AAACE-NLA NAAL
From LiteracyTentWiki
Discussion about the NAAL on the AAACE-NLA list
Page 1 of 2
From: DJRosen@theworld.com
Subject: [AAACE-NLA] NAAL Message Statement from the National Coalition for Literacy
Date: December 14, 2005 8:44:00 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
AAACE-NLA Colleagues,
In preparation for Thursday's release of the NAAL study here are some talking points from the National Coalition for Literacy. If you would like a copy of these on NCL letterhead, or you have questions, e-mail leila.plassey@ncldc.net
David J. Rosen
Adult Literacy Advocate
djrosen@theworld.com
==========
National Coalition for Literacy Message Statement December 14, 2005
As America speeds head long into the 21st Century, more and more American adults are being left behind because of limited literacy skills.
The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) is a stark snapshot of America’s ability to prosper in the 21st Century. If we are to tackle the serious literacy issues underscored by the NAAL study we must forge bipartisan solutions on the federal and local level.
Our nation is growing and changing at a rapid pace. Tens of millions of adults in this country lack the literacy skills to complete a job application, use the Internet, or read a bedtime story to a child. To compete in the global marketplace Americans must be literate, educated, and prepared to succeed in the workplace.
The National Coalition for Literacy believes that functional literacy is important for very fundamental reasons:
- ECONOMY—A more literate America will be more competitive and more prosperous. Improved literacy skills will create a stronger economy that helps all Americans.
- FAMILY—A more literate America will mean stronger families. Parents with strong literacy skills help their children succeed in school.
- CITIZENSHIP— A more literate America will mean a stronger Democracy. All adults will have an equal opportunity to contribute to their neighborhood, their community, and their country.
The NAAL study makes one thing very clear. Adults with limited literacy skills are being left behind. This jeopardizes the productivity and well being of all Americans.
How can America address the growing number of adults left behind because of limited literacy skills? What works best as we try to address these challenges?
1. We need more professionally-trained instructors. The same approach taken for K-12 education with meaningful standards and best practices must be applied to adult literacy education.
2. We support a research agenda for adult literacy comparable to the K-12 agenda. We must know more about best practices in order to deliver quality services.
3. We must draw on the best resources in the public and private sectors to meet the challenges. We must forge alliances on the federal, state and locals levels.
4. We must meet the demand. In every program in every state, there are long waiting lists for enrollment in adult literacy programs. They aren’t looking for a hand out; they’re looking for a hand up.
The National Coalition for Literacy is committed to engaging in solution-based dialogues working across party lines at every level of government. America needs to invest in adults who are sacrificing, studying and working to achieve a better life for themselves and their families. When America makes this investment our country will be stronger, more prosperous, and globally competitive.
From: MKutner@air.org
Subject: [AAACE-NLA] Findings from State Assessments of Adult Literacy to be Available
Date: December 14, 2005 4:12:10 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
For IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 14, 2005
Contact: Larry McQuillan
(202) 403-5119
Louise Kennelly
(202) 403-5817
Findings from State Assessments of Adult Literacy to be Released in Coordination with National Assessment of Adult Literacy
WASHINGTON - The Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) will be releasing the first national report based on the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) on Thursday, December 15, 2005. Six states took advantage of the opportunity offered by NCES to purchase detailed state samples of their respective populations so that they could obtain comprehensive and direct information about the literacy of adults in their states. These states are: Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York and Oklahoma.
Five state reports are being released in coordination with the release of the national report on December 15th at 9:30 AM. The state reports for Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri and New York will be available on the AIR web site at that time, www.air.org/naal. Oklahoma's report is being reviewed by state officials and is expected to be released shortly. State contacts will also be identified on the AIR web site.
AIR's team was led by Vice President Mark Kutner, and Elizabeth Greenberg, Stéphane Baldi, and Justin Baer. They were also responsible for developing the assessment instruments, and analyzing and reporting the data in the first national report, A First Look at the Literacy of America's Adults in the 21st Century," which will be available at http://nces.ed.gov/naal.
For additional information, contact Larry McQuillan, AIR's director of communications, at (202) 403-5119.
About AIR
The American Institutes for Research (AIR) is an independent, not-for-profit organization that conducts behavioral and social science research on important social issues and delivers technical assistance both domestically and internationally in the areas of health, education, and workforce productivity.
