News, Views, and Clues
June, 2003
HR 1261 Amendments, June 5, 2003
Your Reaction to a New Resource, June 13, 2003
The
Difference—One View, June 27, 2003
Changing of the Guard, June 30, 2003
NAEPDC
News, Views, and Clues
June 5, 2003
HR 1261 Amendments
Memorandum
To: State Directors of Adult Education
From: Garrett Murphy
Subject : Passage of HR1261 the Workforce Reinvestment and
Adult Education Act
I have just learned that this message never reached the
office for transmittal to the members. It is about three amendments that passed
on the floor on the day that HR1261 passed the House. Therefore, these three
amendments are part of the bill. As you have probably heard, the subject bill
passed the House by a vote of 220 to 204. (The Senate has not yet produced a
companion piece of legislation.)
The first amendment was submitted by Representative
Thomas Allen of Maine. It adds to the list of mandatory members of local
workforce investment boards “administrators of entities providing adult
education and literacy activities.” Other One-Stop partners were not restored
to the boards, so adult education administrators (probably one per board) would
sit on the local boards with private sector representatives, superintendents of
schools, community college presidents, labor representatives, and
representatives of community and faith based organizations. Members of local
boards would be chosen by chief elected officials according to criteria set by
the governor of each State.
It is important to note that this is a very different
arrangement from our current participation on such boards. Currently, “One-Stop
partners” must be represented on local boards. The Department of Labor
regulations deemed the State eligible agency to be the one-Stop partner for
Title II – thereby giving the eligible agency the authority to designate who
would serve on local boards. Under this new provision, this authority would no
longer exist.
The second amendment that affects adult education was
submitted by Representative John Kline of Minnesota. His amendment
establishes guidelines for governors to assist them in determining the proper
amount to be contributed by each partner program in support of One-Stop
infrastructure and other One-Stop expenses. The amendment establishes two
criteria: (1) relative use of the One-Stops by the partner programs; and (2) the
costs of administration of purposes not related to the One-Stop centers. The
amendment also says, “The funds provided …by each One-Stop partner shall be
provided only from funds available for the costs of administration under the
program administered by such partner and shall be subject to the limitations
with respect to the portion of funds under such programs that may be used for
administration.” Apparently so many programs complained that supporting the
One-Stops would drain money from direct services that the House has made it
clear that only administration dollars may be used. At this point it is unclear
as to whether the House intends that only State administrative funds would be
used or whether assignments of dollars to support One-Stops could be included in
the administrative category of grants to local agencies.
The third amendment affecting adult education was
submitted by Representative Howard “Buck” McKeon of California, the manager of
the legislation and Chairman of the 21st Century Competitiveness
Subcommittee along with Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the Chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. Most of the changes are
technical, except for some substantive changes to the National Institute for
Literacy provisions.
In Section 212 one core indicator is changed from “reading,
writing and speaking the English language and math, and English language
acquisition…” to reading, writing and speaking the English language and basic
math….” In Section 225, “Definition of Criminal Offender” is changed to
“Definitions” since a number of definitions follow. In section 231(b) “family”
is capitalized. In the listing of ‘measurable goals” in Section 231(d) the
words “whether” and “whether or not” are removed. In Section 231(d)(7) “when
appropriate and scientifically based” is inserted after “real-life contexts. The
amendment also restores the “Special Rule” that allows use of adult education
funds to serve children in a family literacy program only when all other funding
sources have been exhausted.
The amendment restores the tri-agency governance set-up for
NIFL. It provides for an interim Director during a vacancy. The role of the
advisory board is substantially downgraded. Phrases like “work closely with the
Director” have been changed to “provide advice to the Director”, and the ability
of the Board to provide policy guidance and advice to the Director is stricken.
The Institute’s research must be consistent with standards set by the Institute
of Education Sciences. In several cases where a provision began with “The
Institute shall”, the bill is changed to “The Director shall….” . In the Duties
section, providing policy assistance to Congress has been removed. A new duty
is to maintain an internet site to provide useful information to educators and
the public. Finally, the amendment contains a definition of literacy that is
identical to the one at the beginning of Title II – reading and language arts
only – no math.
Keep up the good work. Let me know when we can
help.
News, Views, and Clues
June 13, 2003
Your Reaction to a
New Resource
NCSALL
recently launched its newest publication ‑ Focus on Policy. You are one of the
primary audiences for this publication. Most of you received a copy of it at
the state director's meeting in Portland, OR you will also receive a copy in the
mail very soon, OR you can look at it online at
http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu/fop/v1_1.pdf
F OP
is designed to synthesize available research on a specific topic and present key
findings and policy implications. This first issue is on the GED.
