Perspectives of Adult Education Group 2: Sarah Dull, Caroline Everidge, Bria Zolman

 Perspectives of Adult Education

Group 2 - Sarah Dull, Caroline Everidge, Bria Zolman 

Group Members	Roles	Commented On
Sarah Dull	Author Introduction, conclusion and introduction sections for both interviews. Author Summary Table. Review for errors and formatting. Provide and format citations.
Caroline Everidge	Lead for this assignment. Author Implication section for Federal Support Interview. Co-author Discussion section on Financial Support Interview. Upload to blog.
Bria Zolman	Author Implication section for Financial Support Interview. Author Discussion section on Federal Interview. Co-Author discussion section on Financial Support Interview.

Introduction 

The field of adult education is ever changing and evolving as society continues to develop and expand. As practices in adult education evolve, the issue of funding evolves as well. When researching the trends in adult education, two questions continue to arise: 1) What forms of adult education should be funded? 2) Who is responsible for adult education funding? While analyzing the interview excerpts of Dr. John Boulmetis and the third interview of Dr. “R”, the focus on workforce development and vocational training over personal development is continuously noted. Both Boulmetis and Dr. “R” mention the use of federal funds being rooted in the development of a stronger economy through an educated workforce. In this paper we will discuss the types of adult education programming supported by the Federal Government along with the various adult education funding streams and their implications on adult education. 

Interview Two Introduction (Federal Funding):

The interview begins with discussion of reduction in federal funding over time in the United States of America, despite the continued need for adult education services. However, Dr. Boulmetis offers a counter argument in which he details the shift in federal funding to focus on workforce development and vocation programming. Boulmetis argues that since federal funding is being provided for the programming, the question of benefit for the federal government must be considered. Since taxpayer dollars are being used, the funding of adult education programming must consider the benefits for the economy and the future of the American workforce. This results in lack of funding for social justice and community support programming as they are deemed irrelevant to a developed economy. This begs us to question, what types of adult learning benefit a society and how do we identify what develops a productive member of society?

Interview Two Discussion:

        Though the federal government had been contributing funds toward adult education since the mid-1800s, the first formal program was established in 1964 when the Economic Opportunity Act established the Adult Basic Education program. The Office of Education (OE) was established in the 1960s but much debate has transpired over the last 60 years over where adult education is appropriately housed and therefore funded at the federal level. The most notable tension surrounds whether adult education efforts belong under workforce development or education. Over time, the two camps have essentially merged as demonstrated in Graphic 1 below.  

                                                                                 (Eyre & Pawloski, 2013, p. 1) 

(Eyre & Pawloski, 2013, p.1)

In addition to the Department of Education (DOE), the following offices are noted to be among the largest federal contributors to funding for adult education: Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, Department of Veterans Affairs, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Sonnenberg, 2004, Table IV). When you look closely, there are actually more federal monies being fed into adult education programming through these non-DOE departments than through the Department of Education itself. In 2003, for example, data released by the National Center for Educational Statistics indicated that the DOE invested 57.4 billion dollars towards the field. Meanwhile the collective group of other departments contributed 62.3 billion dollars in that same year (Sonnenberg, 2004, Table IV). Though harder to identify, federal funding streams outside of the Department of Education are equally robust.

Federal funding streams continue to sustain many adult education institutions and programs, but federal support has not increased in the last 20 years. For example, over 690 million dollars was awarded across the United States to support adult education in FY 2022 under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (“Adult Education”, 2022, p. 3). When broken down to the state level, the monies allotted to adult education through this act have increased from $8,688,970 in the year 2000, to $11,897,894 in 2022 in Indiana (“Adult Education”, 2022, p. 2). Though funding has technically increased over the last 22 years, when you take into account inflation by using a constant dollar calculation, the state actually under-funded adult education by over 2.8 million dollars in 2022 based on their own funding model in 2000. When applied to the national totals the shortage from this funding stream alone represents a loss of over 17 million dollars annually. The field of adult education has felt the impact of this federal decline in support as many organizations and institutions close their doors or are forced to find alternative funding streams to support their growing operating costs. 

