Adult Education Policy in 1960s America:Ideological Rifts Amongst Increased Funding

Stephanie Coleman's paper and Oscar Guajardo's paper.

                                                          Natalie Guest

                                                    Ball State University

                                                             EDAC631

                                                             Abstract

This paper explores the increased federal funding of adult education in the 1960s in relationship to the sociocultural and economic backdrop of the time period. The research used comes from three published scholarly articles as well as on federal government report. This paper examines Bannon, Kulich, and Martin’s work in relation to the historical and factual background of the report. This paper attempts to reconcile the friction between contemporaries of adult education in the 1960s and the federal policies of the time with an emphasis on informing the future of the adult education field. 

History is imperative in providing the ideas and insights that will shape the context and perspective for a chosen field of study. One must learn the history of a content area to fully engage in the future formation of said field. To know where we are headed, we must know where we have been. Practitioners of any field of study shape the dialogue, perspectives, and policies during the time period which they are contributing. Just as practitioners have shaped the field of adult education, so to have historians of adult education shaped the constructs held by society with the interpretive influences of their ideas. The history of ideas in adult education can broadly be categorized into two areas: professional traditions and social reforms. Neutrality in historical interpretation is nearly impossible, therefore historian's interpretations shape our understanding of the field of adult education and eventually our views in practice. Looking back, adult education in America has historically been led by efforts that involved indoctrination, stressed conformity, and discouraged diversity. America during the 1960s saw an unprecedented push for federal funding of adult education programs in response to the social changes and upheaval of the time, but in larger part due to the economic growth opportunity of a more well-educated populace.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was the main social backdrop of the era. Persistent social change and upheaval of the day helped lead to the human potential movement (Kulich, 1992). Martin Luther King Jr. and fellow activists lead the March on Washington, the Selma to Montgomery Marches, and the Birmingham Children's Crusade. People of color were fighting for basic human rights, and their plight for equality was often at odds with political leadership and legislation being passed. From Jim Crow to voter suppression to segregation, the oppression of people of color and minorities was still in full swing even one hundred years post abolition. With the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, American citizens no longer had to accept the practices of institutionalized racism and discrimination, yet they were left with the harsh realities of a post slavery and post share cropping America. What would be the economic impact on America if people of color, many descendants of slaves, could now join the workforce more freely, yet lacked the education to do so? What resulted was an entire segment of the population who theoretically had equal access to jobs, education, and housing, without having had equal access to educational opportunities in the past.

Two of the main players in the field of adult education during the 1960s, Paulo Friere and Ivan Illich, used the method of inquiry aligned with Marxist social analysis which “attempts to assess the fundamental organizational structure of societies based on capitalistic principles” (Martin, 2003, p.408) As Marx did, Friere and Illich saw the value in analyzing the societal structure of the country as a means of questioning the status quo to hopefully lead to a revolutionary shift in the power balance of human capital. Main concepts popularized in adult education amongst practitioners during the 1960s include Marxism and the human potential movement. One tenet of Marxism of particular relevance to the adult education movements of the 1960s was that “The class having the means of material production also has control over the means of intellectual production, so that ... the ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant [social class]” (Martin, 2003, p.409). The human capital perspective was the more dominant notion among those crafting policies related to adult education. For example, the dominant idea of literacy of the 1960s lawmakers limits the idea of literacy to basic skills. As Bannon asserts in EMERGING VOICES: Capitalizing on Adult Education: The Economic Imperative for Literacy in 1960s Federal Policy Discourse:

Human capital theory has reinforced definitions of literacy as limited to basic skills, including reading, writing, and computation. By extension, literacy learners have been figured as atomized individuals, only connected to specific contexts in ways that match up with policy demands—for example, individuals acquire basic skills in order to gain employment, retain employment, or pursue additional job training. (2016, p. 315)

The adult education policies of the 1960s were shaped by the idea of literacy being primarily remedial in nature. Subsequently, scholars and the federal lawmakers were frequently at odds about the purpose of adult education. Bannon highlights how language scholars formed a resistance to what she calls, “the growing federal emphasis on education in service of economic advancement” (Bannon, 2016, p. 317). Groups like Project English and the National Council of Teachers of English sought to professionalize and legitimize the English language and composition as scholarly subjects, but the fact remained they were up against the economic demands of the cold war which called for a focus on mathematical and scientific advancements. (Bannon, 2016, p.318) The push for federal adult education policy resulted in three key pieces of legislation during this era: Title II, Part B of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the Adult Education Act of 1966, and the Secondary Education Act Amendment of 1968. (U.S. Department of Education, 2013, p.6)

The distinct social changes of the time period were of great import to adult education in the 1960s. Specifically in America this emphasis was seen in the boost in federal funding to adult education policies and programs. The mismatch of intentions of social crusaders and needs of oppressed groups and those making the legislative decisions bled into the adult education movement. Even with sweeping legislation targeted at improving the educational opportunities of minorities, people of color, and the impoverished, the focus never strayed far from policy purely for economic benefit.

