mary's+page

Chris **
 * Mary has sent an email round with new text - I've put in on Mary's new page

Hi all Many apologies for being almost totally incommunicado at the end of the year. This was due to various crises regarding ESF money for ESOL for 2008-9 (mounting to hundreds of thousands) so I had to drop everything and sort things out otherwise they were threatening to not give it to us.. Second problem was the crash of my computer on which the assessment was written. I gave it to a youing whiz kid to see what he could salvage and, miracle of miracles, I think that this (below) is it. I haven't yet gone through it again for anonynimity (having been laid low over Christmas with a D&V bug) but I'm hoping that 2010 will offer a more sedate pace of life and a chance to look at it again. Welcome any comments! Cheers Mary PS I note even glancing at it that it is not (I hope) the finished article. Plenty typos - so this may have been only a near final draft. But it looks like all I now have.

Introduction My main duty as Adult Literacies Coordinator for Highland is to progress the Highland Adult Literacy and Numeracy Strategic Plan. This Plan sets out the aims and priorities for the delivery of literacies in Highland by organisations within the Community Learning and Development Partnership. It is reviewed and monitored closely by the Highland Adult Literacy and Numeracy Partnership Working Group. It also distributes a Challenge Fund which offers financial support to any organisation in Highland who might want to include literacies provision in their activity. We are at the stage of reviewing and creating a new plan so this is a good time for reflection on it.
 * Literacies Work in Partnership: the Highland Adult Literacies Partnership Strategic Plan and the implications of funding.**

History The origins of the HALP Strategic Plan go back to 2001 when the Scottish Executive asked each Local Authority to draw up an Adult Literacy and Numeracy Action Plan by forming a specific Literacies Partnership which would then progress that Plan. Once a Plan was approved each area would receive a certain amount of money based on a formula for perceived need in their area. A total of £x k was set aside nationally for this purpose and there was a perception that this money was ringfenced for literacies delivery, although there was no actual legal requirement for the funding to be spent on this. However there was a rigorous reporting system to the Scottsh Executive which looked for statistical evidence at the end of each year that each LA was progressing their Plan. Prior to receiving this funding, literacies work had been carried out by the Highland Council’s Adult Basic Education Service (ABE). It received fairly minimal funding but operated part time coordinators in the seven traditional areas of Highland using volunteer tutors to help deliver. By all accounts this consisted entirely of one to one provision. As part of the Literacies "deal" Highland Council committed an extra amount to the ABE budget in 2001 and in additon ABE applied for and received further funding from the HAL Partnership from the new funding to allow the coordinator hours, on average, to be doubled. Not all areas operated a Challenge Fund in the way that Highland did. Some divvied out the funding among the various main players. Others again found their funding being allocated directly by their Council. In Highland one element of the strucutres that strengthened the sens of Partnership considerably was a deliberate positioning of a non-Cuncil representative as Chair or the HALP Working group and I am interested to not that Mary Norton also used the choice of Chair strategically with a group of learners in order to create a power sharing strucure. Norton p 171PL The Scottish Executive’s Initiative had its roots in 2 particular pieces of work which preceded the set up of Literacies Partnerships in Scotland. The first was the OECD survey which produced its results in 2000. The second was the ALNIS Report, 2001. In England, the Moser Report had been produced which informd the way thinhs went in England. Scotland however had a different Education Dpartment so was able to make its own decisions on how the work with literacies would proceed. Other countries??? However the Scottish Lits Initiative had chosen to take a very different path from the English one. The main difference (if you disregard the very different amounts of funding!) was that the delivery was to be carried out using a Social Practice model. To this end there was an insistence that the delivery was carried out in partnership in order to engage people who might have low literacy levels in ALN learning which would be meaningful to them. The ALNIS report made the pronouncement that "learners are more likely to develop and retain knowledge, skills and understanding if they se them relevant to their own problims and challenges" as if it were a new concept in teaching. The sad fact was that for many people at the delivery end of the ALN agenda at this stage it possibly was! Delivery in partnership was a key element in the early days of the Scottish Literacies Initiaitve. The activities that we engaged in collaboratively while on this UL course exemplified the advantages of working in partnership, showing how the insights and experience of people coming from different angles, gave an additionality to the finished learning. Of course there were disadvanatges too (as we also experienced) of the difficulties of communication – especially when situated at a distance form each other.