Interview Two Implications: 

From the beginning, the role of adult education has been to serve adults with foundational skill needs (literacy programs, civics education, etc.)  (Mortrude, 2019, p. 54). Adult education continues to fulfill this role, but has also taken on the role of “safety net” alongside social services. As the trends have been highlighted above, there is caution to be had when seeing individuals only as “economic actors” and focusing only on the economic outcomes of the investment made by the federal government  (Mortrude, 2019, p. 55).

As emphasized in the interview, federal support of adult education includes more than literacy programs; however, the decline in funding literacy programs has had significant repercussions. In 2020, about 130 million people (54% of adults) lacked literacy proficiency, reading below sixth-grade level (Nietzel, 2022, para. 2). According to British A. Robinson, president and CEO of the Barbara Bush Foundation, “America’s low literacy crisis is largely ignored, historically underfunded and woefully under-researched, despite being one of the great solvable problems of our time” (Nietzel, 2022, para. 3). The argument that federal funding goes to programming that has the greatest return on investment ignores the fact that eradicating illiteracy would generate $2.2 trillion in annual income, or 10% of the gross domestic product (GDP) (Nietzel, 2022, para. 13). 

As discussed, federal funding for adult education is not limited to literacy programs, in fact programs can be categorized as primary, secondary, and indirect education. Examples of primary programs are those in which adult education is explicitly stated as the primary objective. Separating further, adult education programs exist in defense (military skills education and training), health and human services (job skills), justice (adult basic education and citizenship education), and education (rural education programs, migrant education programs, literacy programs, etc.). The argument that federal funding does not support social justice does not see the entire picture. One must look at the secondary and indirect programming. The GI Bill, Cooperative Extension, College Work Study, Community Development Block Grants, and Corrections Staff Development are all examples of federal funding supporting community needs and social justice (Alamprese & Silvilli, 1991).

Interview Three Introduction (Financial Supports Options): 

Interview three begins with a discussion of the decline of lifelong learning in regards to current practice of adult education funding. The interviewee notes that funding began to shift in the 1990s to vocational training with private organizations such as the Kellogg Foundation providing funding for a wider variety of adult education programming. However, it is worth noting that with privatization of adult educational programming comes a pushed agenda. While the interviewer argues that adult education funding has been dramatically reduced from the 1980s onward, the interviewee responds that funding has not been reduced but has shifted hands to different sectors, and names, such as job training for the military, student financial aid and other vocational programming. This again demonstrates the focus of workforce development for particular jobs versus other adult education programming. It also raises the question of equity and equality as the shift in funding to a variety of sectors creates a problem of accessibility for marginalized populations who require federal funding to access adult education opportunities.

Interview Three Discussion: 

As was noted during the interview, financial support of adult education has seen many shifts over the years. This is noticeable in the context of social tensions, namely World War II and the Vietnam War: financial support shifted away from adult education and to supporting the economy. Another shift in financial opportunities for adult education is seen in the form of higher education student financial aid. There is a need for the Federal government to see a “return on investment.” As the interviewee stated, the goal of funding adult education is to create a stronger economy by educating workers (referring again to workforce development and vocational training). While there have been fluctuations in financial support of higher education throughout the years, there continue to be funding opportunities available to adult education programs. 

In order to maintain any funding stream, adult education providers must become well versed in assessment, evaluation and data collection. Whether funds come from the state or federal government or privatized sources, accountability for how funds are used should be maintained by the funder. Adult education providers need to be utilizing both formal and informal, formative and summative assessment strategies to inform best practices within their organization (Bin Mubayrik, 2020, paras. 2-6). On top of that, they need to be keeping detailed records of their enrollment and key performance metrics. For many institutions that includes whatever measure they are using to evaluate student learning (like grade point averages). Without attention to these pieces, organizations will quickly lose hard-to-find funding. 

There are other reasons why assessment is critical to the field of adult education. In addition to being needed for funding purposes. According to Bin Mubayrik (2020), “effective learning assessments can help students become better learners while also encouraging them to take better ownership of their education.” (para. 2)  New trends in the field have identified nontraditional students and those utilizing e-learning experiences as focuses of current evaluation methods. They also recognize the need for quality-based educational development that is relevant to learners’ goals (often work-related) (Bin Mubayrik, 2020, para.4). Adult learners typically take more ownership over their learning experiences and prefer to be actively involved in the learning process, which includes evaluation of both self and peers. When done well, assessment is not only important for maintaining funding, but also enhances learning which makes it a vital part of any adult education program. 