From: hbeder@rci.rutgers.edu
Subject: NAAL
Date: December 15, 2005 10:40:08 AM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
The 1993 NALS broke literacy scores into five levels and it became commonly accepted that the adult literacy population was represented by levels one and two, about 46-48% of the adult population. Although this figure may have been counter-intuitively high, it was used to justify increased funding in many states and over the years it became the "official" adult literacy figure in NJ and elsewhere. The newly released NAAL breaks the scores into four levels rather than five: below basic, basic, intermediate and proficient. The percent of the adult population for below basic is about 16% if you average prose, document and quant while the percent for basic is about 26%. So here is the huge question. What percent of the adult population constitutes the adult literacy population now? If you say that the mission of adult literacy is to bring adults up to the basic level, it includes only the below basics, 16%, as compared to 46-48% from the 1993 NALS. If you say it includes the basics as well as the below basics, it's about 42%, but what is the rationale for doing that? I can't think of anything convincing. How do we interpret the new NAAL to those whose support for adult literacy we depend on?
Rutgers University
Graduate School of Education
10 seminary Pl.
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
732-932-7496 ext. 8213
From: DJRosen@theworld.com
Subject: [AAACE-NLA] NAAL Results -- your take?
Date: December 15, 2005 11:43:28 AM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
AAACE-NLA collagues,
The NAAL has been released. What is your first take on the results? What sticks out for you? What surprised you? How would you summarize the results -- good news, bad news, mixed news? What questions does it raise for you?
David J. Rosen
Adult Literacy Advocate
DJRosen@theworld.com
From: DJRosen@theworld.com
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] NAAL -- What % of the adult literacy population is the adult literacy population
Date: December 15, 2005 12:12:44 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Hello Hal,
Here's one rationale:
Since most people would agree now that one needs at least high school (or GED) level skills to qualify for post secondary education, and that some amount of post secondary education is needed to attain family self sufficiency, if the purpose of adult literacy education is to enable family self-sufficiency, then our mission is to serve 42 % of the American adult population. There will, of course, be confusion around calling this "the adult literacy population" for people who define literacy narrowly as basic competence in reading and writing, and who do not take into account what reading, writing, numeracy and other skills are needed for family self-sufficiency.
David J. Rosen
Adult Literacy Advocate
DJRosen@theworld.com
From: KSmith1@aol.com
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] NAAL
Date: December 15, 2005 12:22:50 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Hal,
It would seem that the most cogent, compelling and effective argument to continue to represent the need for our services for the 26% of adults classified as basic is by determining how those skills enable them to enter, stay and progress in the work force.
Clearly, the adult education community can and should continue to articulate the full range of impacts.
Kevin
Kevin Smith
Executive Director
Literacy New York, Inc
777 Maryvale Dr.
Buffalo, New York 14225
voice: 716-631-5282
fax: 716-631-0657
e-mail: ksmith1@aol.com
From: rosbrandt@state.pa.us
Subject: RE: [AAACE-NLA] NAAL -- What % of the adult literacy population isthe adult literacy population
Date: December 15, 2005 1:08:14 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
If we present our information carefully, and agree on a common message, this is a great opportunity to educate the public on what "literacy" in the broader sense is, what the impact of lack of skills is, and why the need for our services is so great.
I support David's statement that "the purpose of adult literacy education is to enable family self-sufficiency, then our mission is to serve 42% of the American adult population."
This figure is also consistent with what we know from experience, for example, with adults who apply for but do not qualify for training programs.
Rose Brandt
From: tsticht@znet.com
Subject: [AAACE-NLA] Bush Administration's Take on NAAL
Date: December 15, 2005 2:15:00 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Aaace-NLA Colleagues:
The press release from the U. S. Secretary of Education's office shows how the NAAL results are being used to justify and support the administration's K-12 agenda, especially its present focus on high schools, while leaving the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) in peril of being dismantled by the administration as indicated in its budget request for FY2006. This does not augur well for the future of the AELS in the present administration.