As part of the Lits Initiative the Scottish Exec also created Learning Connections which began in 2003 as a branch of Communities Scotland. LC was engaged to be a "development engine" to support the partnerships and practitioners by enabling networking, supporting partnerships as required and developing training in various aspects of Lits work. Initially the main support was enabling the Key Contacts of each area to meet and share practice. But as time went on they also created sub network groups in particular aspects of literacies work eg prisons, youth, workplace, ESOL. The main thrust at the start was to develop the ITALL training which became the standard training for community tutors (paid and volunteer) for a while. The Scottish system was based particularly on the new definition of literacy that was set out in the ALNIS report. At various times and places literacy in the western world has meant different things. The first national literacy report in England in 1840 measured the state of "literacy" by the signatures in wedding registers.

How did it go? In trusting HALP to have complete charge of the literacies funding Highland Council gave HALP an edge which allowed a lot of good activity to be carried out. In addition the focus of funding and the obligation to form a part erhsip to distribute it enabled a Community of practice to be set up of practitioners involved in diferent aspects of literacies provision from straightforward delivery to support systems like Careers guidance and organisations which had never before considered that literacies support would help their clients becoming some of the stalwarts of the group. Of course it was never all plain sailing. The legacy that came with ABE of an underfunded service carried out only in one to one sessions by volunteers still dogs us. Only very gradually have we been able to move them into offering group work and it has been the funding that has enabled the HALP Working group make things like initiating things like group work and accrediation conditions of funding. I found some resonance too on p 20 of the course papers because the idea of ABE being the real "proper" literacies provision while other partners are just also rans is very much an on-going element of our partnership that we too "continue to grapple with". The biggest difficulty probably, where we failed, and still fail to delver according to the social practice is with the Army where time restraints on education time mean that soldiers have to be hurried through courses to achieve Access 3 and Int 1 accreditation in the space of a week and there is not the leeway for them to consolidate their learning. We are still in negotiations with the Army about this but soldiers just don’t seem to have the luxury of spare time in which to learn other than the statutory allowance in order to gain the qualifications they need to advance up the ranks. As the years went by there was a feeling that although a lot was going on, we weren’t evidencing what was actually going on in learners lives despite anecdotal evidnce being collected annually which showed how learners felt they themselves were gaining from their learning in the four official areas of their lives for which people were asked to respond. WALT? There was a feeling that unless it was clear what learning was going on future funding might be in jeopardy. This suspicion was realised when in 2007 a template came out from Scot Executive which included for the first time, spaces to show what accreditation learners were achieving and partnerships were suddenly asked to show progression in that.

Change of Government However before that collecting year was over a new SNP Government was in place in Scotland and Partnerships never did have to report nationally on those stats for accreditation. Not only had the goal posts changed but we were in a different palying field. The literacies money was now no longer ringfenced, even unofficially, and some LAs moved quickly to use that money in other areas. In many areas Literacies Partnerships themselves have been disbanded. Where they remain there is the prospect of delivering adult literacies within a very different agenda. The emphasis on Social Practice has gone nationally and there is a danger that it could go locally. Or if it remain, it will remain only where organisations/agencies are able to produce the statistics required and if a socail practice model can be used to do so it will be coincidental. With the guaranteed funding removed it feels a bit like ten pin bowling alley with the buffers taken away. We are still aiming at the same goals but without the reassurance of the funding that was there previously. Part of the difficulty for us is making the decision makers aware of what we mean by "literacy". The main definition in modern dictionaries is "the ability to read and write". The Heinmann School Dictionary (2002) which claims to be "the most comprehensive school dictionary available" does not include the word "literacy" at all. Is it the case that "complex concepts are (not) susceptible to dictionary like defintitions" (David Barton p19) Although the definition of "literate" which is fund in the Adult literacies 2000 report is "The ability to read and write, and use numeracy, in order to handle information, to express ideas and opinions, to make decisions and solve problems, as family members, workers, citizens and lifelong learners" is admirable and gives the funders some pegs to set as targets for those receiving literacy provision, literacy in the eight years has become even more complex with the advances of technology in these few intervening years in particular the access to computers becoming commonplace and available to all which adds yet another facet to which all the other aspects in the literacy definition are linked. The Curriculum Framework and Curriculum Wheel developed by Learning Connections in consultation with practitioners helps to show the complxity of literacies learning. It perhaps also underlines the part that discussionplays in learning.

