. She keeps up with the center’s

parenting classes through a videophone linkup to

the computer at work. Tina continues to monitor

the children’s homework when she is at home and

by electronic means when she is on the road. She

has also been browsing through several online

college catalogs; she and the children have a bet

going on who will be the first one to get a degree

in engineering.

QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE SCENARIOS:

HOW TO CREATE A FUTURE

FOR LITERACY

These scenarios show how people, institutions,

programs, and technology could come together to

increase adult learners’ options for learning. They

look ahead to the year 2000, and offer an

optimistic vision. The challenge lies in turning

these visions of the future into a reality for the

millions of Americans with limited literacy skills.

This view of the future includes several key

elements:

Providing new options for those who wish to

participate in literacy programs but are overwhelmed by barriers such as transportation,

childcare, and competing demands on their

time;

Motivating people to enter programs, and

providing successful learning experiences to

help them persevere until they have reached

their literacy goals; and

Offering affordable, flexible technology tools

to help people pursue learnin g in classes or on

their own.

The scenarios assume continuing advances in

hardware, software, and networking capabilities,

along with public commitment and financial

support to guarantee access to these resources for

those who need them most.

Hardware Advances

The scenarios assume that current trends in

telecommunications and hardware development

will produce an array of important capabilities.

They include:

more and cheaper computing power;

integrated video, sound, text, and graphics on

the same display;

smaller, portable hardware;

higher resolution screens;

variety in input devices;

embedded intelligence;

greater channel capacity for television; and

interactivity between computers, telephones,

and other hardware.

As computing power continues to expand, new

capabilities will become increasingly affordable.

These hardware advances will take many forms

and offer capabilities beyond today’s realities.

For example, the ability to deliver, process, or

display video, text, graphics, and audio from a

single box is reducing the number of components

needed for multimedia. Additionally, the ability

to use natural speech for input and control of
232 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

computers is a particularly promising develop- greater, because of the standard for closed capment 2 (see box 8-A). Computers, regardless of tioning on all televisions manufactured after

manufacturer, will be able to share data more 1993. Displays with high resolution will increase

easily in the future. Improvements in digital text readability and reduce eye fatigue, making

transmission and advances in compression tech- applications such as computer-based books more

nology will increase channel capacity. The num- attractive. New switching techniques will make

ber 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,” The

Economist, July 25, 1992, pp. 79-80.
Chapter 8-Looking Ahead to a Future With Technology | 233

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 Information

Selvicw Chicago, L personal Communicatiorq April 1993.

4 ~ith we~~ ‘~sx @ ~~Wri&: A -ontie S@@s ofs-hRoco@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 the

video, text, and data available instantly to homes power of today’s high-end personal computers

and businesses. could be sold for prices similar to today’s

All of these trends could promote greater televisions, making them more affordable to

opportunities 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 meet

tomorrow’s expectations. Nonetheless, the computer industry’s product evolution and marketing strategies have kept the price of personal

computers 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.
234 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Advancements in speech recognition technologies

allow users to operate a computer and input data

by speaking into a microphone. In addition to the

importance of this resource for persons with

disabilities, speech recognition will make computers

easier to use for a range of applications.

components will permit powerful uses of learning

technologies in sizes that vary from desktop to

notebook to pocket or pocketbook sized. Highresolution screen displays will be flatter. Storage

devices will be more compact. As the range of

possible sizes increases, the technology will

become more flexible and small, portable equipment will expand opportunities for literacy education anytime or anyplace (on the bus, during work

breaks, or waiting in a doctor’s office) and in

places where space is limited, such as in crowded

working and living quarters. A researcher notes:

Ubiquitous computers will also come indifferent

sizes, each suited to a particular task. My colleagues and I have built what we call tabs, pads

and boards: Inch-scale machines that approximate active Post-it notes, foot-scale ones that

behave something like a sheet of paper (or a book

or a magazine) and yard-scale displays that are the

equivalent of a blackboard or bulletin board.4

Speech recognition technology could help

people express complex ideas more capably than

they can read or write. When commands or

information can be entered by speaking into a

computer, the learner can focus on content and not

be distracted or intimidated by the technicalities

of operating a computer. Speech recognition

technology could also help boost English proficiency in daily tasks. Speaking into a pocket

translator for assistance with unknown or difficult

words could facilitate communication in real-life

situations when learners might find themselves at

a loss for words.

It will be important to assure interconnectivity

between various kinds of hardware. Literacy

practitioners will need to participate in standardsetting, in order to guarantee that features appropriate for education and adult literacy are assured

(see box 8-B).

\

Small but powerful and easy to use, portable

computers like this could make it possible for learners

to study anywhere, anytime.

4 Mark Wekcr, “~e Computer for the 21st Ceatury,” Scientific Americun, September 1991, p. 98. lhc author is head of the Computa

science Laboratory at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Cent=.
Chapter 8-Looking Ahead to a Future With Technology | 235

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.
236 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Networking Advances

Telecomrnunications networks play an important role in all of the scenarios: learners, teachers,

and other classmates were able to converse or

send text, graphics, or video to each other, and

access online databases. Location was no longer

a barrier. Books without pages could be sent from

libraries without walls;5 curriculum was distributed from classrooms without doors.

As telecommunications networking grows, it

will expand opportunities to reach workers and

families by providing:

greater convenience to learners;

new ways for teachers to serve larger numbers

of learners;

a broader range of courses and learning modules;

expanded access to information, expertise, and

le arning resources;

more resources for informal, interactive learning; and

informational resources to meet social, health,

and housing needs.

The scenarios assume the availability of some

mix of coaxial cable, Integrated Service Digital

Network (ISDN), fiber, and satellite transmissions to homes, businesses, schools, and community centers. High-speed, two-way communications for text, graphics, video, and voice in the

home could provide the most complete range of

instructional options and accommodate a wide

range of learning styles, but will require greater

broadband capacity than available in most homes

today. Fiber optic cable, with its bandwidth

capacity far in excess of copper wire or cable, has

always been considered the key to more rapid

two-way transmission of voice, data, and video.6

While the expansion of high-bandwidth fiber

optic cable has been dramatic, the majority of the

new fiber deployment has been for long-distance

carriers.

It has been thought until recently that a full

range of interactive multimedia networking capabilities would not be available until fiber optic

cable could be brought the ‘‘last mile” from the

local provider (cable or telephone company) to

the home, a task anticipated to cost from $200 to

$400 billion and possibly taking as long as 20

years.

7 However, recent research breakthroughs

by both cable and telephone companies have

created alternative solutions to carry information

beyond the bottlenecks of existing systems. With

cable, the breakthrough came with appreciation

that, for short distances, coaxial cable has almost

as much bandwidth as fiber. Using a combination

of fiber for the main lines, and no more than

one-quarter mile of coaxial wire for the delivery

to the home, two-way interactivity over existing

cable systems may indeed be practical and

affordable. Similarly, research conducted by the

telephone companies, using Asymmetric Digital

Subscriber Line (ADSL) technology, stretches

copper wire to its outer limit, also extending the

capabilities of existing networks.

Also important to the fulfillment of this vision

of a networked information system are continuing

advances in switching or routing. It is switching

that “makes the connection” between the user

and the information service, data, or product.8

Efficient high-speed switching is required to

move digitized information (a phone call, movie,

newscast, teleconference, book, catalog order,

financial transaction, video game, software program, medical report, travel order, or any other

information product or service) from any one of

millions of points on a network to another.

Continuing research is necessary to enhance

and expand these and other promising telecom5 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 availability of these technologies will be determined by

the high capital outlays required to upgrade and

expand the overall national communications infrastructure. 9

Software Advances

No matter how fast, how small, how interconnected the technology, without high-quality courseware-computer software, video, and printed

materials-technology will not be used effectively for learning. The scenarios suggest courseware applications that personalize content, heighten

the appeal of learning, and help learners monitor

their own progress to increase the rate and quality

of learning.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some learners will approach new technologies timidly (see

chapter 3). As computer-based technologies become more ‘‘user-friendly, ” like televisions,

radios, and telephones, they will be less intimidating. The easier the technologies are to use, the

more likely it is that adult learners will accept

them. The design of software and personcomputer interfaces plays an important role in

making computers user-friendly. Such features as

consistency across applications, the use of ‘windows’ to display more than one piece of information at a time, and icons (e.g., a picture of a trash

can to represent the concept of deleting material

the user has been working on but does not want to

save; a picture of a magnifying glass to represent

the concept “find out more about”) have already

made technology easier to use. High-resolution

graphics, sound, and video also make information

more engaging and understandable. Multiple

ways of interacting with the computer (e.g.,

Residents in Cerritos, California, can pay bills, get

stock quotes, make airline reservations, take SAT

preparation courses, or find out about municipal

services on Main Street, an interactive information

video service that uses a combination of the telephone

network and a local cable channel’.

handwriting and voice input, in addition to

today’s touch screens, keyboards, and mouse)

will improve user-friendliness. Collaborative work

spaces are being designed to make it easier for

groups of people to create a document, implement

a project, or solve a problem in shared computer

spaces. 10 Programming and editing tools are

making it easier and less expensive for adult

educators and learners to create or customize their

own multimedia courseware, enhancing the connection between meaningful context and learning.11

Finally, new knowledge about cognitive processes in general, and adult learning in particular,

can lead to better educational applications. As

instructional 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 Networked

Communal 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.
238 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

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 and

applications that require higher order thinking

skills will become more fully integrated into

functional contexts. Flexible applications and

learner-designed materials can empower adults

and reward them for independent study, while

better diagnostic tools, improved tutorials, and

automated “checkups” and recordkeeping can

help learners manage their own instruction and

know when to seek extra assistance.

