Increase State Leadership Funds from 12.5% to a Minimum of 15%

Date: July 26, 2010

. . . to improve teacher quality by providing more professional development, improving working conditions, professionalizing the workforce, and researching what practitioners need to be effective.

—An NCL WIA Reauthorization Priority

Article by Andy Nash

NCL is advocating that state leadership funds be returned to 15% (the funding level before WIA), and that those funds be dedicated to strengthening the adult education workforce by supporting professional development and working conditions that stabilize the field. Understanding that state budgets are tight, if not in crisis, some are reluctant to use federal funds that could go into direct service this way.

I would suggest that, first, the job of an adult educator in current times cannot be done effectively without re-envisioning what it takes to support that work. Government and private funders expect adult educators to be able to:

Teach multiple skill areas at all levels (basic through college/career readiness)
Integrate varied and evolving technologies into instruction
Address learning disabilities
Teach contextually but also prepare students for decontextualized standardized tests

These expectations cannot be met while 80% of the workforce is part-time and receiving inconsistent levels of professional development, either because of lack of access (many have schedule conflicts with other jobs) or lack of compensation for PD hours. Moreover, poor pay and lack of benefits lead to high rates of teacher turnover[i], as younger teachers (or those without a second income at home) can’t afford to stay in the field (see the Massachusetts Coalition for Adult Education’s Working Conditions Blog). We cannot sustain a professional system with unprofessional working conditions.

Second, the idea that we must choose between quality and quantity of service because there is “no money” is self-defeating. For one thing, there is plenty of money, it’s just being kept out of the public sector to sustain a disgraceful (and growing) wealth disparity in this country. We need to start saying that there IS money and that we want it to serve public needs.

But apart from that, if we postpone building a strong professional system until more adult students are directly served, how long do we wait? Until 20% are served? 50%? 100%? People fighting for progress are often divided by false choices (Do you want clean air or jobs?) that force them to lower their expectations. We can and must struggle for what we need, which is both a well-supported/trained profession and adequate funding of services.

[i] Comings, J., Sum, A., & Uvin, J. (2000). New skills for a new economy: Adult education’s key role in sustaining economic growth and expanding opportunity. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth.

» Jobs and the Economy: Reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act

» Why the NCL Priorities for Reauthorizing WIA Are Important: Views From the Field

» Tips for Using Blog Discussions to Advance WIA Reauthorization Issues

» What are YOUR Priorities for Reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act?

Tags: professional development research, professional quality, professionalization, reauthorization, Teacher Quality, WIA, working conditions

Comments RSS TrackBack 8 comments

Jackie Taylor

in July 26th, 2010 @ 08:43

Hi Andy and All,

Andy, thank you for your article. I’d like to offer some background / resources, and I’m eager to hear what others have to say.

Twelve years ago, professional development opportunities decreased with the passage of WIA while the demand for professional development increased. Under the 1991 National Literacy Act (NLA), states were required to spend _a minimum of 15%_ of their adult basic education funding on professional development and research activities, _two-thirds_ of which was required to be spent on teacher training.

When Congress reconfigured the NLA into the WIA (1998), states were only allowed to spend a maximum of 12.5% on ‘leadership’ for a wide variety of state activities, _with no minimum requirement_ for professional development.

This is a significant issue because WIA increased accountability and added program improvement requirements while reducing funds available for training needed to incorporate those changes. The increased need for accountability training made fewer funds available for responsive, instruction-based professional development designed to help practitioners improve practice, such as training in reading instruction or learning disabilities. States need adequate resources to both comply with accountability requirements and to be responsive to instruction-based professional development needs.

See the NCL WIA Side-By-Side Analysis, beginning on pg. 17, lines 226 – 261, for a comparison of current law with NCL recommendations for rewriting state leadership. http://www.ncladvocacy.org/WIASidebySide.pdf

For more information on Coalition recommendations to improve the Professional Quality of the field, see the NCL Professional Quality Policy Principles at http://www.national-coalition-literacy.org/ProfessionalQualityPrinciples_FINAL.pdf.

All Coalition current policy papers can be found in the NCL Advocacy and Clearinghouse and Toolkit. Visit the main page http://www.ncladvocacy.org/ see on the right-hand side, under Current Policy Papers.

Jackie Taylor

[Reply]
Geri Mulligan

in July 26th, 2010 @ 14:07

Thanks so much, Andy, for your welcome comments.

Returning state leadership funds to the funding level prior to WIA (as Jackie reminds us) is not only a healthy step for the field but a necessity if we are to aid the President’s quest of adding 5 million community college graduates to the records in order to regain the U.S.’ global competitiveness. The current student population in the nation’s community colleges would not provide the numbers needed IF the majority of the students DID graduate. Adult learners need to be among the graduates in large numbers to meet that lofty goal.

The adult ed teachers work very hard to help their students meet their goals and yet are handicapped by the small amount of money going into their own professional development. We expect them to teach multiple levels at the same time, to use adequate and innovative technology, to meet the needs of the learning disabled in their classroom, to help their students become part of the work force or to become a post secondary student and yet the training they need to suceed in their mission is sadly lacking due to inadequate funding.

At UT’s Center for Literacy Studies our mission is to support and advance literacy education across the lifespan. Much of our work then is dedicated to providing research-based professional development to programs, supervisors and teachers of adult ed students. We see daily the challenges these people face and we also are constantly aware that the lack of funding is one of the biggest obstacles to professionalizing the field.

The dedication and commitment of the practioners needs to be augmented with well-funded professional development and research that continually helps us determine what the needs are in order to advance the education of our adult learners.

Thanks, Andy, for asking the question of how many adult learners need to be served before we can build a strong professional system. It seems that we cannot delay even another day. We are expecting quality in a virtual vacuum.