Tom Sticht
PRESS RELEASES
New Report on Adult Literacy Levels, First Since 1992, Shows Need for High School Reform Significant improvement in African American literacy; overall math skills rise
FOR RELEASE:
December 15, 2005
Contacts: Mike Bowler, (202) 219-1662 David Thomas, (202)401-1576
More Resources
Helping Adults Become Literate
Washington, D.C. — American adults can read a newspaper or magazine about as well as they could a decade ago, but have made significant strides in performing literacy tasks that involve computation, according to the first national study of adult literacy since 1992.
The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), released today by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), found little change between 1992 and 2003 in adults' ability to read and understand sentences and paragraphs or to understand documents such as job applications.
"One adult unable to read is one too many in America," said U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, who today announced plans to coordinate adult education efforts in 2006 across multiple federal agencies. "We must take a comprehensive and preventive approach, beginning with elementary schools and with special emphasis in our high schools. We must focus resources toward proven, research-based methods to ensure that all adults have the necessary literacy skills to be successful."
From: hbeder@rci.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] NAAL -- What % of the adult literacy population is the adult literacy population
Date: December 15, 2005 3:11:12 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
If you look at the average scores [p14] for high school and GED they are virtually the same, 262-260 for prose. These scores fall at the high end of the basic scale. Thus if we want to get them up to secondary education proficiency we have to shoot for both below basic and basic. So the new NAAL makes the case even better than NALS which labeled the levels with numbers.
From: ALCDGG@langate.gsu.edu
Subject: [AAACE-NLA] newspaper article
Date: December 15, 2005 3:05:30 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Article based on today's report:
Title: USATODAY.com - Study: 11 million U.S. adults not literate in English
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to access the sent link: http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1053942482&pt=Y
From: djrosen@theworld.com
Subject: NAAL Results Analysis
Date: December 16, 2005 7:39:10 AM EST
AAACE-NLA Colleagues,
Here are some of the main features -- in my own broad brushstrokes -- of the national NAAL results . Do you agree with my sketch ? How would you paint the results? What are your questions and concerns? What do we know about variations from the participating states?
1) Overall : No significant increases in adult literacy from 1993-2003. 2) Quantitative literacy skills are higher. 3) Black adults had higher literacy on all three (prose, document, quantitative) scales. 4) Hispanic adults as a group had lower literacy (because of increased adult Hispanic immigrants) 5) The results show a strong correlation between literacy and education level attainment... but... 6) College graduates and graduate students were on average at the Intermediate -- not proficient -- level. (Does this mean, as Russ Whitehurst (from NCES) suggests, that college standards are lower? Is there something else going on?) 7) As literacy increases so does the % of the population which is fully employed (Of course this would also depend on the economy.) 8) Median weekly earnings also go up with higher literacy levels.
David J. Rosen
Adult Literacy Advocate
djrosen@theworld.com
From: RBickerton@doe.mass.edu
Subject: RE: [AAACE-NLA] Media and the NAAL
Date: December 16, 2005 3:04:11 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Dear Colleagues:
Almost every story I've read is based either entirely or primarily on the AP release -- which I'm willing to bet is close to a verbatim recapitulation of the press release and presentation by U.S.ED. Although the report was structured to focus the readers' attention on the cut point between "below basic" and "basic," and thereby promote that what we're really talking about is "below basic" (30 million adults), the Secretary went a step further and narrowed everyone's attention on an even smaller cohort than this by pushing the 11 million adults who had to do the new alternative assessments as the group that's (totally) illiterate. I strongly believe that focusing on this group to the exclusion of the 30 million and the 60 million in "basic" was STRATEGIC and not driven by some policy purpose -- other, that is, than getting as small a number in the headline as possible. Further, the decision to focus on how the "numbers are unchanged" since 1992 was also a STRATEGIC decision -- meant to help bolster the Secretary's belief that the ABE program isn't worth the investment. There were many ways to present this story and it's clear, at least to me, that U.S.ED's ignoring the limitations and problems of the two perspectives they did promote was anything but accidental.
In short, having the department that's promoting "high expectations" and "world class standards" for our K-12 students (with a special focus on those in high school) is incompatible with this exclusive focus on the 11 million at the lowest levels of literacy. Parallel form would require U.S.ED to focus not only on "below basic" (30M) AND "basic" (>60M), but on the lower end of "intermediate" as well since the high standards required for H.S. graduation (in at least several states) include some of this domain. Further, U.S.ED fully appreciates that immigration and other changing demographics confound their simplistic comparison of 1992 and 2003.