The expansion of broadcast and cable television programmingg also provides greater resources

for adult literacy. Within the next 5 to 10 years,

compressed digital video technology will make it

possible to carry at least eight broadcast-quality

signals on a channel that today carries just one.

Given these improvements in technology, cable

channel capacity is expected to increase to at least

500 channels; PBS plans to increase its capacity

correspondingly. What will people watch on all

these channels? One possible future suggests

high-quality literacy programming targeted for

various groups of adults (e.g., senior citizens,

rural farmers, or parents of teenagers), similar to

the programming for young children now offered

many hours a day.

One area of special concern to the development

and use of literacy courseware is clarification of

copyright issues (see box 8-C).
Chapter 8-Looking Ahead to a Future With Technology! 239

Issues of Access and Equity

These technology advances can provide resources 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 to

them, the futures projected in the scenarios will

not occur. In fact, these learners and millions like

them may become further disadvantaged if they

do not have access to these resources.

People learn best when they have frequent and

regular opportunities to practice new knowledge.

12 As the scenarios illustrate, it is more

convenient and easier to practice when technology is available at home. Yet those who most

need literacy assistance are those with the most

limited incomes, and thus least likely to have

access to these empowering technologies.

To analyze the access barriers to future technology, it is useful to look at current patterns of

access to the backbones of future learnin g technologies: the personal computer, telephone, and

television. Access is affected by income, race, and

ethnicity. 13 Many more adults have access ‘

0

telephones in their homes than to home computers, but television is currently the most widely

distributed technology (see chapter 7, figure 7-l).

Despite high purchase prices, the widespread

availability of television and, more recently,

telephones provide models for greater computer

access. Unlike computers, televisions and telephones are sold in a variety of stores, in urban

areas and small rural towns. Televisions can be

rented, mail-ordered, or purchased new or used.

Future learning technologies could become as

available as today’s television and telephone if

Adults learn best when they can practice new skills

repeatedly. It is critical that those most in need of adult

literacy services have easy access to technologies for

learning,

they, too, were sold, rented, and leased to learners

at reasonable cost, on installment plans or through

other financing schemes, through workplaces,

community-based organizations, schools, and postsecondary institutions.

In the scenarios, the pocket translator is art

example of limited purpose, specialized equipment that could be developed at prices most

learners could afford or that businesses could

make available to their workers. Similarly, PLDs

could be priced at a cost affordable to most

workers and families, or provided by the

workplace and family literacy programs, According to current projections, equipment with capabilities similar to those described for the PLD will

cost about $500 in 1997, if purchased in bulk.14

Even at that cost, some learners like Tina may be

unable to afford these tools unless some subsidy

is 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 ofInstructionai

Design, 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 ‘‘Tklephone

SubscriberShip 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; and

Marsh and W.nstoq op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 63-77.
240 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

The rapid pace of development in computer, are not ignored, it is necessary to stimulate the

video, and telecommunications hardware and market to assure innovations focused specifically

software typically has been stimulated by profita- on improving learning.

ble markets in business, entertainment, or con- Although some computer companies that began

sumer products. Most hardware is created with with education as their primary activity are

these other markets in mind and later adapted for thriving, as are some educational software comeducational 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 marketbenefit 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 need

suggest 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 to

literacy products is large and growing, whether

diffused as individual learners or aggregated as

members of preexisting groups such as job

training or welfare programs.

Similarly, information and telecommunications applications are also driven by the needs of

their markets. Where the information is of value

to the society as a whole-e.g., access to timely

information regarding education, training, health,

government services-user payments alone may

not be enough to support information dissemination. Thus, some have suggested that “universal

service’ should include not just the technology of

communication 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:
242 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

For meeting the widely disparate information

needs of a large and heterogeneous population,

the switching capability of a network is its single

most important characteristic. . . . Once we are

switched and connected to an information source,

interactivity provides the means to further refine

our choice of information. . . . Universal access

implies overcoming not only the boundaries of

poverty but geographical boundaries as well. . . .

But offering services to rural users may be

worthwhile for society as a whole where alternatives involving travel, ignorance, and economic

underdevelopment are expensive.17

CONCLUSIONS

Technologies that expand literacy options in

the directions suggested in the scenarios will

require substantial investment by all segments of

society. Businesses will need to commit resources

for continuing education and training of personnel as jobs and skills change. Adult learners will

be required to contribute the money, time, and

effort necessary to learn. The technology industry

will have to create hardware, courseware, and

networks that serve a wide spectrum of learners.

The public sector will need to underwrite the early

development of technologies and materials, and

test their use in literacy applications.

Motivated adults with appropriate materials

learn faster, persevere longer, and retain more of

what they learn. Many who are reluctant to enter

formal programs could benefit from new models

of customized personal instruction, guided by

teachers and mentors but facilitated by portable

learning technologies. Technologies could imrove motivation by providing immediate feedback and more opportunities to practice learning

privately. Technology-based diagnostic aids and

instructional management systems could ensure

that learning tasks are well matched to learning

needs. Finally, adults could learn new skills not

even offered when they were in school.

However, access and use of new information

technologies are likely to be limited if current

trends continue. Although there will be notable

exceptions, the quality of most adult literacy

courseware is likely to improve slowly. Moreover, many useful learning technologies, such as

computers and online databases, are likely to

remain too expensive for economically disadvantaged families. This forecast could be altered

through Federal policies that encourage the development, access, and use of technologies to expand

the quantity and quality of adult literacy options.

17 ~& pp. 132, 138.
Appendix A:

List of Boxes,

Figures,

and Tables

Boxes

Chapter 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 2

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

2-B—Family Literacy Skills: Some Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2-C—The Future of Workplace Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 3

3-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 4

4-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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

8

12

15

18

34

40

55

66

67

68

70

72

74

77

90

96

102

104

108

118

124
244 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Chapter 5 Page

5-A—Highlights of the Federal Role in Adult Literacy: 1777 to 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

5-B—Key Legislation and Executive Actions: 1986 to 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

5-C—Major Provisions of the National Literacy Act of 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

5-D-Key Technology Provisions in Federal Literacy Laws and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Chapter 6

6-A—Extending Educational Opportunities Through Telecommunications: Kirkwood

Community College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

6-B-Coordinating Literacy Funding: NewYork State’s Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

6-C-Cambridge’s Community Learning Center: Piecing Together Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Chapter 7

7-A—Technologies for Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

7-B—Broadcast Programming:The GED on TV Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

7-C—Advantages of Technology for Adult Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

7-D-Advantages of Technology for Literacy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

7-E-Project SALSA: Sending Computers Home with Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

7-F-Closed Captioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

7-G-Basic Skills Instruction Embedded in Job Training Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

7-H—Multimedia, Hypermedia and Adult Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

7-I—Franklin Electronic Learninn g Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

7-J—Developing Innovative Software: The Example of Interactive Knowledge, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Chapter 8

8-A-Computers That Speak, Computers That Listen: Speech Production and Speech

Recognition Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

8-B—Understanding How Standards Are Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

8-C-Copyright Issues: How They Affect the Development and Use of Literacy Courseware . . . . . . . . . . 240

Figures

Chapter 1

1-l—A Literacy Time Line: Rising Societal Standards for “Functional Literacy” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

l-2—Adult Literacy Programs, Providers, and people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

l-3-Funding for Adult Education Compared With Other Federal Education Initiatives,

Fiscal Year 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

l-4-Funding for Select Federal Domestic Priorities, Fiscal Year 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 2

2-1—Highest Level of Education Attained by U.S. Adults Ages 25 and Over, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2-2—Dropout Rates for Persons Ages 16 to 24, 1972-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

2-3-Percentage of High School Dropouts Ages 16 to 19, by State, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2-4-Assessing Literacy Skills Used in Everyday Life: The Young Adult Literacy Assessment . . . . . . . . 48

2-5--Legal Immigration to the United States, 1820s to 1980s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

2-6-Ability to Speak English in Non-English Speaking Homes: 1990 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

2-7—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 4

4-l—A Comparison of Federal and State/Local Expenditures for Adult Education, Fiscal Years 1980-93. 99

4-2-Percent of Adult Literacy Programs Using Various Locations, 1980 and 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

4-3-Learning Environments Used in Adult Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Chapter 5

5-l—Programs, Agencies, and Funding Streams: The Massachusetts Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

5-2—Identifiable Federal Funding for Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Education, Fiscal Years 1988-92.. 140

5-3-Funding for Select Department of Education Programs, Fiscal Year 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

5-4-Funding for Select Federal Domestic Priorities, Fiscal Year 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Chapter 6

6-l—The Pattern of Attrition in Literacy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

6-2-Outreach and Technical Assistance Network (C)TAN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

6-3-State Certification Requirements for Adult Basic Education Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Chapter 7

7-l—Technologies in the Home, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

7-2—Households With Videocassette Recorders and Cable Subscriptions, by Income, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . 216

7-3-Adults With Home Computers, by Level of Schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

7-4-The Personal Computer Software Market, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Tables

Chapter 2

2-l—Workplace Skills and Competencies: Some Examples From Selected Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

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

Metropolitan Status, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

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

Non-English Language at Home, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Chapter 3

3-l—Factors Affecting an Individual’s Decision to Participate in Adult Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chapter 4

4-l—Fiscal Year 1990 Expenditures and Enrollments Under the Adult Education Act,

State-by-State Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

A-Z—Examples of private Sector Support for Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Chapter 5

5-l—Appropriations for Major Federal Adult Literacy and Basic Skills programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Chapter 6

6-l—Model Indicators of program Quality for Adult Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Chapter 7

7-l—Distribution of Available Literacy Software Products by Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

331-048 0 - 93 - 9 QL. 3
Appendix B:

Major Federal

Adult Literacy

and Basic Skills .