Since this is a
new publication with you as a primary audience, could you look it over and send
Karen Rowe (krowe@worlded.org or
617‑482‑9485 ext.509) your thoughts around the following questions:
1.
The goal is to provide an easy‑to‑understand summary of the research.
Did you find this
first issue on the GED easy to read?
H ow
well did this format and content meet your needs for policy information?
What changes
would you suggest to make it easier for you to get the facts and implications
that you need?
2.
Each issue will focus on one specific topic.
What topics would
you like to see upcoming issues focus on?
What do you need
or want policy guidance on?
3.
We would like you to distribute limited print copies to key policymakers in your
state. (You can also download it from the NCSALL website. Please feel free to
download, photocopy and distribute copies.)
Do you think you
will use it and how?
If we could send
you multiple copies, how many would be appropriate for your state? (Your
responses will influence our next print run.)
To whom will you
distribute it?
Please briefly
indicate to whom (main categories of people) you will send copies.
Please send your
responses directly to Karen Rowe, NCSALL Dissemination Director ‑
krowe@worlded.org.
Or, feel free to contact Karen by telephone at 617‑482‑9485 ext.509.
Thank you very much.
Keep up the good
work. Let me know when we can help.
NAEPDC
News, Views, and Clues
June 27, 2003
The Difference—One View
Here is an article that you
may want to share and discuss with your local program managers and encourage
them to do the same with their teachers and tutors. Below is a short review
that includes a link to the full article, which is only a page or two long.
Adult education is different
than children’s education. Children’s literacy, for example, has been defined
as “reading to learn.” Reading skill development prepares children to read more
complex material. Adult literacy has been defined as “reading to learn, and
reading to do.” Often, adult learners want to and need to use information
pretty quickly in their work, family, or community roles.
Perhaps this article will help
practitioners discuss how we prepare students to be conscious of how they are
processing the information. The process is as important as the product.
The Review:
THINKING ABOUT THINKING IS ESSENTIAL FOR LEARNING
Although
mastering subject matter is important, strategies to increase thinking power are
equally important, writes Marv Marshall. Schooling today emphasizes "correct"
answers and single solutions. But in so many situations, it is not how many
correct answers one knows, but rather how one proceeds when one does not know ‑‑
as when confronted with problems, dilemmas, enigmas, and situations to be
addressed, the answers to which are not immediately known or readily available.
This is becoming truer every day in the rapidly changing information age.
Students often attempt to solve a problem or analyze a situation without
thinking. The answer may be so obvious that they just say it. There are many
situations that can be dealt with successfully in this way. However, a problem
arises when this approach does not work because the task has become too complex.
For students who are habituated to thinking at the perceptual level, and who
have not developed cognitive tools, such problems appear to be "too much" for
them to deal with, and they just give up. According to Marshall, the inability
to take charge of one's own cognitive processes is a very large part of the
at‑risk/dropout problem ‑‑ as well as discipline problems.
http://teachers.net/gazette/JUN03/marshall.html
(From the Public Education Network:
PEN Weekly NewsBlast for
June 27, 2003)
Keep up the good work. Let me know when we can
help.
News, Views, and Clues
June 30, 2003
Changing of the Guard
Its 5:00 P.M. on Monday, June
30, 2003. As this day comes to an end, Garrett Murphy steps downs as our Policy
Analyst to become our Policy Consultant. That means he can do what he wants to
rather than what he has to. Lynn Selmser, author of much of WIA Title II and
with rich Hill experience with the House Education and Workforce Committee,
begins as your new Policy Analyst tomorrow. So the State Directors' Consortium
and Council are in good hands.
Our future is hopeful and
much of our success and hopefulness are built on a firm foundation that Garrett
helped lay. You have seen the excellent analyses that Garrett produced for you
that also informed the Department and Congress. You have heard his pensive
presentations making very complex issues make sense. I always enjoyed his
historical perspective, often taking us back to the 1960s and tracing the
evolution of legislative intent or MDTA to CETA to JTPA to WIA. His recapping
of the developmental cycles put everything into perspective and enhanced our
understanding of why we are where we are at this point in time.
As Lynn takes charge of the
day-to-day policy work we all hope to be privileged to enjoy an occasional
return visit from Adult Education's Senior Statesman. "Privileged" is the
appropriate word here. I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to be a
colleague of Garrett's. I know you feel privileged to be his colleague as well
as the recipient of his work.
Even though Garrett will
continue to work with us from time to time, I did not feel like I could let this
day pass without saying "Garrett, thanks for all of your unselfish devotion to
your colleagues and your field." I know Katherine has the "to do" list in hand
ready for tomorrow to come. We will miss our regular contact and look forward
to your returning whenever you like.
NAEPDC Home - News/Updates - Resources - Publications - Contact Us
|