Adult education practitioners must remain up-to-date on advancements in pedagogy and research-based best practices in their areas of expertise. Personal and political agendas of funding agents (even of the most altruistic kind) do not belong in the field of adult education unless there is evidence-based research to support its practice. Those administrators and educators who are primarily funded through private grants and individual donors must spend a great deal of tangible and intangible resources on the maintenance and execution of funding tied obligations, while state and federal funds come with their own set of reporting strings attached. In either case, it is clear that the role and impact of funding on the field of adult education is a necessary evil that, at best only minorly detracts from, or at worst presents major obstacles to, the educational mission of practitioners.

Interview Three Implications:

One of the more prominent recipients of federal adult education funds are institutes of higher education. Colleges and universities receive annual budgets at the discretion of their state decision-making bodies. In Indiana, those budgetary recommendations are made by the Commission of Higher Education (CHE) and the Governor before being approved by passing both the House and Senate legislative bodies. For FY 2021, Indiana state appropriations supporting the operating costs of 19 state colleges/universities totaled over $2.1 billion dollars (“Current and Historic”, 2022). At Ball State University, estimated appropriations for FY 2022 and 2023 indicate the university will have experienced a 3.85% decrease in state provided funds in our current budget cycle to the tune of over $6.6 million dollars lost (“Current and Historic”, 2022). This is not unique to Ball State and is a felt loss for countless colleges and universities across the country. The result is reduced faculty and staff retention across disciplines and the cutting of programs at the collegiate level, often those services that are co-curricular and critical to student success and retention, like career and counseling services or student life. Due to budget constraints, many universities can no longer compete for high-quality faculty because starting salaries packages are not competitive within the fields of expertise. In order to cut spending, tenured faculty are also being incentivized towards early retirement. On top of declining enrollment numbers resulting in the loss of critical tuition dollars, operating budgets for many institutes of higher education are reaching crisis level statuses.

For those institutions, organizations and programs for which federal funding is not built in, dedicated efforts must be made to identify and pursue potential funding sources. With ever changing legislation, and private businesses and organizations contributing ad-hoc grant opportunities, successful organizations often must dedicate entire departments of professional staff to support the fundraising efforts required to maintain operations. Many adult education providers receive some state or federal funding, but must rely on local and private sources to supplement those contributions. Tajullah SkyLark’s (2011) article Funding Barriers for Adult Education Programs surmises, 

With communities taking more responsibility in the education of their residents and becoming more aware of how inextricably education is tied to the strength of the economy, and how the education of all people directly impacts its prosperity and well being, more and more funding opportunities will be found locally and in the private sector to supplement government funding.(p. 3) 

 While this may be true, finding viable private funding sources can be especially challenging for those organizations in small communities with competing interest groups, or from those sources which impose strict stipulations on funding usage (Skylark, 2011, p. 3). While some adult education providers are successful going this route, others face insurmountable barriers in their pursuit of local support.

When funding for adult education comes through the Department of Education, the funding source is held accountable to Section 103[b], Public Law 96-88 which prohibits them from “establishing schools and colleges; developing curricula; setting requirements for enrollment and graduation; determining state education standards; or developing or implementing testing to measure whether states are meeting their education standards.” (“An Overview, 2018, p. 3) Privatized funding sources are not held to this same standard and therefore present considerable risks for those who utilize them. Wise organizations only seek funding sources that align with their pre-existing goals and values, but desperate organizations can be forced to shift their educational priorities to align with the agenda of the funding source received. The danger this poses is significant, as it has the potential to compromise the integrity of the field as those who hold the money have the power to decide what is taught, how it is taught and how it is assessed. 

On the other hand, when adult education programs find private funding streams that align with their organizational mission and curricular goals, great progress can be made through strategic partnerships. As the Program Manager for TeenWorks@BSU and Guardian Scholars programs at Ball State, though embedded at a university, both adult education programs are funded by private grants and donors. One program has a plethora of program donors and small grant awards. The other has one benefactor that funds the entire program through grant monies. The partnerships, which by nature hold a power dynamic that favors the funders, are incredibly collaborative and mission driven. But none of the work would be possible without the support of these individuals. Like a financial investment portfolio, in terms of funding streams it is far better to have a diversified portfolio than all your eggs in one basket. For the program that is backed by an individual donor, the amount of effort (and stress) that goes into maintaining a positive relationship with the donor is exponentially higher than the other program. This relationship, while mutually beneficial and net positive, is not without cost. Organizations will “pay” one way or another. The cost will either be the ongoing work of constantly finding diverse funding streams or the effort required to maintain one large one.