Programs

Fiscal year

1992 funding

(in millions

Federal agency Program Purpose of dollars)

Department of Adult Education Act

Education (AEA) Basic Grants

AEA State Literacy

Resource Centers

AEA Workplace

Literacy Partnerships

AEA English Literacy

Grants

AEA National

Programs

Literacy for State

and Local Prisoners

Commercial Drivers

Program

Adult Education for

the Homeless

Special Programs for

Indian Adults

1.0

Primary Federal program for adults with inadequate basic $235.8

skills. Formula grants to State education agencies (SEAs) for

adult basic education, secondary education, and English

literacy. State set-asides for incarcerated and institutionalized

adults, and teacher training and innovation.

Centers chosen by Governor perform coordinating, re- 5.0

search, training, and technical assistance functions.

Secretary makes competitive grants to partnerships of 19.3

education providers and private sector partners. Literacy

programs for workers with less than high school education.

(If appropriations exceed $50 million, program administered

by States.)

SEAS receive competitive grants for English literacy programs for limited English proficient (LEP) adults. Secretary

also may fund demonstrations of innovative approaches for

English literacy instruction.

Secretary carries out range of national research andevalua- 9.0

tions in adult literacy; provides technical assistance; supports demonstration projects; and with Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Labor

(DOL), funds National Institute for Literacy.

Grants to State or local correctional agencies. Literacy 5.0

training for inmates.

Competitive grants to business, labor, apprenticeship pro- 2.5

grams, and education agencies. Literacy programs help

commercial drivers pass mandated test

Discretionary grants to SEAs provide basic skills and literacy 9.8

training for the homeless.

Competitive grants to Indian tribes and organizations lm- 4.3

prove education below the college level for Indian adults.

246
Appendix B-Major Federal Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Programs | 247

Fiscal year

1992 funding

(in millions

Federal agency Program Purpose of dollars)

Even Start Family

Literacy

Bilingual Family

English Literacy

LSCA Title I Public

Library Services

Student Literacy

corps

Migrant Education

High School EquivaIency Program (HEP)

Department of Job Opportunities

Health and Human and Basic Skills

services (JOBS)

State legalization

Impact Assistance

Grants (SLIAG)

Refugee Resettlement Program

Head Start Family

Literacy Initiative

SEAS receive formula grants for family literacy projects run $70.0’

by Iocal education agencies, community-based organizations, and others. Participants are educationally disadvantaged parents and their children ages O to 7 who live in areas

eligible for Chapter 1 and Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA) grants. Parents taught literacy and

parenting skills; children receive education and school

readiness.

Competitive grants to educational institutions to help LEP

adults and out-of-school youth achieve competence in English,

support their children in school, and gain citizenship knowledge. Preference to families with children in Title Vll, ESEA.

Secretary makes discretionary grants to State and local

public 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 provide

adult literacy programs and to support model library literacy

centers.

Competitive grants to higher education institutions. Projects

encourage undergraduates to volunteer as literacy tutors for

adults and children.

Competitive grants help migrant farmworkers or their children 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 avoid

welfare dependence. State welfare agencies receive entitlements. Services must Include basic education, GED

education, English as a second language (ESL), and job

training. Participation mandated for some parents.

Reimburses States for costs of public assistance, public

health, and adult education for newly legalized aliens.

Services include basic education, GED education, English

literacy instruction, and citizenship instruction.

States receive formula grants for social services for eligible

refugees. Funds may be used for English language instruction.

Head Start provides education, social services, and school

readiness activities for low-income preschool children and

their families. As of 1992, HHS requires every Head Start

project to integrate family literacy activities Into regular

practices.

6.1

8.2

83.9’

5.4

8.3

1,000.Oa

($1,1°=.9’

deferred until

fiscal year 1993)

83.0’

(Minimum for

family literacy.

Total fiscal y1992 funding

for Head Start

was $2,202.0.)
248 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Fiscal year

1992 funding

(in millions

Federal agency Program Purpose of dollars)

Department of

Defense

Department of the

Interior

Department of

Justice

ACTION

Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Title

II-A Training for Disadvantaged Youth

and Adults

JTPA Tine II-B

Summer Youth

Employment and

Training

JTPA Title III

Dislocated Worker

Assistance

JTPA Title IV-B Job

Corps

National Workforce

Literacy Collaborative

Army Basic Skils

Education Programs

(BSEP) I and II

Navy Skills Enhancement Program

Bureau of Indian

Affairs Adult Education Program

Bureau of Prisons

Literacy Program

Volunteers in

Service to America

(VISTA) Literacy Cups

$1 ,773.5’

495.2a

577.0’

846.5a

o

izations develop literacy programs tailored to workforce (DOL requests $1.2

needs. DOL plans to expand to include broader technical for fiscal year 1993

assistance. for this and National

Literacy Act duties.)

BSEP I and BSEP II provide basic education to soldiers who

need 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-competency and perform jobs.

Bureau of Indian Affairs contracts with Indian tribes to

operate basic literacy and GED programs for Indian adults.

inmates in Federal prisons who perform below high school

diploma literacy level must participate in literacy program

until they meet GED levei, or for a minimum of 120 days. LEP

inmates must attend ESL program until they function at

8th-grade competency levei.

Volunteer tutors assigned to adult literacy projects in needy

communities. 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: Key

Coordination

Provisions in

Literacy Laws and

Regulations

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 education, immigration, rehabilitation, special education, Indian education, higher

education, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA).

State plan describes how delivery system will be expanded through

coordination and how volunteers will be used.

State considers degree of coordination in selecting local providers.

Local coordination with Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), vocational

education, and other programs cited in law.

Local cooperative arrangements with business, industry, volunteer groups,

and others.

Limited English proficient (LEP) programs coordinate with Federal bilingual

education and vocational education programs.

Public housing Gateway grantees consult with other adult education service

providers.

Set-aside of 10 percent for incarcerated should be coordinated with services

for ex-offenders and may support cooperative projects with education

agencies, community-based organizations (CBOs), and businesses.

Set-aside of 15 percent for teacher training and innovation maybe used for

promising coordination programs.

State advisory council includes broad representation and advises on

coordination.

Centers develop innovative approaches to Federal-State, interstate, and

intrastate coordination; assist public and private agencies in coordinating

service delivery; and encourage government and industry partnerships.

Department of Education (ED) consults with Department of Labor (DOL) and

the Small Business Administration in making grants.

Programs run by partnerships of public/private sector groups.

Programs that collaborate with other providers receive priority for national

strategies grants.

AEA State Resource Centers

Workplace Literacy

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

E

o

0

E

R

R

E

249
250 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

R = required; E = encouraged; O = optional

English Literacy

Commercial Drivers

National Institute for Literacy

McKinney Homeless Literacy

Even Start Family Literacy

Bilingual Family Literacy

Library Services and Construction

Act (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 Human

Services (HHS).

Institute helps government agencies develop model coordinating systems

and advises on uniform requirements.

Institute research coordinated with other relevant Federal research

activities.

State programs coordinate with existing resources.

Secretary considers cooperative arrangements in selecting grantees.

Local programs coordinate with AEA, JTPA, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of

Elementary 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 education

agencies (LEAs).

Model library literacy centers coordinate with other State agencies and

nonprofit 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 and

CBOs.

State plans describe how projects will be coordinated with education and

library services.

Projects coordinate with volunteer literacy.

institutes of higher education collaborate with community agencies to run

projects.

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 coordinate

with other key programs.

Governor reserves 8 percent to support coordination between education

agencies and JTPA entities.

Governor develops coordination plan.

Mandated State Job Training Coordinating Committee (SJTCC) reviews

plans 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 educational

agencies 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

R = required; E = encouraged; O = optional

JTPA Title Ill

Job COrpS

Job Opportunities and

Basic Skills (JOBS)

JTPA Title II-B Same as JTPA II-A above.

Local program goals may include demonstrated coordination with other

community organizations.

