Adult Literacy

GED Testing Centers: “Almost a Prison-Like Atmosphere”

/ The Old Crank / 2 Comments

From an article in StateImpact Ohio published last week:

According to information from the state’s GED office, the center used to be one of more than 60 testing centers that offered the paper test.  But now, tests will only be offered at certified computer based testing centers. [Seeds of Literacy’s Education Consultant Dan] McLaughlin said that these types of environments could be a little jarring for already nervous test takers. It’s vastly different from the old standard of a paper and pencil test.

“It’s almost like a prison-like atmosphere in there,” he said. “You’re in a little tiny booth, and there’s a camera trained on you the whole time. So it’s a really different feeling than taking the test someplace that you’re comfortable and someplace that you know.” (my emphasis)

Putting aside all of the other concerns people have raised about the changes to the GED, is anyone worried that these tests are going to turn a lot of adult learners off on technology? Or, at the very least, is the (understandable) emphasis on getting people ready for the computer-based GED sucking up time and resources that might otherwise be used to help adult learners access and use digital technology in more creative and interesting ways?

Here’s How the Budget Deal Will Impact Adult Education

/ The Old Crank

(Updated below)

I have no idea.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 set overall discretionary federal spending for FY 2014 and 2015, ($1.012 trillion and $1.014 trillion, respectively), but we won’t know how this will specifically impact federal adult education spending—most importantly, the primary source of federal adult education spending, Title II of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)—until the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 appropriations process plays itself out over the next several weeks.

But I do know  it’s going to work (based on reports from various sources): The agreement provides $63 billion towards sequester replacement: $45 billion for FY 2014 and $18 billion for FY 2015. In other words, the sequester level-spending limits that were going to be in effect for the next two years have been bumped up by $63 billion in FY 2014 and $18 billion in FY 2015.

Once the agreement is signed into law by the President, Senate and House appropriators have to figure out—pretty quickly—how they want to actually spend this money in FY 2014, (which actually began back in October). So they are getting ready to embark on something of a normal—if very abbreviated—appropriations process over the next several weeks (they have to finish by January 15th).

What’s interesting (if you can describe any of this as actually interesting) is that the new $1.012 trillion top line for FY 2014 presents a starkly different set of challenges for Senate and House appropriators as they put together their bills:

  • House appropriators are facing the task of adding money to the appropriations bills they wrote earlier that assumed a top line of just $967 billion. (Note that the House never produced a Labor-HHS-ED bill, so we never learned what they were planning to cut in terms of any education programs.)
  • The Senate, on the other hand, will have to trim spending back from the $1.058 trillion top line that Senate Democrats had used in their original FY 2014 budget. Unlike the House, the Senate did pass all 12 of their appropriations bills, including a Labor-HHS-ED bill at $164.33 billion, which proposed adult education funding of $594 million for FY 2014 (about $30 million over FY 2013 sequestered levels). That doesn’t mean Senate appropriators will propose an increase again this time around, but it’s possibly a clue into what they are inclined to do.

It’s possible that appropriators will simply propose a proportional increase for adult education relative to the overall increase in spending in the budget agreement—more or less putting adult education back to where it was before the 2013 sequester cut. But they could go for more—or less. So stay tuned. But also, you might want to consider contacting members of Congress and letting them know how important this funding is—particularly if they are on one of the House or Senate Labor-HHS-ED appropriations subcommittees.

Also—and I feel like I need to insert this reminder every time I write about the budget—remember that not all federal adult education spending comes out of Title II of WIA. Community Development Block Grants, AmeriCorps funding, funding for immigration programs, and some other pots of education money are also source of funding for some programs. So, if you care about adult education spending, remember that there will be several places in those appropriations bills you need to look at. I’m only paid to track WIA these days, so I don’t know how closely I’ll be following the allocations for these other programs.

Side Note: The budget deal did not include an extension of the longer term unemployment insurance benefits, which expire December 28th. Democratic leadership in the House and Senate are saying they plan to take up a one-year extension of the emergency unemployment program when Congress returns in January and something of a strategy to make it happen. This is worth keeping an eye on because two years ago during debate over extending UI, Republicans tried to insert several conditions to the extension, including a requirement that benefits be restricted to those who had passed the GED (or equivalent) or, if they had not, were enrolled in a course of study towards such a credential. I really don’t expect this to happen this time… but still, worth watching.

