[Reading-hall-of-fame] Beyond Neoliberalism in Adult Literacy Education

Wed Apr 22 22:17:12 BST 2020

4/21/2020

Beyond Neoliberalism in Adult Literacy Education

Tom Sticht, International Consultant in Adult Education (Ret.)

Concerns about how to go about evaluating the outcomes of adult literacy
education programs lead the roster of articles  in ProLiteracy’s most
recent biannual publication, “Adult Literacy Education: The International
Journal of Literacy, Language, and Numeracy.”  This latest issue is guest
edited by Stephen Reder, and focuses on problems in assessing adult
literacy skills, the evaluation of adult basic skills programs, and the
nature of and outcomes of adult literacy education.

*Self-Reports by Learners vs “Objective” Data in Program Evaluation*

In the first article, co-authored by J. D. Carpentieri, David Mallows, and
José Pedro Amorim, questions are raised about the credibility of methods
widely used to evaluate adult basic skills programs, with a focus on the
differences arising from evaluations using self-reports by adult learners
of their perceived benefits of program participation in contrast to the use
of post-program measures of employment and earnings gains. They express the
need for more longitudinal studies of the effects of program participation,
citing Reder’s Longitudinal Study of Adult Learning (LSAL) which indicated
that learning outcomes of adult basic education programs may take years to
show up using standardized tests in pre/post program skills testing.

I found the discussion of the use of self-reports in evaluating adult basic
skills programs of special interest in light of earlier work in which I
commented on the large differences between what national assessments of
adult literacy skills using standardized testing reported as a national
adult literacy problem, and what adults themselves thought about their
basic skills (Sticht, 2004). I noted that in 1992 standardized test scores
led the U.S. Department of Education to report that 90 million adults were
deficient in literacy while 93 percent of the tested adults reported that
they read “well” or “very well.” A striking difference of opinion about
adult literacy abilities.

*Forum: Broadening the Lens on Adult Literacy Education Outcomes*

The three articles in this Forum section concern what the field of adult
literacy education should be about. Reder kicks off the discussion with an
argument for lifelong and life-wide adult education. He argues that by the
1980s “Neoliberalism narrowed the purpose of adult education to increasing
human capital as measured by increases in educational attainment and
standardized literacy and numeracy test scores.”

This argument is consistent with my historical review of adult education
(Sticht, 2002) in which I identified  four themes  that reveal critical
social forces involved in the formation of the Adult Education and Literacy
System (AELS) in the United States.

One of these themes I labeled  “Liberal education versus human resources
development” and went on to discuss the conflict between those individuals
and organizations favoring a national adult education system focused on
broad, liberal education for all adults and those favoring a "human
resources development" point of view, seeking education for the least
well-educated adults to enable them to contribute to the security and
economic productivity of the nation.

The latter is the “neoliberalism” point of view Reder identifies as the
ideological foundation for contemporary policy and practice of adult basic
skills education in the U.S. and which he argues should be supplanted by or
at least broadened in adult literacy education through transformative ideas
of lifelong and life-wide education.

I was particularly pleased to see Reder call for measures of the effects of
adult literacy education on the children of the adults, “Such a
transgenerational impact has often been suggested for adult literacy
programs, whereby programs positively affect the educational and literacy
outcomes of the adult students’ young children (Sticht & Armstrong, 1994).”

The two articles responding to Reder’s argument, one by Judy Mortrude of
World Education and the other by Ira Yankwitt, of New York City’s Literacy
Assistance Center both agree with Reder’s call for a more broadly construed
adult literacy education system that goes beyond neoliberal economic
considerations
in <http://considerations.in/> assessing important outcomes of adult
education.

Mortrude calls for going beyond test scores and educational credentials as
outcomes for adult basic skills education and  for putting “…the focus on
adult education as a solution to tangible community problems, e.g.: Latinx
injuries and deaths on construction sites; aging community members in need
of home care; historic, systemic trauma impacting individuals and community
systems. There is so much to be learned from this way of reframing adult
education’s impact.” This approach to program evaluation is clearly in line
with Reder’s idea of “life-wide” adult education.

Ira Yankwitt wraps up his discussion of Reder’s ideas for lifelong and
life-wide adult literacy education with the conclusion that, “I am inspired
by and deeply committed to Reder’s vision of a lifelong and life-wide
framework for adult literacy education, one that moves beyond the
neoliberal paradigm and embraces the diverse goals and full humanity of all
of our students and their communities. And I believe that it is only by
building alliances, working in solidarity, and engaging in intersectional
movement building with grassroots racial, social, and economic justice
organizations that the field of adult literacy can truly achieve this
vision.”

Given the contemporary times of high unemployment, shuttered businesses,
and group and individual isolationism for health purposes, I suspect it is
unlikely that an accommodation of neoliberalism with this expanded liberal
vision of lifelong and life-wide adult education will be rapidly
forthcoming, if at all.  And especially not with funding from government
sources which remain deeply rooted in the ideology of human capital
development for national security and economic productivity gains. But it
is a vision worth pursuing in the Adult Education and Literacy System of
the United States.

References

ProLiteracy.  (2020). Adult Literacy Education: The International Journal
of Literacy, Language, and Numeracy.”  Volume 2, Issue 1. (Articles by
Carpentieri, Mallows, Amorim, Reder, Mortrude & Yankwitt are included in
this journal issue) (Available online using a Google search)

Sticht, T. & Armstrong, W. (1994). Adult literacy in the United States: A
Compendium of Quantitative Data and Interpretive Comments.  (Available
online using a Google search)

Sticht, T. (2002). The Rise of the Adult Education and Literacy System of
the United States: 1600-2000, in J. Comings, B. Garner and C. Smith (eds.)
Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, vol. 3, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, pp.10-43.(Available  online using a Google search)

Sticht, T. (2004). How Well Can U.S. Adults Read? Government-Centered vs.
Learner-Centered Estimates. In: K. Goodman, P. Shannon, Y. Goodman, & R.
Rapoport (Eds.). Saving Our Schools. Berkeley, CA: RDR Books.

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20200422/d74218d2/attachment-0001.html>