States inordinate with other State programs, consult with labor organizations, 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), State

employment service, and State agencies for JTPA, vocational and adult

education, 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 of

volunteers 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 in

which information is transmitted by modulating a

continuous signal, such as a radio wave. Voice and

video messages originate in analog form since

sound and light are wave-like functions; thus, they

must be converted into digital messages in order to

communicate along digital communications formats or media,

Animation: Animation is apparent movement produced by recording step-by-step a series of still

drawings, three-dimensional objects, or computergenerated graphics. Movement over time is shown

by replacing each image (frame) by the next one in

the series at a uniform speed-frames per second

(fps). The human eye perceives fluid movement at

30 fps-the approximate rate of film, television,

and VCR-quality video.

Application tools: Computer software that enables the

user to manipulate information to create documents

or reports.

Artificial intelligence: The use of computer processing to simulate intelligent behavior. Current research includes natural language recognition and

use, problem solving, selection from alternatives,

pattern recognition, generalization based on experience, and analysis of novel situations.

Asynchronous communication: Two-way communication in which there is a time delay between

when a message is sent and when it is received.

Examples include electronic-mail and voice-mail

systems. In contrast, synchronous communication

is simultaneous two-way exchange of informatione.g., a telephone conversation.

Audioconferencing: An electronic meeting in which

participants in different locations use telephones

and audio bridges (devices that connect and control

multiple telephone lines) to communicate simultaneously with each other.

Audiotext: An automated telephone information service with branching capability accessed through a

touch-tone telephone. Audiotext services are often

used by businesses or public agencies to provide

commonly requested information, such as instructions for obtaining a drivers license.

Authoring: The process of building or modifying

computer software using a computer program

designed for that purpose. Generally, authoring

software applications require less technical expertise compared to use of programming languages.

Bit (Binary digiT): The smallest unit of information

a computer can use. A bit is represented as a “O”

or a “1“ (also “on” or “off”). A group of 8 bits

is called a byte. Bits are used to measure the speed

of digital transmission systems. Speeds are commonly expressed in kilobits (Kbps), i.e., thousand

per second; megabits (Mbps), i.e., million per

second; and gigabits (Gbps), i.e., billion per second.

Bulletin board service (BBS): A computer service

that is modeled after a community bulletin board.

Using a computer, modem, and phone line, individuals connect to a central “host” computer to post

or read messages or to upload and download

software. Communication is usually asynchronous.

CD-ROM (compact disc-read only memory): An

optical storage system for computers that permits

data to be randomly accessed from a disc. With read

252
only discs, new data cannot be stored nor can the

disc be erased for reuse. Other optical storage

systems allow users to record or write and rewrite

information.

Coaxial cable: Shielded wire cable that connects

communications components. Coaxial cable is

commonly used in cable television systems because

of its ability to carry multiple video (or other

broadband) signals.

Codec: An electronic device that converts analog

video 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 requires less space to store or transmit. When speech

is compressed, for example, pauses are eliminated.

Compression is generally expressed as a ratio. For

example, an 8-to-1 ratio means that the information

requires one-eighth of its original space. In compressed video, digital technology is used to encode

and compress the signal. Picture quality is generally

not as good as full motion; quick movements often

appear 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 be

digitized, altered, created, stored, and produced

with a computer. Application tools allow users to

draw or “paint” original images with a mouse or

graphics tablet.

Consumer electronics: A class of electronic products

that are typically designed, marketed, and sold to

the consumer mass market. Televisions, videocassette recorders, video game systems, walk-about

radios, pocket calculators, and portable compact

disc players are examples.

Courseware: A package used for teaching and learning, which includes computer or video software and

related print materials such as a teacher’s guide and

student activity books.

Digital communications: A communications format

used with both electronic and light-based systems

that transmits audio, video, and data as bits of

information.

Digital video: A format used to store, manipulate, and

transmit 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. Digital

video can be compressed for more efficient storage

and transmission.

Digitize: To change analog information to a digital

format. Once information has been converted to this

form, it can be conveniently stored, manipulated,

and compressed. It can also be transmitted over a

distance with little or no loss in quality. Sound (such

as speech or music), stills (such as transparencies),

and motion video are commonly converted into

digitized form.

Downlink: An antenna shaped like a dish that receives

signals from a satellite. Often referred to as a

satellite dish, terminal, Earth station, or TVRO

(television receive only).

Electronic mail (e-mail): A computer application for

exchanging information over a distance. Communication is asynchronous. E-mail typically consists of

text, but multimedia formats are under development.

Facsimile machine (fax): A device that converts

hard-copy images and text into an electronic form

for transmission over telephone lines to similar

devices at another location.

Fiber optic cable: Hair thin, flexible glass rods that

use light signals to transmit information in either

analog or digital formats. Fiber optic cable has

much higher capacity than copper or coaxial cable,

and is not as subject to interference or noise. Fiber

optic cable has the bandwidth to accommodate

high-speed, multimedia networking.

Flat-panel display: A video or computer screen that

is relatively thin, lightweight, and typically used in

portable computers.

Gbps: See bit.

Groupware: A computer software program that allows the same information to be shared among

several computer users simultaneously. With some

applications, users can see each other and from their

own computers, add to or edit text and graphics in

a single document.

Icon: A symbol displayed on the computer screen that

represents a command or program (e.g., a trash can

symbolizing the command to delete a document).

Icons help make computer operating systems and

applications easier to use.

Interface: A general term used in the computer world

to designate the hardware and associated software
254 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

needed to enable one device to communicate with

another or to enable a person to communicate with

computers and related devices. A user interface can

be a keyboard, a mouse, commands, icons, or

menus that facilitate communication between the

user and computer.

ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network): A

protocol for high-speed digital transmission. ISDN

provides simultaneous voice and high-speed data

transmission along a single conduit to users’

premises. Two ISDN protocols have been standardized: narrowband ISDN-two 64 Kbps channels

carry voice or data messages and one 16 Kbps data

channel is used for signaling; and broadband

ISDN—twenty-three 64 Kbps channels carry voice

or data messages and one 64 Kbps channel is used

for signaling.

Kbps: See bit.

Laserdisc: See videodisc.

LEOS (low-Earth orbiting satellites): Small satellites with a lower orbit (hundreds of miles) than

geosynchronous satellites (22,300 miles). In the

future, LEOS could be used to provide data and

voice communications to portable computers, telephones, and other devices without the use of wires.

Local area networks (LANs): Data communication

networks that are relatively limited in their reach.

They generally cover the premises of a building or

a school. Like all networking technologies, LANs

facilitate communication and sharing of information and computer resources by the members of a

group.

Mbps: See bit.

Microwave: High-frequency radio waves used for

point-to-point and omnidirectional communication

of data, video, and voice.

Modem: A device that allows two computers to

communicate over telephone lines. It converts

digital computer signals into analog format for

transmission. A similar device at the other end

converts the analog signal back into a digital format

that the computer can understand. The name is an

abbreviated form of “modulator-demodulator.”

Mouse: A pointing device that connects to a computer.

With a mouse, users can control pointer movements

on a computer screen by rolling the mouse over a

flat surface and clicking a button on the device. The

mouse 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 a

laser to ‘write’ information on the surface. Erasable or rewritable optical storage enables written

information to be erased and new information

written.

Pen: See stylus.

PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network): The

public telephone network that allows point-to-point

connections anywhere in the system.

RAM (random access memory): Computer memory

where any location can be read from, or written to,

in a random access fashion. Information in RAM is

destroyed when the computer is turned off.

ROM (read only memory): Once information has

been entered into this memory, it can be read as

often 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 document

such as a photograph. Scanned pictures, graphs,

maps, and other graphical data are often used in

desktop publishing.

Simulation: Software that enables the user to experience a realistic reproduction of an actual situation.

Computer-based simulations often involve situations that are very costly or high risk (e.g., flight

simulation training for pilots).

Smart Card: A small plastic card containing information that can be read by a computer reader. For

example, a smart card can be used to keep track of

Food Stamp eligibility and qualify the holder for

other social services that use the same criteria.

Software: Programming that controls computer, video,

or electronic hardware. Software takes many forms

including application tools, operating systems,

instructional drills, and games.

Storyboard: A board or panel containing small

drawings or pictures that show the sequence of

action for a script of a video or computer software.

Stylus: A tool similar to a pen with no ink used for

marking or drawing on a touch-sensitive surface. In

pen-based computing, a stylus, rather than a keyboard, is used as the primary input device.

Synchronous communication: See asynchronous

communication.
Appendix D–Glossary | 255

Tablet or graphics tablet: A computer input device

resembling a normal pad of paper on which images

are drawn with a pointing instrument such as a

stylus. The tablet converts hand-drawn images into

digital information that can be processed and

displayed on a computer monitor.

Teleconferencing: A general term for any conferencing system using telecommunications links to

connect remote sites. There are many types of

teleconferencing including: videoconferencing, computer conferencing, and audioconferencing.

Touch window: A computer screen that allows data to

be entered by using a specialized stylus to write on

the screen, or by making direct physical contact

between the finger and the screen.

Uplink: A satellite dish that transmits signals up to a

satellite,

Videoconference: A form of teleconferencing where

participants see, as well as hear, other participants

in remote locations. Video cameras, monitors,

codecs, and networks allow synchronous communication between sites.

Videodisc: An optical disc that contains recorded still

images, motion video, and sounds that can be

played back through a television monitor. Videodiscs can be used alone or as a part of a computerbased application.

Voice mail: An electronic system for transmitting and

storing voice messages, which can be accessed later

by the person to whom they are addressed. Voice

mail operates like an electronic-mail system.