UPDATE: 12/20/13: Patrick Caldwell of Mother Jones quoting Joel Friedman of CBPP on the challenges facing appropriators over the next several weeks:

“It will be difficult,” says Joel Friedman, vice president for federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “They’ve added back some, but not the full amount of the sequester cuts. There will continue to be unmet needs. Not everybody is going to get the level of funding that they would like out of this.”

Found: A Sequester Cut to Adult Education

/ The Old Crank

For a variety of reasons, which I won’t go into here, it’s been difficult to identify adult education program cuts that are clearly the direct result of sequestration. But they have been happening:

WALTHAM — The City Council on Monday night argued back and forth over funds for an adult literacy program that saw its federal funding cut last year, ultimately sending the request back to committee and asking the School Department to try to come up with the money.

The Power Program, a nonprofit adult literacy organization, has been in existence for 27 years, but had its funding cut last year after there were across-the-board educational cuts on the federal level. (my emphasis)

via Wicked Local Waltham.

Monday Morning Reads

/ The Old Crank

A couple of articles from last week that are worth checking out if you missed them:

Why No Literacy Programs for 30 Million in U.S.?
This Remapping Debate piece by David Noriega reviews the current system of adult basic education in the U.S. and asks various experts (plus me) why there hasn’t been a more aggressive, coordinated investment in adult literacy services from either the federal government or states. Noriega asked members of Congress about federal action to address the issue and the responses aren’t encouraging:

Remapping Debate reached out to 13 members of the House and Senate of both parties, all with high-ranking positions on the relevant committees and subcommittees and many with past action on adult literacy on their records. Besides one who cited a scheduling conflict, only three responded, and of these only one—Rep. John F. Tierney, Democrat of Massachusetts—gave more than an emailed statement.

Tierney, who sponsored the Democratic House bill that would have nearly doubled funding, said the waiting list for adult education programs in his state has remained at close to 20,000 since he came into office in 1997. “The resources clearly are not sufficient,” Tierney said. He added that, while securing those funds is difficult in a House bent on cutting billions in food stamps, this doesn’t mean the money ins’t there. “We understand we have to make some hard decisions on prioritization, but there are plenty of places within our budget—if you include the military as well as the domestic budget—where we can move resources to the places they have to be. And this is a place where it’s obviously appropriate to do that.”

Rep. Phil Roe, Republican of Tennessee and chairman of the Health Education Labor and Pensions subcommittee of the Education and Workforce committee, emailed a statement detailing the intentions of the Republican bill that passed the House. In the statement, Roe characterized the bill as intended to improve adult literacy by cutting down on inefficiencies in the current system rather than by devoting more resources to the problem.

The office of Sen. Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the senate’s Health Education Labor and Pensions committee, emailed a brief statement summarizing the bipartisan bill that passed his committee but did not respond to follow-up questions about whether more funding is needed.

Imagine if that question had been about early childhood education.

…

‘We Cannot Forget People Who Did Not Graduate From High School’
Fawn Johnson, who, among other things, covers the immigration beat for National Journal, wrote this article for The Atlantic on GED classes at La Guardia Community College in New York. The article extolls the results of La Guardia’s “contextualized” approach, as compared to regular GED prep, while glossing over the important fact that the students in the “contextualized curriculum” classes spend more time in class. Without diminishing the benefits of the instructional approach, it’s not really surprising to see better pass rates from students who are able to spend more time in class, whatever the curriculum.

I mention this because it goes back a point I was trying to make with Daniel for his article, which is that I think too much emphasis is sometimes placed on methods and models when the biggest problem is simply a lack of will to get things done. There are plenty of adults who have succeeded without the benefit of whatever is considered the best program model at any given moment. For many people, access to any instruction of some reasonably decent level of quality, in a supportive environment, with the opportunity to really focus a sufficient amount of time on the task at hand, is probably going to be pretty effective. But to create a system across the country that would provide these things for anyone who needs it—particularly low-income adults—is going to require a substantial investment. Not just an investment in instructional resources and teachers, but in the other kinds of supports (child care, housing, jobs with reasonable wages and more paid time off, etc.) that as a country we don’t seem willing to make right now.