National Coalition for Literacy

David Rosen discusses how peoples’ values impact their understanding of what adult literacy education is, whether it should have their support, and how they choose to support it. How can an understanding of these values help advocates frame their messages about adult literacy education to the media and to policymakers?

 Part One of a Two-Part Blog Article

After three decades of legislation, adult literacy education in the U.S. is at best a marginal program, one that Congress could end at any time, not an established system; and adult learners are allocated only a tiny portion of national and state public funding compared with education funding for children or for adults in higher education. We need to understand why this is so and what to do about it. Like Sisyphus, adult literacy education advocates have been pushing a boulder up hill. It rolls down on us, and we just try to push harder; but maybe we don’t have to push up hill, and maybe we have more potential allies to help us push.

This blog entry is based on my article, “Framing Literacy Values for Successful Advocacy,” published in the March, 2006 issue of The Change Agent.[i] My argument is based on three assumptions:

1. If adult literacy education – the work that teachers, tutors, and other practitioners and adult learners do – were well understood, it would be a bipartisan priority for Republicans and Democrats, and for conservatives as well as liberals or progressives;
2. The way we describe our work now, many conservatives, and the political middle-of-the-road, do not agree that it should get more government support; and
3. Our messages – what we project to the general public about our work — are flawed. They stereotype adult literacy education as “liberal,” “do-gooder,” or “noble work… for volunteers.”

What would a successful adult literacy advocacy campaign look like? Here are six indicators that can be used to assess political advocacy campaigns, including ours.

A successful advocacy campaign:

1. Identifies and embraces positive values which unite a large number of people in support of adult literacy education who might otherwise be divided;
2. Frames these values. Advocates use these clear, simple frames consistently and repeatedly in messages to the public;
3. Is well organized;
4. Uses the media effectively;
5. Is well-financed; and
6. Has leaders who understand that there will be ups and downs and that many years of sustained effort may be needed, and who are in this for the long haul.

For adult learners, practitioners, and for many supporters on the liberal side of the political spectrum, adult literacy education is understood to be a worthwhile activity that enables eligible adults to learn to read, learn English, brush up on basic skills before job training or college, and get the self-confidence and “soft skills” that can help them meet their needs, their family’s needs, and the needs of our communities and the economy. Adult literacy education is a bridge out of poverty to (better) employment. Indeed, most practitioners and learners believe it is the bridge.

Many Americans, however, especially those on the conservative side of the spectrum, see this differently. Through informal research, I have found that most people haven’t thought much about adult literacy education. When they have, most assume the “problem” is being solved through public school evening adult classes or through volunteer programs. Indeed, some conservatives think that adult literacy should be addressed only through volunteer programs. Some people, who have seen articles about the results of the 2002 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), assume that either the problem is too big to do anything about or, because the findings don’t fit their experience, that the NAAL (and the 1992 NALS before it) must be an enormous exaggeration of the problem.

To me, a surprising number of people do not believe—as you probably do—that adults deserve to have adult basic skill services provided with public dollars. They believe that these adults “had their chance in elementary and high school and wasted the opportunity.” They believe that if they need remedial education now they should study on their own, pay for classes themselves, or find a volunteer to help them. They believe that immigrants do need to learn English, but that it is their responsibility to pay for classes, not ours.[ii]

Some who hold these values will not be persuaded to support adult literacy education, especially those on the far right, but if our message were framed differently many more conservatives might support adult literacy. I am not suggesting that we change our practice, although there is always room for improvement in our field. I am urging that we change how we talk and write about what we do. I am not suggesting just wordsmithing, and certainly not manipulation, “spin,” distortion, or lying. I am suggesting that we accurately and truthfully re-frame how we describe adult literacy education so that those who could be our allies can support it. I am suggesting that we look for frames that unite rather than divide, that bring the widest spectrum of people together to support adult literacy education. To do that, we need to understand where we— in the field—have shared values, and we need to communicate those values more clearly so that our natural allies outside the field will support us.

How do advocates frame adult literacy education now? Perhaps our best-known message was developed by an advertising agency for the Ad Council campaign in 1984, “All you need is a degree of caring.” This might be the right message to attract volunteer tutors, but it may not be right for achieving public policy advocacy goals or for gaining public support for funding adult literacy education. For over a decade, first as the moderator, and now as an active participant on the (AAACE) National Literacy Advocacy electronic list (“listserv”), I have urged its activist subscribers to support spending more public dollars for adult literacy programs (including volunteer programs) for all adults who need literacy, basic or secondary skills, and for immigrants who need to learn English. Although I never tried to frame this as a message, essentially that’s what it has been. I would guess that most readers of this article understand and agree with that message; but many Americans who vote are not persuaded, and others would disagree with it. They don’t want the government to spend more. They don’t think free public education should be extended to all adults. And while they certainly want all immigrants to learn English, they believe that the hard-working ones with the right values will do this without their support. Furthermore, they see the work we do—as we have described it—not as education but as a social service, more feeding of the government spending beast.

So what can we do about this?

Join us for Part Two later this week, when Rosen discusses reframing our message, what that reframing process might look like, and next steps for the field.

 

---

[i] “Framing Literacy Values for Successful Advocacy,” published in the March, 2006 issue of The Change Agent. An ID and password are required but these can be requested at no charge.

[ii] Don’t just take my word for it; begin your own informal research. Ask conservatives you may know – or go into online chat rooms and ask – “Do you think we should spend more government money (tax dollars) on education?” Then, “If so, does that include more money for adults to learn basic skills? And for immigrants to learn English?”