Voice recognition: Computer hardware and software

systems that recognize spoken words and convert

them to digital signals that can be used for input.

Wide area networks (WANs): Data communication

networks that provide long-haul connectivity among

separate networks located in different geographic

areas. WANs make use of a variety of transmission

media, which can be provided on a leased or dial-up

basis.

Window: A part of the computer screen that is given

over to a different display from the rest of the screen

(e.g., a text window in a graphics screen). It can also

be a portion of a file or image currently on the

screen, when multiple windows are displayed

simultaneously.

Wireless: Voice, data, or video communications

without the use of connecting wires. In wireless

communications, radio signals make use of microwave towers or satellites. Cellular telephones and

pagers are examples of wireless communications.

Workstation: A computer that is intended for individual use, but is generally more powerful than a

personal computer. A workstation may also act as

a terminal for a central mainframe.
Appendix E:

List of

Acronyms

ABE

ACCESS

ADSL

AFDC

APL

ARC

ASE

BCLC

BIA

BOCES

BRI

BSEP

CASAS

CBE

CBO

CD

CD-I

CD-ROM

CLC

CPB

CPCC

DOD

DOL

ED

Es

adult basic education

Adult Centers for Comprehensive

Education and Support Services

Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line

Adult Education Act

Aid for Families with Dependent Children

Adult Performance Level

Appalachian Regional Commission

adult secondary education

Baltimore City Literacy Corp.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Board of Cooperative Education Services

Baltimore Reads, Inc.

Basic Skills Education Programs

Comprehensive Adult Student

Assessment System

computer-based education

community-based organization

compact disc

compact disc-interactive

compact disc-read only memory

Correctional Education Division

Community Learnin“ g Center

Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Central Piedmont Community College

Department of Defense

Department of Labor

Department of Education

Employment System

ESEA

ESL

GED

HHS

ILS

JOBS

JTPA

KET

LEA

LLA

LSCA

LVA

NAEP

NCAL

NCI

NSF

OEO

OTAN

PACE

256

Elementary and Secondary Education Act

English as a second language

general equivalency diploma

Department of Health and Human

Services

integrated learning system

Job Opportunities and Basic Skills

Job Training Partnership Act

Kentucky Educational Television

local education agency

limited English proficient

Laubach Literacy Action

Library Services and Construction Act

Literacy Volunteers of America

National Assessment of Educational

Progress

National Center for Adult Literacy

National Captioning Institute

National Institute for Literacy

National Literacy Act

National Science Foundation

Office of Economic Opportunity

Outreach and Technical Assistance Network

Parent and Childhood Education
PBS

PIC

PLUS

R&D

SBIR

SCANS

SDA

SEA

SEP

SJTCC

Public Broadcasting Service

private industry council

Project Literacy US

research and development

Arlington Education and Employment

program

Small Business Innovation Research

Secretary’s Commission on Achieving

Necessary Skills

service delivery area

State education agency

Skills Enhancement program

State Job Training Coordinating

committee

SLIAG

TABE

TOEFL

UI

UTC

VISTA

VIT

WIC

Appendix E–List of Acronyms | 257

State Legalization Impact Assistance

Grants

Test of Adult Basic Education

Test of English for Foreign Learners

Unemployment Insurance

United Technologies Center

Volunteers in Service to America

Vermont Interactive Television

Women, Infants, and Children
Appendix F:

Workshop

Participants,

and Reviewers

and Contributors

Workshop on Emerging Communication and Information Technologies: Implications for

Literacy 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 Carlston

Broderbund Software

Stephen Reder

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

Susan Goldman Antonia Stone

Vanderbilt University Playing to Win

Charles House Richard Venezky

Informix Software, Inc. University of Delaware

Alan Kay

Apple Computer, Inc.

Bud Wonsiewicz

US WEST Communications

Ray Kurzweil

Kurzweil Applied Intelligence

258
Appendix F—Workshop Participants, and Reviewers and Contributors 259

OTA/Annenberg Workshop New Visions for Video: Use of Cable, Satellite, Broadcast, and

Interactive Systems for Literacy and Learning, January 27, 1992

Milda K. Hedblom, Chairperson

Augsburg College

Walter Baer

Rand Corp.

Patricia Cabrera

Educational Telecommunications Network

R.L, Capell III

Bell South

J. Ronald Castell

Blockbuster Entertainment Corp.

Nathan I. Felde

NYNEX Science and Technology Center

David Forman

National Education Training Group

Rich Gross

Kirkwood Community College

Reviewers and Contributors

Emily Vargas Adams

Ceden Family Resource Center

Judith A. Alamprese

COSMOS Corp.

Eunice Askov

Institute for the Study of Adult Literacy

Elsa Auerbach

University of Massachusetts

John Avolio

Redford Union School

Lynn Barnett

American Association of Community and Junior

Colleges

Henry Ingle

Claremont Graduate School

Newton N. Minow

The Annenberg Washington Program

Barbara Popovic

Chicago Access Corp.

Marian L. Schwarz

Consultant

Don Sutton

Jones Intercable, Inc.

Sandra Welch

Public Broadcasting Service

William Wilson

The Kentucky Network

Kristina Hooper Woolsey

Apple Computer, Inc.

Hal Beder

Rutgers University

Brenda Bell

National Alliance of Business

Robert Bickerton

Massachusetts Department of Education

Karen Billings

CLARIS

Jan Biros

Drexel University

Brian Black

Black Light Design
260 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Janet Bolen

Education is Essential Foundation, Inc.

Bob Bozarjian

Massachusetts Department of Education

Gary Brady

Dutchess County BOCES, NY

Morgan Bramlet

National Captioning Institute

Frances Buchanan

Watts Adult Learning Center

David Buzard

Outreach and Technical Assistance Network

Marge Cappo

WINGS for Learning/Sunburst

Chip Carlin

Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc.

Nguyen Minh Chau

Opportunity Systems, Inc.

Forrest Chisman

Southport Institute for Policy Analysis

Daryl Chubin

Office of Technology Assessment

Robert Clausen

Clausen Associates

Donna Cooper

Mayor’s Commision on Literacy, Philadelphia

John Cradler

Far West Laboratories

Jodi Crandall

Center for Applied Linguistics

Barbara Crosby

Texas State Library

Jinx Crouch

Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc.

Evelyn Curtis

Texas Education Agency

Jan Davidson

Davidson and Associates

Catherine Carroll Day

Massachusetts Department of Employment

and Training

Chris Dede

George Mason University

Paul Delker

Consultant

Bryna Diamond

New York Public Library

Centers for Reading and Writing

Mark Dillon

GTE Imagitrek

Margaret Douherty

Houston Read Commission

Roger Dovner

Literacy Assistance Center

Richard Erdmann

Wasatch Education Systems

Gerard Fiala

U.S. Department of Labor

Hanna Arlene Fingeret

Literacy South

John Fleischman

Outreach and Technical Assistance Network

Ronald Fortune

Computer curriculum Corp.
Rob Foshay

TRO barring, Inc.

Appendix F—Workshop Participants, and Reviewers

Harold L. Hodgkinson

Michael Fox

Consultant

Jim Frasier

Motorola, Inc.

Maggi Gaines

Baltimore City Literacy Corp.

Linda Garcia

Office of Technology Assessment

Carol Goertzel

Lutheran Settlement House Women’s Program

Marshall Goldberg

The Alliance

Sheryl Gowen

Georgia State University

Bill Grimes

San Diego Community College

Michael Grubbs

Tandy Corp.

Bob Guy

Jostens Learning Corp.

Pat Hartgrove

Texas Literacy Council

Ted Hasselbring

Vanderbilt University

Jan Hawkins

Bank Street College of Education

Jeanne Hayes

Quality Education Data, Inc.

Mike Hillinger

Lexicon Systems

and Contributors | 261

Center for Demographic Policy

Yvonne Howard

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Kathy Hurley

IBM Corp.

Paul Irwin

Congressional Research Service

Linda Jacobus

Lexington Technology Center

Paul Jurmo

Consultant

S. James Katz

Bellcore

Peter Kelman

Scholastic, Inc.

Brenda Kempster

Knowledge Network

Pacific Bell

Becky King

National Center for Family Literacy

C. Eric Kirkland

National Captioning Institute, Inc.

Peter Kleinbard

Young Adult Learning Academy

Judy KoIoski

National Adult Education

Professional Development Consortium

Andrew Kolstad

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Robert A. Kominski

Bureau of the Census

U.S. Department of Commerce
262 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Mark Kutner

Pelavin Associates, Inc.

Jane Nissen Laidley

People’s Computer Co.

Donna Lane

Oregon Office of Community College Services

Mary Leonard

Council on Foundations

Judith Loucks

Jostens Learning

Mary Lovell

U.S. Department of Education

Jeanne Lowe

GED Testing Service

John Lowery

Discis Knowledge Research, Inc.

Lucy Trible MacDonald

Chemeketa Community College

Shirley Malcom

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Ray Manak

Center for Training and Economic Development

Inaam Mansoor

Arlington (VA) Education and Employment Program

Laura Martin

Children’s Television Workshop

Bodie Marx

Scott, Foresman and Co.