[Reply]
Andy Nash Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 8:42 am
Thanks, Geri. The kind of sustained, research-based PD that you describe requires that teachers be able to participate in an on-going way and have program support to integrate what they’ve learned into their daily practice.

Technology is, fortunately, beginning to make it easier for practitioners to participate in such sustained PD, at a distance and on their own schedules. The risk, however, is that PD could increasingly become something that educators do on their own uncompensated time. By dedicating the 15% leadership funds for PD, we ensure that it is recognized as an essential part of maintaining a well-trained and stable workforce.

Gail Cope Reply:
July 27th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Good morning,
Andy, Jackie, and Geri raise critical issues regarding WIA requirements for accountability and the need for quality professional development in adult education. WIA legislation resulted in a change of emphasis from program process, as with the NLA, to performance accountability. Continuous improvement is an expectation of WIA legislation; however, a specific approach to address performance accountability is not part of the mandate.

To address WIA requirements, many states have implemented systematic approaches to program improvement and accountability. Some approaches or models are based on developing criteria for program quality and examine adult education program components that include program design and delivery, curriculum and instruction, assessment, teacher quality and professional development, and support/follow-up services for students that enhance student access and enhance persistence. Other models begin with a program level self-study which involves examining the current status of policies, procedures, instructional practices, and professional development. In addition to program improvement models, many states go through a benchmarking process to identify exemplary initiatives and promising program practices that will help them in developing and implementing a quality program. A strategic planning process and an ongoing and systematic program evaluation are critical, regardless of the approach or model.

I would like to offer resources that could be helpful in addressing the ‘re-visioning’ in Andy’s article and performance accountability and program improvement issues raised by Jackie and Geri. The online LINCS Program Improvement Collection contains resources and materials to help program administrators in developing and implementing innovative continuous improvement strategies and systematic approaches to program management and accountability. Topics in this collection include resources that focus on adult education program models, professional development, data monitoring strategies, and others. To access this collection, go to:
http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/resourcecollections/RC_planning.html#improve
JoAnn Weinberger

in July 28th, 2010 @ 20:35

One result of shrinking budgets is the layoff of educators in the field of adult literacy. To increase leadership funds for a shrinking pool of educators does not make sense to me. As an organization that shows leadership by hiring virtually all full-time educators with benefits, decreasing the pool of funds for direct service (which in our case includes paid professional development time) and increasing the pool of funds for professional development does not equate to improved services. By increasing the pool of funds for direct service and finding ways to employ full-time as opposed to part-time educators is an issue worth addressing. PA has been able to develop a strong professional development system using the 12.5% allowed. I assert that it is time to consider how to increase the funding for direct services, including paying staff to participate (which comes out of direct services, not leadership funding).

[Reply]
Andy Nash Reply:
July 30th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Hi JoAnn,
If every program were designed like yours, the context in which this legislation is being developed would be very different. But there is great variance across (and within) states, and these recommendations are aimed at building such high quality everywhere.

To your point about 15% seeming too high a percent for leadership funds, please note (see the WIA side-by-side that Jackie referenced) that the recommended list of allowable activities has grown considerably to include things like:
• creating career and college pathway services
• integrated instruction and occupational skills training
• developing and implementing a system to assist adults in transitioning to postsecondary education and training
• developing programs to address learning disabilities
• implementing learner leadership activities
• promoting health literacy partnerships and programs

The recommendations also aim to build a “professional quality and career advancement system” by:
• Providing paid professional development release time for practitioners and allowances for hiring substitute teachers, where needed for practitioners to attend professional development
• Establishing career ladders for teachers who then become mentors of other teachers and who take leadership roles within the program to become a master teacher
• Providing incentives for (among other things) hiring full-time instructors

Such quality-building initiatives are how the 15% would be used.

As for the need to adequately fund direct service, it has always been a priority of the Coalition to increase appropriations overall for state grants, and this will of course continue to be a priority into the future.
Jackie Taylor

in August 6th, 2010 @ 11:02

Hello,

Just out this summer — a new article in the Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal on teacher quality called “The Great Dilemma of Improving Teacher Quality in Adult Learning and Literacy,” by Cristine Smith:

http://blog.ncladvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Smith2010TQinAE.pdf

This article gives a research rationale for why we need to overhaul the existing professional development and professional quality systems in adult education. In it she discusses why policies must move in tandem with changes to the PD system so that we can adequately meet the critical learning needs of practitioners and adult learners.

Creating a professional quality and career advancement system, in my opinion, is paramount in doing that.

Jackie Taylor

[Reply]
Federico Salas-Isnardi

in August 6th, 2010 @ 19:01

Increasing funding for PD to the minimum 15% is one of my top priorities too because I don’t believe we can reach higher standards of professionalism if we don’t support our colleagues’ development. But I believe the increase MUST be accompanied by policies addressing the issue of staff time, release time and payment for participation in PD, preparation time, and paid time to implement innovations in the classroom. Even as states develop interesting and often excellent quality PD initiatives, teachers are not encouraged to participate by their administrators because of the costs associated with PD. As Joanne said, when funded, these costs come from direct services. We need policies that address these issues, not simply an increase on the amount of money states are expected to spend on PD. If we are going to succeed in revisioning the PD system and if we can develop measures of teacher quality (among other indicators mentioned by Gail) we cannot do it without systemic supports that acknowledge that the adult education workforce cannot improve based solely on the teachers volunteering their time.

[Reply]

National Coalition for Literacy

Get Alerts and Updates

Polls

Facebook

Categories

Links

Meta

Increase State Leadership Funds from 12.5% to a Minimum of 15%

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 8 comments

Jackie Taylor

Geri Mulligan

JoAnn Weinberger

Jackie Taylor

Federico Salas-Isnardi