What now? Are the prospects for literacy delivery looking better or worse Fast forward to the present day. What effect will the new SOAs bring? Emphasis on employabilty but the natioanl Indicator for literacy is about statistics of people reciving lits support not about whether that support is iproving a person’s chances of employability. It would be hard to argue too that a project such as Fit’sit A aboot would be able to atract funding unless the ability to spell in dialect could be shown to be an attribute required for a job. ESOL which is considered in Highland to be "a good thing" but for which there has never been very much money put aside and am assumption that Lits depts will cater for this. Although paradoxically it was the lack of funding for ESOL against a rising tide of inward migrants looking for language support that forced 4 organisations in the HALP partnership to band together as a progression partnership to attract further fundng in to support ESOL provision There is the question of partnerships. In theory the SOAs are asked to produce their commitment to the Natioanl Strategy by working in Partnership across the organisations involved in the Community Planning Partnerships. In actuality partnership can mean many things to many people. For some it is everyone mucking in at the ground level to get some action. For others it is a few chief exceutives sitting dicussing poicy round a table. One is a partnerhsio to use funding, the other a partnership to attract funding. Las are tending to pay off vast sections of staff to create efficencies while expecting other organisations to deliver the commitment for possibly less? The ideal of delivery in partnership is now transposed to the higher level where those making the funding decisions are working "in partnerhsip" but where these links are not necessarily made further down the line into the community provision. But it ticks the "partnership" box. However any real partnership takes time. In Highland, because of lack of time, at any rate real partnership consultation has not yet been had for the SOA. For that reason, the HALP Strategic Plan is at a standstill. Because it is not clear for whom the Partnership Strategy wouod be. The learners orcourse, but unless someone comes up with the funding there will be no provision at all so any Strategy has to tie in closely with the requirements of whoever funds. A recent review showed that the decision makers in our area are suggesting to us that less is more. They would rather see fewer learners but be able to clearly show progression and achievement – and by acheivement they are looking specifically for accreditation and/or a move into employment. This rpesents a real conumndrum for literacies pratitioners, both ehtically and practically, who have not been used to providing accreditation. Ethically since this does not seem to follow the social practice model. And Preacticall since tutors do not necessarily have the skills to deliver accreditated modules. SQA have recently develped smaller modules for Core Skills which certainly makes the task less daunting both for learners and tutors. But there is still a large capacity building exercise to bring the majority of tutors up to speed. Running concurrently with the changes in funding are the changes in technology. ICT is often used as a draw to engage non-traditional learners. For young people especially it can be. But there are fundig issues there too as new technology can be expensive can quickly go out of date and may not be useable in community settings always. In addition social pracices change. We saw how in earlier times a signature was enoguh to call oneself literate. Today there are new literaices. Things like texting have a literacy all of its own. Computer technology is doing away with orthographical conventions. E.g paragraph indentation. Emails often don’t bother with capital letters or correct spelling. Chat rooms use typing as conversation. Counter balancing this are the new technologies that will read books to you, the dictaphones that you can record your messages on instead of writing them, and the computer programmes that will write to the sound of your voice. However, the bottom line is that all programmes need the person operating them to know whether what is going down is right or not.