Sylvia McCollen

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Garry McDaniels

Skills Bank Corp.

Harry R. Miller

U.S. Distance Learning Association

Ken Miller

IBM Corp.

Preston Miller

Literacy Volunteers of Franklin County, NY

Karen Mills

Rio Salado Community College

Mark Morgan

Development Associates, Inc.

Garrett Murphy

New York State Office of Adult Education

Monroe C. Neff

Houston Community College System

Sara Newcomb

U.S. Department of Education

David Newman

The Roach Organization

James Olsen

WICAT Systems

Edward Pauly

Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.

Karen Pearl

New York City Literacy Assistance Center, Inc.

Pamela Pease

Jones Intercable, Inc.

Pedro Pedraza

Hunter College

Aqueda Pena

Creative Academic Achievement Pro-Success

Learning Center

Robert Pepper

Federal Communications commission
Appendix F–Workshop Participants, and Reviewers and Contributors | 263

Ruth Shaw

Central Piedmont Community College

Dennis Poe

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Paul Siegel

Bureau of the Census

U.S. Department of Commerce

Curtis Priest

Center for Information Technology and Society

Ronald S. Pugsley

U.S. Department of Education Robert Silvanic

National Governors’ Association

Diane Rapley

Broderbund Software Arthur Sisk

Franklin Electronic Publications

Mina Reddy

Cambridge Community Learning Center Ellen Skinner

Texas Department of Human Services

Craig Riecke

Literacy Volunteers of America Margaret Smith

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Andrew Rock

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Tim Songer

Interactive Knowledge, Inc.

Pavlos Roussos

Texas Education Agency Gail Spangenberg

Business Council for Effective Literacy

C. Dorsey Ruley

Illinois Bell Richard K. Sparks

Idaho State University

Tony Sarmiento

AFL/CIO Brian Stecher

Rand Corp.

Rose Saylin

Huntington Beach Library Sondra Stein

Consultant

Ernestine Schnulle

Correctional Educational Division

Los Angeles County Jail System

Thomas G. Sticht

Applied Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Inc.

Betty Stone

Somerville Center for Adult Learning Experiences

Gail Schwartz

U.S. Department of Education

Nancy Stover

The Discovery Channel

Sylvia Scribner

City University of New York

Beverly Student

LIST Services, Inc.

Joan Seamon

U.S. Department of Education

Andrew Sum

Northeastern University

John Sener

U.S. BASICS
264 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Charles Talbert

Adult and Community Education Branch

Maryland Department of Education

Sue Talley

Foundation for Educational Software

James Tollefson

University of Washington

Gaye Tolman

Literacy Volunteers of Maricopa County, AZ

Jay Tucker

United Auto Workers/Ford Program

Terilyn C. Turner

St. Paul Lifelong Literacy Center

Daniel Wagner

National Center for Adult Literacy

Peter Waite

Laubach Literacy Action

Dave Weaver

LIST Services, Inc.

William Weder

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Michael Weiner

Selectronics Corp.

Joan Winston

Office of Technology Assessment

Barbara Wright

Oregon/Washington Adult Basic Skills Technology

Consortium

David Wye

Office of Technology Assessment

Malcom Young

Development Associates, Inc.

Chris Zachariadis

Association for Community Board Education

Sharlene Walker

Oregon Office of Community Colleges
Appendix G:

Contributing

Sites

Throughout the course of this assessment, OTA received invaluable information and assistance from many

literacy programs located across the United States. The following is a listing of the sites that participated in OTA’s

case studies and the survey of software, as well as programs that were visited by OTA staff.

ACCESS Center

Duchess County Board of Cooperative Services

Poughkeepsie, NY

Adult Learning Center

White Plains, NY

Adult Success Center

Idaho State University

Pocatello, ID

Allenwood Federal Prison Camp

Montgomery, PA

Baltimore Reads, Inc.

Baltimore, MD

Ripken Learning Center

Words for Life

Center for Training and Economic Development

Cuyahoga Community College

Cleveland, OH

Metro Campus Adult Learnin g Center, Cleveland, OH

Euclid Adult Learning Center, Cleveland, OH

Multi-Media Community Literacy Program,

Garfield Heights, OH

Job Readiness Program, Cleveland, OH

Chinese-American Civic Association

Boston, MA

Columbia Basin College

Learning Opportunity Center

Pasco, WA

Community Learning Center

Cambridge, MA

Baltimore Urban League Job Training Center Continuing Education Learning Center

Baltimore, MD Jackson, MS

Bronx Educational Services Correctional Educational Division

Bronx, NY Los Angeles County Jail System

Hacienda La Puente Unified School District

Center for Reading and Writing Los Angeles, CA

Mott Haven Public Library

Bronx, NY

265
266 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Creative Academic Achievement Pro-Success

(CAAP) Learnin“ g Center

McAllen, TX

Eastern Idaho Technical College

Idaho Falls, ID

Eastern Michigan University Academy

United Auto Workers/Ford Motor Co.

Ypsilanti, MI

El Barrio Popular Education Program

Harlem, NY

El Centro del Cardenal

Boston, MA

Estill County Parent and Child Education Program

Ravenna Elementary School

Ravenna, KY

Eva Bowlby Library

Workplace and Adult Literacy Projects

Waynesburg, PA

Garrett Heyns Education Center

Shelton, WA

Greater Columbus Learning Center

Columbus, MS

Hattiesburg Education Literacy Project

Hattiesburg, MS

Institute for Communication Disorders

International Center for the Disabled

New York, NY

Job Skills Enhancement Program

Meridian Community College

Meridian, MS

Lane Community College Adult Basic

and Secondary Education

Eugene, OR

Laramie County Community College

Laramie, WY

Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary

Lewisburg, PA

Lexington Technology Center

Lexington, SC

Literacy Action Center

Seattle, WA

Literacy Assistance Center

New York, NY

Longfellow Adult Learning Center

Owensboro, KY

Lutheran Settlement House

Women’s Project

Philadelphia, PA

Metropolitan Education Program

San Jose, CA

Mid-Manhattan Learning Center

Harlem, NY

Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College

Perkinston, MS

Mississippi Mobile Learning Lab

Northeast Region

Bonneville, MS

Mobile Automated Learnin g Laboratory

Mississippi Delta Community College

Delta Region, Moorhead, MS

National Education, Development and Training Center

United Auto Workers/Ford Motor Co.

Dearborn, MI

Walton Hills Stamping Plant, Walton Hills, OH

Wixom Assembly Plant, Wixom, MI

New York City Public Schools

Office of Adult and Continuing Educati on

Queens Adult Learning “ Center, Queens, NY

Brooklyn Adult Learning Center, Brooklyn, NY
Appendix G-Contributing Sites | 267

Northwest Tri-County Intermediate Unit Center

Erie, PA

Odessa Community College

Adult Education Co-op

Odessa, TX

Playing to Win

Harlem, NY

REEP program

Arlington, VA

Rouge Academy

Ford Motor Co. Dearborn Engine Plant

Dearborn, MI

St. Bernadine’s Head Start Center

Baltimore, MD

South Dade Skills Center

Leisure City, FL

STAR Adult Education Center

(Formerly Literacy Volunteers of America of Biloxi)

Biloxi, MS

Sunflower County Library Adult harriers program

Sunflower, MS

Henry M. Seymour Library, Indianola, MS

East Sunflower Elementary School, Sunflower, MS

Ruleville Library, Ruleville, MS

Support for Training and Educational Services, Inc.

New York, NY

Technology for Literacy Center

St. Paul, MN

Tillamook Bay Community College

Tillamook, OR

United South End Settlement

Boston, MA

Ventura Adult/Continuing Education

Ventura, CA

Watsonville/Aptos Adult School

Watsonville, CA

Watts Adult Learning Center

Los Angeles, CA

York College Community Learning Center

City University of New York

Queens, NY

York College Learnin g Center

Literacy Initiative

Jamaica, NY

Young Adult Learnin g Academy

New York, NY
Appendix H:

Contractor

Reports

Prepared for

This Assessment

Copies of contractor reports done for this study are available through the National Technical Information

Service (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 Adults

With Low Literacy Skills,” PB 93-163871.

Education TURNKEY Systems, Inc. and Wujcik and Associates, “The Educational Software Marketplace and

Adult Literacy Niches,” PB 93-163897.

J.D. Eveland et al., Claremont Graduate School, “Case Studies of Technology Use in Adult Literacy

Programs, “ 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 for

Technology in Adult Literacy Education,” PB 93-163889.

Jay P. Sivin-Kachala and Ellen R. Bialo, Interactive Educational Systems Design (IESD), Inc., “Software for

Adult Literacy: Scope, Suitability, Available Sources of Information, and Implications for Federal Policy,’ PB

93-163913.