I want to emphasize that it is incumbent upon all of us to debunk the "U.S.ED spin" of the NAAL -- although I wouldn't make them the story but build our own story and, unlike what is usually the case, really work to get it out in front of the public -- via media, policy leaders, partners, allies, and of course, our current and future students. As our states' and our nation's ABE leadership, we need to lead the way in this endeavor. Let's join ranks and do so.
bob bickerton, MA and NCSDAE / NAEPDC chair
From: tsticht@znet.com
Subject: [AAACE-NLA] Issues of Scale of Need
Date: December 16, 2005 4:17:27 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Aaace-NLA Colleagues: The recent release of the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) illustrates a major point: there are no adult literacy levels out there in the "real world" that can be directly measured. Rather, through various and different methods we create various and different representations of distributions of adult literacy abilities and needs so that we can plan for various actions, including the determination of the scale of the need for adult literacy education provision.
With the NAAL, we learn that the methods used in the earlier National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) to create representations of adult literacy "levels" were deemed unsatisfactory by a National Academy of Sciences review board. Based on this review and its recommendations, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) changed the earlier NALS to make it conform to the new methods used to represent adult literacy in the NAAL.
In both cases, the methods used to represent the distributions of literacy among the adult population were essentially arbitrary and actually included other methods, such as having adults rate their reading, writing, and arithmetic skills with regard to how well they met their daily and work needs.
In determining the scale of need for adult literacy education in the U.S., the Congress distributes federal money to the states based on how many adults lack a high school diploma. In the beginning of the Adult Education Act of 1966, Congress based its distribution of money on the basis of the numbers of adults with less than 8th grade literacy. So education levels and graduation rates have both been used to represent the scale of need for adult literacy education and the amount of funding to be provided from both state and Federal sources.
Another method of representing the need for the services of the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States has been to state the growth in the numbers of adults who enroll in the AELS each year, and this may also include a statement of the numbers of adults on the waiting lists for AELS services.
All of these differing approaches to determining the scale of need for adult education and literacy provide differing representations of the scale of need.
Is it possible to come up with better methods? The use of education data, such as the numbers of adults without high school degrees is fairly cheap when done in conjunction with the census every ten years.
Door to door household surveys, such as the NALS/NAALS are fairly expensive, and they depend on he use of numerous arbitrary decisions, such as the tasks to use, the populations to be sampled (e.g., military personnel), the appropriate of tasks for adults across the age span, the response probability to use (this was a big debate with the NALS and NAAL), etc.
Telephone surveys can be done fairly inexpensively and can supplement census data. Adults can rate their skills and indicate their interest in the services of the AELS and other useful information can be obtained.
So the question is, What method(s) should be used to determine the scale of need for adult education and literacy provision?
Tom Sticht
From: tweeton204@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [AAACE-NLA] Media and the NAAL
Date: December 16, 2005 10:41:32 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Hi Bob,
I remember when we had this discussion on this very subject this Summer and Fall about how to get the information out to the public of the problems with the low levels of Adult Literacy in our society. We seemed to come up with very good ideas but as far as I can tell,after having summed up the arguments quite well the ball was dropped and nothing further came of the discussion. So, I guess my question to you, since you have stated that the public needs to be informed particularly through the Media(which all of us couldn't agree more,I'm sure) is exactly how would you propose to go about this? What would you expect of us on this line? What,How, When,Where?
Tanya Tweeton
ESOL and GED Programs
Ft.Lauderdale,Florida
From: DJRosen@theworld.com
Subject: [AAACE-NLA] NAAL, NALS, and Census: Are we collecting the right data?
Date: December 17, 2005 6:57:26 AM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
AAACE-NLA Colleagues,
Tom Sticht asks: "What method(s) should be used to determine the scale of need for adult education and literacy provision?"
I ask: are we collecting the right kind of data? What evidence do we have that decisions were actually made based on the NALS? What decisions will be made based on the NAAL? Beyond that, as a field, do we want decisions to be based on needs, and if so why?