Powerful Funding The beauty of the funding received from Scot Exec from 2001 on was that it was (in Highland at least) given totally to the AL Partnership to do with as it saw fit. Funding is a very powerful motivator for people to work in partnership but I Highland there was a will to work together for the greater good and some of the represntatives on the Working group cam efor organisations that never looked for or expected funding for any of their activities but were willing to give of their expertise to create a cohesive literacies provision. While notioanlly HAP was s ub group of the CLD Partnreship the latter was a very at times nebulous body and therfefore HALP had a measure of autonomy that gave it an extra edge. Under the new regime the Local Authority now makes the funding decisions – and if these are made without sconsultation there could be some real loss of power within the partnership. So while the social practice says we do what learners want actual practice says we do what funders want and if they haven’t consulted with learners (or even any levels of practitioners in between) there is a danger that the partnership feels powerless. Either we give up or we look carefully to see if we can slavage something by showhorning our activity into the epmloyabiltiy stratjacket. There will almost certaily have to be some compromise. The ALNIS report had an ambitious aim to "exceed world class levels of literacy and numeracy". I’m not sure if it was ever worked out how we would know when that was done. But the funding put aside at that stage would oly fund the tip of the iceberg. The Understanding Lits course emphasised the benfits of "collaborative, social learning" (notes p8)

Opportunities for the way How might we proceed? The implications of the new political scene for my own work are enormous because of the funding issues. Part of the problem is the current state of flux within Highland. There has been a complete sweep of the CLD department and it is now up to HALP to make sure that it remains in business. Some possibilities to have a say I funding would enable HALP to continue the work it has been building up. It would help too if those compiling the SOA would consult with the field but time constrictions may result in that being mere tokenism. I do think that we have to become smarter and look at where our activity will be able to tick boxes and not just sit back and content oursleves with the one target stat that says we will increase the numbers of lits learners by a certain amount each year. To think positive, if we are obliged to do that with ever dwindling resources it may force organisations like ABE to do more group work, and other partnersips to form that might otherwise not. I think too it will be increasingly important to evidence literacies acheivemnet by collecting case studies that will show Councillors and those making the fndign decisions what improvement in literacies skills can mean for individuals. Sustainibilty
 * forward**

Conclusion The days when literacy was a skill owned by only a small part of the poplation are now long gone when those who had the abitlyt ot read and write could earn money with those skills eg Frank McCourt, Angela’s Ashes p196ff, p 387 ff). This same phenomenon is seen in Castleton p 58 among homeless people in Australia most of whom have low literacy levels and where literacy is sen as a "shared resources" Now while literacy is seen as a vital necessity to be able to play a full prt in lie and to achieve ones potential it is not seen by funders in the same light as leanring in other parts of the spectrum. With reference to Sreet’s models of literacy while the ideological model makes the possibilities within literacy as endless as the combinations of the Enigma machine, part of the model takes into account the literacy agenda. If the model were but the sutonomous one as Street describes it would be an easy task to lay out funding to uskill those with low levels, but the ideological model means that there is no clear and agreed definition of literacies. That described in the Adult Lits report does not feature in "official" dictionary definitions and possbly not in the monds of funding deision makers either. The downside of having a fairly fluid understanding (by funders) of what exactly we mean by literacies is that it is also bery dificult to measure what you are doing as the measurements of progress are probably as nmerous as the numbers of those who undertake literacies learning. In Highland The SOA places far more emphasis on tertiry education which is arguably more easy to define and describe and which has a traditional defintion understood by all.and it is almost certain that there is still a big awareness raising effort to be made with those at the highest level who are laying out the spending. Almost certainly there isa perception that because ALN is at basic level it is easy and therefore does not rewuire the amounts of funding that tertiry education reqires. And also perhaps the asumption that those who have not achieved in achool are going to need a lot of input to achieve as adults while those who do not have tertiary qualifications have missed out because of remotenessf form opportunity – rather than any othe reason. There is a danger too with SOAs devolved to local decision makers that, unless they have their ears to the ground and are consulting with and getting advice from literacies practitioners at somelevel or other, their view of what literacies learning entails may well be a reflection of their own view of literacies – possily for their own experiences at school. It is certain that the Big Plus ads which have appeared in the media have raised the profile with decision makers as much as promoting the service to potential learners. [Big Plus website on p 45 of notes] However it is not an end in itself but a tool by which social practices can be acomplished. We should therefore not necessarily be alrmed that there is a possiblitity of being funelled into other related agendas (such as the employability/economic growth agenda) to the detriment of all that has been achieved ove rthe past 8 ears.. Ideally the new Ciurriculum for Excellence will have a beneficial effect o those in the school sytem and it is a pity that that didn’t run alongside the Literacies Initiative from 2001. As Lynn Tett says (Tett 2003, p 29) "Sustainibility is a real issue for partnership working especially in the context of a formal partner ship that is funded on a temporary basis." Perhaps ne of the lesson learned from attended this Understanding Lits module has been that there is more than one way to skin a cat and that collaborative working canoften throw up ideas that would not have been possible without the synergy of a group or a community of practice. Although the literacies world is undergoing a sea change if we trim our sails and tack we may still be able to make our way possibly interacting with new partners as we go.