268
Index

ABE. See Adult basic education

ACCESS. See Adult Centers for Comprehensive

Education and Support Services

Access to services, 239-242. See also Location of

services

Access to technologies, 17,190-200,213-216,239-242

computer hardware, 190-192

video, 192-194

Accountability requirements, 148-149

Adult basic education, 110, 112

Adult Centers for Comprehensive Education and

Support Services, 184

Adult Education Act, 18,95,98, 101, 103, 127, 130,

131, 175

amendments, 57, 134

State grants under Section 353,21

Adult learners. See Learners

Adult Performance Level Project, 6,32,34

Adult secondary education, 110, 112

Adults without a high school diploma, 50. See also

Educational attainment; GED

Advanced Research Projects Agency, 21

Advantages of technology, 8, 12, 14-16, 84-89,204

AEA. See Adult Education Act

Annenberg/Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 209

APL. See Adult Performance Level Project

Arlington Education and Employment Program, 210

ASE. See Adult secondary education

At-risk youth, 58-60,226-228

Attrition issues, 107-109, 164-168

Audio recorders, 191,209-210

Baltimore Reads, Inc., 96-97. See also Ripken Center

Barriers to participation, 7-8,82-84, 162-168

administrative, 17

fear of job loss, 80-81

legislative, 17

psychological, 62,79-80,83-84

situational, 62, 83, 166

Barriers to use of technology, 15-16

cost, 213-216, 239-242

information, 219

institutional, 219-221

market issues, 216-219

Basic skills, 32-33,45,206

Federal appropriations, 139

job training materials, 212

Books

on CD-ROM, 214

on tape, 191, 210

Broadcast. See Telecommunications; Video

technologies

Businesses. See also Workplace literacy

Dalton, Georgia, 118-119

Ford Skills Enhancement Program, 102

General Electric, 212

Motorola, 207

partnerships, 224-225

Cable television. See Telecommunications; Video

technologies

California

correctional facilities, 124-125

Outreach and Technical Assistance Network, 170,

208

Cambridge Community Learning Center, 186

Capacity-building, 157-158

Federal funding, 143

269
270 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

CASAS. See Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System

Categorical grant programs, 12

CBO. See Community-based organizations

CD-ROM, 190, 192,214

Certification of teachers, 171, 174-175

technological applications, 22-23

Chapter 1, 13, 16, 19, 158, 198

Chemeketa Community College, 210,213

Children’s Television Workshop, 209

Closed captioning, 14, 191,209-210,211

legislation, 211

Coalitions. See also Partnerships; Service coordination

State-level, 96-98

Colleges and universities

access to technologies, 197-198

graduate-level programs, 22

Community-based organizations, 9,99-100, 146, 166

access to computers, 192

Community colleges, 193

Community Learning Center (Cambridge), 186

Competency skills, 34-36,65, 131-132

Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System,

34-36, 169-170

Computer. See also Software and programming

access to, 190-192, 199, 239-242

computer-based technologies, 191. See also specific

technologies

courseware, 194-196, 200-204, 205, 210, 212

hardware, 190-192,204-205,231-235

home, 199,206,207,215-216

laboratories, 118-119,201-202

networks, 176-177. See also Electronic networks;

Integrated learning systems

recruiting learners, 163-164

Computer-assisted education, 2-3, 14, 179,200-204

effectiveness, 85-89

family literacy, 120-121

incarcerated adults, 123-126

workplace literacy, 102, 117-119

Consumer electronics, 191

Copyright issues, 240-241

Correctional facilities, 124-125, 191-192,210. See

also Incarcerated adult programs

Courseware, 210-213,240

computer, 194-196, 200-204,205,210, 212

multimedia, 214,220, 227

video, 196,208-211

curriculum development, 169-170,203. See also

Courseware

technological applications, 12,22, 161-162

workplace literacy, 117-119

Cuyahoga County Community College, 102,201

Delivery systems. See service delivery systems

Demographic trends, 6,30,41-56

future literacy needs, 58-60

Department of Commerce, 22

Department of Education, 9, 14,22,95, 128, 131, 137

Department of Health and Human Services, 95, 128

Department of Labor, 6, 14,52-56,95, 128, 137

Disadvantages of technology, 204-205

Distance learning, 15, 18,22,67, 193-194,202,209,

230

effectiveness, 85

incarcerated adults, 126

Dropout rates, 41-45,59-60. See also Educational

attainment

Educard, 227

Education Is Essential Foundation, Inc., 118-119

Educational attainment, 4145,78,215. See also

Dropout rates

Electronic networks, 14,206-208,236-237. See also

Distance learning

Employment and literacy rates, 52-53

English as a second language, 66, 110, 114, 168,

208-210. See also Limited English proficient

adults

computer networks, 176-177

Federal funding, 145

staff development, 170-171

Enrollment rates. See Participation in adult literacy

programs

Equity. See Access to technologies

ESL. See English as a second language

Euclid Adult Learning Center, 206

Evaluation. See Measurement methods; Performance

evaluation; program evaluation; Tests

Even Start, 13,40, 120, 128, 132, 147, 152

External Diploma program, 113

Family literacy, 13,38-39,40, 119-121,207

English as a second language, 229

Federal funding, 142

Skills, 38-39,40,226-228
Index | 271

technological applications, 120-121

Federal funding, 13,95,99, 128, 137-141, 157

capacity-building, 143

ESL programs, 145

mandatory participation, 142-143

problems, 141

target groups, 144-146

workplace literacy, 142

Federal-level coordination, 154-157, 158-159

Federal program issues, 11-14,95

appropriations, 139

number, 135-136

Federal requirements and policies, 16,26-27,114,147.

See also specific departments and agencies

accountability, 148-149

competency, 131-132

history, 129-131

incarcerated adults, 121-122

interagency coordination, 17-18, 23-24

program evaluation, 149

service coordination, 154-155

technology, 128, 150-153

Florida, 19

Ford Skills Enhancement Program, 102

Franklin Electronic Learning Resources, 218

Funding barriers, 213-216

Funding sources, 9-10,94-99,

coordination of, 181-188

direct for technology, 19

Federal, 9, 13,95, 137-146

179-180

for incarcerated adult education, 122

merging, 184-188

private, 98-99, 101, 147

State and local, 95-98,99, 100, 184

Future

literacy needs, 58-60

technology advances, 231-238

GED, 10, 18, 113

via television, 15, 196-197

General Electric, 212

General equivalency diploma. See GED

Georgia

Partnership for Literacy, 118-119

Graduate-level programs

technological applications, 22

Hand-held electronic devices, 14,209-210,218. See also

Personal electronic devices; Pocket translators

Hardware advances, 231-235

Harlem Community Computing Centers, 163-164

Head Start, 9, 13, 18, 132

Home technologies, 85, 199-200,202,205-206, 207,

208-209, 211,213-216. See also Personal electronic devices

Hoover, Herbert, 131

Hypermedia, 212,214

ILS. See Integrated learning systems

Illinois, 96

Immigrants, 50-52,63-64, 129,228-231

profiles of, 63,70,77

video series, 208-209

Immigration Act of 1990, 114

Immigration Reform and Control Act, 63, 114, 132

Incarcerated adult programs, 7, 121-126, 132,210

Federal requirements and policies, 121-122

multimedia technologies, 125

technological applications, 123-126

video instruction, 125

Individualized instruction, 8, 202

incarcerated adults, 123

technological applications, 88-89

Information tools, 8,34-36, 89,202,204

Inmates. See Incarcerated adult programs

Inservice training, 21, 171. See also Staff development

Institute of Communication Disorders, 210

Integrated learning systems, 118, 123-124, 179, 194-

195. See also Computer networks

disadvantages, 205

Integrated services, 23, 147

Interactive Knowledge, Inc., 220

Interactive video, 3, 214. See also Video

effectiveness, 86

workplace literacy, 163

Interagency coordination, 17-18,23-24, 154-157,

158-159, 181-188,208,219-221

Intergenerational literacy. See Family literacy

Jefferson, Thomas, 29

Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program, 13, 18,

21,95, 128, 139-140, 146, 184

Job seekers, 52-56

Job Training Partnership Act, 14,52,95, 128, 156
272 I Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