Conclusion: 

After analyzing two interviews on funding for adult education, it is clear that there is a great need for funding for adult education programming. The question still exists, how do we fund these endeavors? While it is clear that the Federal Government provides funding to a wide variety of programming, inflation has resulted in decreased funding for adult education over the past 20 years. While private organizations have been able to step in to fill some of the gaps, they come with clear agendas that can be detrimental to adult education programming. Likewise, the programming that is sponsored by the Federal government is often found lacking in regards to community and social programming with a focus on vocational and literacy training. As we continue to move forward in pursuing funding for adult education programing, we must continue to evaluate the sources of funding and the needs of our society to improve adult education outcomes. 

Table 1. Summary of the Assignment

	Federal Support	Financial Support Options
Introduction: Main ideas you have gained from the interviews	The importance of funding coming from tax payer dollars.  What education will benefit the Federal government and thus earn Federal dollars?  How do we determine what creates a productive member of society and what forms of adult education will create productive members of society?	The decline in lifelong learning. (80s and onward) Vocational training shift of the 90s.  The return on investment to create a stronger economy.  Privatization vs. Federal support with decline in both.
Discussion: Ideas you agree with, and/or ideas you disagree with, and why.	Post World War trends in funding. AE federal office/oversight milestones and transitions.  Summary of offices/departments contributing to federal funding streams.  Federal funding trends from 2000+ including inflation analysis.  Decline in Federal Funding when considering inflation.	Use of assessments to continue funding streams.  Assessment provides quality-based educational development and yields ownership and growth in individual learners.   Evidence based research for best practice.  Funding obligations for Private, State and Federal monies.
Implications: How these ideas above relate to your work, and how they benefit practice.	Foundational skill needs to support individuals as “economic actors.” Decline in literacy funding results in the decline in annual income.  Funding for community needs through GI Bill, Community Development Grants, Cooperative Extension, etc.	How are funds approved for higher education?  Effects of reduced Federal and State funding.  Finding reliable funding streams critical to sustained AE programming.  Politics/private agendas benefits, opportunities and dangers.

References

Alamprese, J. A., & Sivilli, J. S. (1991, November 30). Study of Federal Funding Sources and Services for Adult Education. Final Report. ERIC Institute of Educational Sciences. Retrieved March 4, 2023, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED355398

Bin Mubayrik, H. F. (2020, July 9). New Trends in Formative-Summative Evaluations for Adult Education . Sage Journals. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020941006

Eyre, G., & Pawloski, R. (2013, November). An American Heritage, Federal Adult Education: A Legislative History 1964-2013. U.S Department of Education. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/Adult_Ed_History_Report.pdf

Indiana Commission for Higher Education . (2022, September 14). Current and Historic Budgets. Indiana Commission for Higher Education. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://www.in.gov/che/budget-and-finance/current-and-historic-budgets/

Mortrude, J. (2019, November 30). Examining the Role of Federal Adult Education Funding in Adult Literacy Education. Adult Literacy Education. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1249056

Nietzel, M. T. (2022, October 12). Low Literacy Levels Among U.S. Adults Could Be Costing the Economy $2.2 Trillion a Year. Forbes. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-literacy-levels-among-us-adults-could-be-costing-the-economy-22-trillion-a-year/?sh=2d1929594c90

SkyLark, T. (2011, July 1). Funding Barriers for Adult Education Programs. Fort Hayes State University Scholars Repository. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://scholars.fhsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1684&context=alj

Sonnenberg, W. C. (2004, August). Federal Support for Education FY 1980 to FY 2003. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004026.pdf

US Department of Education (ED). (2018, May 14). An Overview of the U.S. Department of Education. U.S Department of Education. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/what.html

US Department of Education (ED). (2022, October 26). Funding Status -- Adult Education -- Basic Grants to States. Adult Education-Basic Grants to States. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/adultedbasic/funding.html