These might seem like ridiculous questions because we know there are tremendous needs for adult literacy education services, and because as adult learners and practitioners we fervently believe we should meet those needs But consider this: Tom Sticht has argued here that adult learners' perceptions of their needs for adult literacy services differ greatly from the national assessments of need, that many fewer adults believe they need basic skills than the NALS data, for example, would suggest. Bob Bickerton has pointed out -- and my own observations support this -- that policy makers often react to these large numbers of need by throwing up their hands in despair and turning their backs.. With the exception of New Jersey, Washington D.C. and perhaps one or two other states and cities, I am not aware that policy makers have reacted to needs data with new resources to address the needs.
However, there are data we could collect -- but usually don't -- which do accurately represent adult learners' perceptions of their need, data which do move policy makers to increase resources. There are two kinds.
- Demand data
- Latent Demand data
Demand data can be measured by the number of people who actually seek out adult literacy education services (including English language learning). A few states collect demand data. (Does yours?) One state, Massachusetts, attempts to collect demand data in a systematic way year in and year out, and this has resulted -- over time, and with persistent advocacy -- in significantly increased state resources. It is important, if the goal is to convince policy makers to address the demand, that State Education Agencies and service providers collect these data carefully, avoiding duplication (students who sign up and are put on waiting lists at several programs) and that policy makers are satisfied that the numbers represent actual people who have demonstrated interest in enrolling in a class, tutorial, or distance learning adult literacy education opportunity.
As far as I am aware, no one is collecting latent demand data, that is, the number of people in a state, or sub-area within a state who, if they knew the services were available, would enroll. This number, we know, would be larger than demand, but we don't know how much larger. It is somewhere between demand and need, probably closer to demand than need. It is much harder to collect latent demand data than to collect actual demand data. For example, when a public transportation authority wants to know what the latent demand is for a new bus service, or to extend the hours of an existing service, they do a random sample of the population in the area which might benefit from the service. They do questionnaires or possibly telephone interviews. Survey research of this kind is costly, but perhaps not as expensive as the NALS or NAAL. We could, as Tom Sticht suggests, do telephone interviews to collect latent demand data.
I would argue that the U.S. Department of Education -- and the American people -- would greatly benefit from knowing how many people do ask for -- and would ask for -- adult literacy education services. This number would be smaller than the needs data but it would be a number that policy makers would be more likely to pay attention to -- especially if it could be broken down into: 1)actual enrollment, 2) unmet demand (waiting lists) and 3) latent demand -- in each legislative district. It could be broken down by Congressional, state, and local legislative district so policy makers at all levels could be approached to help meet the demand. These would be numbers of real people, people with faces and names in their communities, their constituents or potential constituents, who need and want adult literacy education services. Adult learner leaders and practitioners, with these demand data in hand, could visit their legislators and ask them how they were going to address this problem. They could point out that if they had data on the number of elementary school children in the district who could not enroll, for example, in second, third or fourth grade, the legislators would act immediately. They could say they want the same opportunities for adults to learn basic skills, many of whom did not have a real opportunity when they were in school, did not attend school in the U.S. or anywhere, or whose high school diploma does not represent the basic skills needed in today's economy.
I urge that the adult literacy field -- at every level -- collect demand data now. I urge that programs recruit students, doing the best job they can with available resources, that they keep accurate lists of those who are waiting for adult literacy education (including ELL) services using a standard method statewide. I urge that they do this despite the pain which we as practitioners feel when we put people on a waiting list. Collecting demand data is in our power now. we don't need a lot of additional resources. I urge that as part of our state and national advocacy we ask for public money to systematically collect random samples of latent demand data across the country, including urban and rural areas, geographical diversity, and all kinds and levels of adult literacy education (including ELL) services. I urge that we make collecting latent demand data part of our field's next Literacy President campaign, that it be a question we ask of every Presidential candidate, and also a question we ask every Gubernatorial candidate in upcoming state elections.
Needs data (NAAL and NALS) are interesting, and perhaps useful to understand trends, but the data are rarely used for decision making. The data do not seem to affect much change, to result in new or better services for adult learners. We need to collect data for decision making, data that policy makers can be pushed to act on. We may never be able to meet the needs for adult literacy in this country. We have a better shot, however, of meeting the unmet demand, of measurably and significantly reducing the waiting lists of people seeking these services.
David J. Rosen
Adult Literacy Advocate
DJRosen@theworld.com
Go on to page 2 of 2 AAACE-NLA_NAAL2
Go back to NAAL_Discussion page