JOBS. See Job Opportunities and Basic Skills program

JTPA. See Job Training Partnership Act

Kenan Trust Family Literacy Program, 40, 120

Kentucky Educational Television, 168, 196-197

Kirkwood Community College, 166-167

Laid-off workers, 63

Laubach Literacy Action, 103-106, 111

teaching methods, 111

Learners, 5-6,62-65,69, 107-109, 144-146

assessment, 177-179, 203, 227

decision to participate in adult literacy education,

78-81

motivation, 6, 8, 80-82

profiles of, 63,65,66-68,70,72,77

recruiting, 12, 161-168, 203

using technology, 85-89, 202,204-205

Learning disabilities, 8,67,210,211

Learning in context, 69-76

Learning time, 8, 85-86,202

Legislation, 129-135. See also specific legislation

closed captioning, 211

new emphases, 142-144

technology use, 150-153

LEP adults. See Limited English proficient adults

Libraries, 108,210

Life skills, 32-39, 62-63

Limitations of technology, 204-205

Limited English proficient adults, 13,50-52,54,66,

114, 128. See also English as a second language

Federal funding, 145

Literacy definitions, 3-5,29-32,4547,56

Literacy rates, 6,30,41-60

uncounted rate, 57

Literacy Volunteers of America, 23, 103-106, 111

access to technologies, 192

LLA. See Laubach Literacy Action

Local funding, 97-99

Location of services, 106-107, 147

Los Angeles County jail system, 124-125,210

LVA. See Literacy Volunteers of America

Manpower Demonstration and Training Act, 129

Mandatory participation, 7, 13, 122

attrition, 165-166

Federal funding, 142-143

program administration, 180-181

technological applications, 161, 180

Marketplace issues, 216-217,219,239-242

Maryland

Baltimore Reads, Inc., 96-97

Ripken Center, 202-204

Massachusetts, 103, 138, 183

Cambridge Community Learning Center, 186

Measurement methods, 4-5,30-32

employment, 52-53

tests, 45-47,74-75, 109, 177-179

Media literacy, 90

Metro Campus Adult Learning Center (Ohio), 201-202

Michigan, 156, 183

Military software

computer-based instruction, 19

Military training programs, 23

Mississippi, 183

Columbus Learning Center, 1

Mobile Learning Lab, 206

Project LEAP, 18

Mississippi Mobile Learning Lab, 206

Modems, 191, 192

Mother’s education level, 59-60

Motivation, 6, 8, 80-82, 202. See also Learners

technological applications, 86-87

Mott Haven Library Center for Reading and Writing,

108,210

Multimedia technologies, 14, 16, 191, 192,214

courseware, 220, 227

incarcerated adults, 125

workplace literacy, 118, 212, 220

Multipurpose literacy centers, 228-231

NAEP. See National Assessment of Educational

Progress

NALS. See National Adult Literacy Survey

National Adult Literacy Survey, 4,56-58

National Assessment of Educational Progress, 33-34

National Center for Adult Literacy, 22

National Center for Family Literacy, 120

National Commission for Employment Policy, 36

National Institute for Literacy, 14,22, 132, 143, 157

National Literacy Act, 21, 122, 132, 134, 175-176

National Science Foundation, 20

National Technological University, 22

National Telecommunications and Information

Administration, 20-21
Index | 273

National Workplace Literacy Partnerships Program,

116-117

Need for services, 168

New Jersey, 96

New York 23

coordinating funding, 184

New York Public Library Centers for Reading and

Writing, 108,210

New York Public Library Centers for Reading and

Writing, 108,210

Nonparticipation, 82, 147. See also Participation in

adult literacy programs

North Carolina 14

Ohio

Cuyahoga County Community College, 201

OTAN. See Outreach and Technical Assistance

Network

Outcome-based evaluation. See Performance

evaluation

Outreach and Technical Assistance Network 25, 170,

208

PACE. See Parent and Child Education

Parent and Child Education, 120

Participation in adult literacy programs, 78-84, 107-

109, 112, 114, 144-146, 147. See also Barriers to

participation; Recruiting learners

learner’s initial decision, 78-81

Partnerships, 11,23, 181. See also Coalitions; Service

coordination

Baltimore Reads, Inc., 96-97

interagency partnerships, 17-18, 23-24

public-private, 224-225

telecommunications, 193-194

workplace literacy, 118

Pen grants, 16

Performance evaluation, 128, 149-150

Personal electronic devices, 14, 191, 194, 199,209-

210,218,225-226,239

pocket translators, 191,218,239

Playing to Win program, 164,206

Pocket translators, 191,218,239

Policy issues, 16-27, 126

capacity-building, 157

delivery systems, 158

Federal-level coordination, 158-159

funding limitations, 157

interagency coordination, 17-18, 23-24

priority setting, 157

program improvement, 158

situational barriers, 83

staff development, 157-158

target groups, 158

technology, 150-154, 158

Prison inmates. See Incarcerated adult programs

Private sector funding, 98-99, 101, 147

Problem-solving skills, 33-34,71-76

professional development standards, 22-23. See also

Certification of teachers; Staff development

Profiles

at-risk youth, 226-228

immigrants, 63-64,70,77,228-231

learners, 63,65,66,68,70,72,77

Program administration

funding problems, 179-180

mandatory participation, 180-181

technological applications, 12, 203

Program evaluation, 177-179,203

Federal role, 149

technological applications, 162

Program improvement, 158

Project LEAP, 18

Project SALSA, 207

Providers of literacy programs

businesses, 102, 118, 119,207,212

colleges and universities, 197-198, 201-202

community-based organizations, 99-100, 146, 166,

186, 192

community colleges, 167, 193, 210, 213

labor unions, 117

libraries, 108,210

multipurpose literacy centers, 184, 206, 228-231

schools, 62, 198-199

Psychological barriers to participation, 62,79-80,

83-84

Public information campaigns, 163

Public schools, 62

access to technologies, 198-199

Range of program services, 168

Reading level estimates, 45-46

Recordkeeping

attrition, 165

Federal requirements, 148

technological applications, 162, 180-181
274 | Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime

Recruiting learners, 161-168,203

technological applications, 12,216-218

Research and development, 19,25-26

Federal role, 127-129

service delivery system, 93-94

technology, 161-162

Right to Read initiative, 131

Ripken Center, 202-204

Scanners, 192

SCANS. See Secretary’s Commission on Achieving

Necessary Skills

School-based programs, 62

School completion rates. See Educational attainment

Scientific literacy, 39

Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary

skills, 36-38

Service coordination, 10,23,203,208. See also

Partnerships

Federal, 153-157, 181-182

Federal agency reorganizations, 156

local, 183-188

program consolidation, 156

State and local, 24, 182-183, 184

technological applications, 12,24-25

Service definitions, 144

Service delivery systems, 30,94-115

policy issues, 126

State, 103

Situational barriers to participation, 62,83, 166

Skills

basic, 45, 139-140,206,212

competency, 34-36, 65, 131-132

family, 38-39,40,226-228

Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program, 139-

140,146, 184

life, 32-39,62-63

problem solving, 32-33,71-76

Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary

Skills, 36-38

technology, 34-36,89-90,204,206, 207,212

workplace, 36-38,55

SLIAG program See State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants

smart cards, 177

Software and programming. See also Computers;

Courseware

advances, 237-238

availability, 194-196,210

development, 19-20, 170,210,220

distribution, 195

marketplace issues, 216-217,219

research and development, 161-162,220

Speech production and recognition technologies, 191-

192,212,232-233

Staff development, 21-23,157-158,170-175, 203. See

also Volunteer training

distance learning, 22

technological applications, 12, 162, 176-177

video, 176

Standards for hardware and software, 235

Star Schools Program, 18, 22, 158, 193-194

State and local service providers, 103. See also specific

programs

reaction to Federal technology policy, 153-154

service coordination, 155-157, 182-188

state funding, 95-99, 100,184

State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants, 103,132,

140, 152

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, 109

Students. See Learners

Target learner groups, 2,6,47-56,64, 144-147, 158.

See also specific groups

Federal funding, 13, 144-147

Teachers, 114,204-205. See also Staff development

certification, 22-23, 171, 174

Teaching methods, 111, 169-170, 175

Technological applications, 88-89,97, 123-126,200

204,205-213

coordination, 24-25, 180-188, 208

curriculum development, 22, 161-162, 169-170,

172-173,210-213

distance learning, 15, 18, 167

ESL programs, 114,176-177,208-209, 210

family literacy, 120-121

Federal provisions for, 150-153, 158

incarcerated adult, 123-126

library program, 108,210

program evaluation, 162, 177-179

recordkeeping, 162, 180-181

recruiting learners, 12,161, 162-164

retaining learners, 164-168

staff development 162, 176-177

teacher certification, 22-23

volunteer programs 104
Index | 275

workplace literacy, 102, 117-119

Technology skills, 34-36, 89-90, 204,206,207,212

Telecommunications, 11, 15, 18, 120, 167, 176, 191,

193-194, 209, 231-237, 241-242. See also Distance learning; Video technologies

Telephone service, 191, 199,213,215

Television. See Telecommunications; Video

technologies

Tests, 45-47, 74-75, 109, 177-179. See also Measurement methods

Texas, 19, 103

correctional facilities, 124

Touch screens, 191, 192

Transfer of learning, 76

Underutilization of technologies, 205-206

Unemployment insurance, 53

Vermont

distance learning, 15

interactive television, 209

Vermont Interactive Television, 209

Video technologies, 14, 15, 19,90, 124-125,192-194,

208-209. See also Telecommunications

access to, 192-194, 199, 239-242

broadcast television, 196, 197-198,209,238

GED preparation, 113, 197-198

immigrants, 208-209

interactive videodiscs, 86, 163, 214

programming, 196,208-211

staff trainin g, 176

telecourses, 15, 193

videocassette recorders, 198-199, 214

videoconferencing equipment, 196-197

video game machines, 15, 191, 200

volunteer training, 104, 176

workplace literacy, 163, 209

Volunteer programs, 103-106, 110-111, 192

technological applications, 104

Volunteer training, 11, 104-106, 176-177. See also

Staff development

computer networks, 176-177

Welfare recipients. See also Mandatory participation

computer-matching systems, 180-181

profiles, 228-231

Workplace literacy, 12-13,36-38,69-71, 102, 115-

119, 224-226. See also Businesses

curriculum development, 117-119,212, 220

Federal funding, 142

home computers, 206,207

hypertext/hypermedia systems, 212

recruitment, 163

skills, 36-38, 55

technological applications, 102, 117-119, 163,206,

207,212,220

video, 163, 209

Young Adult Literacy Assessment, 46,48

u. s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1993 0 - 331-048 QL 3