 * Barton D., Hamilton M., Ivanic R. (2000) //Situated Literacies// London, Routledge ||
 * Barton, D., (1994). //Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language// Oxford, Blackwell Publishing ||
 * Boughton, B., Taska, L. & Welton, M. (2004) ‘Histories of Adult Education’ I Foley, G. (ed) //Dimensions of Adult Learning: Adult education and training in a global era// Berkshire, Open University Press ||
 * Castleton, G. (2001) ‘The role of literacy in people’s lives: a case study of its use amongst the homeless in Australia’ in Crowther, J., Hamilton, M., and Tett, L. (eds) (2001) //Powerful Literacies// Leicester, NIACE ||
 * Crowther, J., Hamilton, M., and Tett, L. (eds) (2001) //Powerful Literacies// Leicester, NIACE ||
 * Erlewyn-Lajeunesse, S. and Fowler, Z. ‘The Millenium Dome approach to adult literacy:A practical and theoretical approach to the recent adult literacy strategy’ RaPAL Bulletin No 47, Winter 2001 in Herrington, M and Kendall, A. (eds) (2005) //Insights from Research and Practice// Leicester NIACE ||
 * Fegan, T. (2003) //Learning and Community Arts// Lifelines 11 Leicester NIACE ||
 * Hamilton, M. (1996) ‘Literacy and Adult basic Education’ in Fieldhouse, R. (ed) //A History of Modern British Adult Education// ||
 * Hamilton, M., Macrae, C. and Tett, L. ‘Powerful literacies: the policy context’ in Crowther, J., Hamilton, M., and Tett, L. (eds) (2001) //Powerful Literacies// Leicester, NIACE ||
 * Heinemann School Dictionary (2001) London Heinemann ||
 * Highland Single Outcome Agreement 2009 – 11 (2009) Highland Council, Inverness ||
 * Lind, A. (2008) //Literacy for all: Making a difference// UNESCO ||
 * Mace, J. (2001) ‘Signatures and the lettered world’ in Crowther, J., Hamilton, M., and Tett, L. (eds) (2001) //Powerful Literacies// Leicester, NIACE ||
 * Norton, M. ‘Challeges to sharing power in adult literacy programmes’ in Crowther, J., Hamilton, M., and Tett, L. (eds) (2001) //Powerful Literacies// Leicester, NIACE ||
 * McCourt, F. //Angela’s Ashes// (1996) London, 1997 Flamingo ||
 * Moser, Sir Claus (1999) //A Fresh Start: Improving Literacy and Numeracy, Report of the Working group on Post-School basic Skills,// London DfEE ||
 * National Performance Framework ||
 * Scottish Executive Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department; (2001); //Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland.// ||
 * Sticht, T. (2000) ‘Are we facing a Literacy ‘Surplus’ in the Workforces of the United States and Canada?’ Research note 3/21/00, e-mail 10 August 2000 in Crowther, J., Hamilton, M., and Tett, L. (eds) (2001) //Powerful Literacies// Leicester, NIACE ||
 * Tett, L., (2003) //Working in Partnership// Lifelines 9 Leicester NIACE ||
 * Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. (2002), //Cultivting Communities of Practice// Boston, Harvard Business School Publishing ||
 * Tett, L., (2003) //Working in Partnership// Lifelines 9 Leicester NIACE ||
 * Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. (2002), //Cultivting Communities of Practice// Boston, Harvard Business School Publishing ||