Across North America, as practitioners set out to professionalize the field of adult education, recognition of adult education as its own distinct category of study grew, and along with it, federal funding (Kulich, 1992). Federal adult education policy of the 1960s was primarily concerned with the following: statistics, literacy, adult basic education, community development, education of the aging, and education for public affairs (U.S. Department of Education, 2013, p. 5). The enlarged federal role in adult education during this era brought about new sources of funding, an overall new direction, and additional program growth to the field (U.S. Department of Education, 2013, p. 5).  The heightened national consciousness about the needs of improving economic and educational opportunities and conditions for disadvantaged adults can be seen as a catalyst for programs that focused primarily on adults with less than a high school diploma. Federal funding was broken into three broad program categories: education for government employees, both civilian and military, manpower development and training programs, and programs to develop literacy and basic skills (U.S. Department of Education, 2013, p.8).

The pressing demands of The Cold War, poverty and illiteracy rates, as well as social unrest were influential factors in the development of adult education during the 1960s. Adult education with a focus on government employees began with military training and increased special skills. The GED, developed in 1942 and still widely in use at the time, was not enough to ensure proficient literacy among the armed forces. The 1969 inception of a military adult education program called “Project 100,000” sought to deliver basic literacy skills to troops. (U.S. Department of Education, 2013, p.6). In 1969, America also saw policies that encouraged the development of training programs to improve education and technical skills of employees at the lowest level of service to achieve advancement. Executive Order 11478 brought about Affirmative Action that ensured equal opportunity in federal service for all. (U.S. Department of Education, 2013, p.7)

Powerful economic and social forces spurred legislative response to previously neglected training and educational needs. In addition to basic literacy programs, the newly implemented legislation of the 1960s brought about programs focused on helping those facing immigration, unemployment, and underemployment. Adult education policies focused on manpower brought about a renewed interest in occupational training, public libraries, on-the-job training, and co-op extension programs. The remaining effects of The Great Depression coupled with the Civil Rights Movement created a powerful force in bringing about a renewed sense of educational justice at a federal level. However, early adult education policies such as the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 were all designed to prevent dependency. As stated in the EOA (1964), such policies should help individuals to be “less likely to become dependent on others, improving their ability to benefit from occupational training and otherwise increasing their op- portunities for more productive and profitable employment, and making them better able to meet their adult responsibilities” (Bannon, 2016, p. 318, p. 8). At the time, an opportunity to gain basic education skills, which is what the EOA (1964) offered, was of some benefit to obtaining and retaining gainful employment.

Although it can be hard to pinpoint exactly when basic skills adult education came into fruition, the shift in focus of programs like Cooperative Extension Service Programs from agrarian and rural to centered on urban and poor community development can be tied to the policies of the 1960s. (U.S. Department of Education, 2013, p.7)  The implications of education policy from the 1960s designed to prevent dependency, focused on remediation, and directed towards head of household earners resulted in a system that excluded many from programs based on age, ability, skill, and location. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent executive orders were of little help when it came to gainful employment opportunities for people of color, non-English speaking minorities, and the undereducated. In an attempt to address the gap in education and employment left in the wake of previous policies, congress sought to pass the Adult Basic Education Act of 1963, but it was defeated. (U.S. Department of Education, 2013, p.8) The perspective at the federal level in the 1960s when it comes to adult education policy can be seen as leaving lasting implications in the field of adult education in the way that the human capital perspective is still tied to policy making today. The view of education policy for profit has larger implications for universities, curriculum writers, and students alike and can be seen today in legislation dealing with education issues from Common Core to student loans to mass public school privatization.

Although marked by a great increase in federal funding, adult education policy written on a government level in the 1960s was not reflective of the goals and hopes of practitioners of the time period, and at worst, was at odds with what social activists had long fought to achieve.  In essence, the standard seems to be set that education policy in America is shaped around economic growth and not much else. This lingering focus of education solely for economic advancement carries on to the policy writing of present day, yet overtime, the focus of adult basic education has shifted to preparing adults for workplace readiness. Although working for a living is a factor in one’s mental wellness in self-actualization terms, education purely for profit is still a reflection of the human capitalist perspective that was integrated into policy in America during the 1960s. Ultimately despite the best of intentions, the push for federal funding of adult education programs in the United States during the 1960s in response to sociocultural pressure and economic needs did not address the gap in education and employment for many of America’s poorest citizens.

References

Bannon, J. L. (2016). EMERGING VOICES: Capitalizing on Adult Education: The Economic

Imperative for Literacy in 1960s Federal Policy Discourse. College English, 78(4), 314-339. Retrieved February 6, 2017, from http://sb6nw2tx4e.search.serialssolutions.com.proxy.bsu.edu/?genre=article&atitle=EMERGING%20VOICES%3A%20Capitalizing%20on%20Adult%20Education%3A%20The%20Economic%20Imperative%20for%20Literacy%20in%201960s%20Federal%20Policy%20Discourse.&title=College%20English&issn=00100994&isbn=&volume=78&issue=4&date=20160301&aulast=Bannon,%20Jessica%20L.&spage=314&pages=314-339&sid=EBSCO:Academic%20Search%20Premier:113756605

Kulich, J. (1992). Adult education through a rear view mirror: The changing face of adult

education over the last.. Convergence, 25(4), 42.

Martin, E. J. (2003). Critical Social Analysis, Service Learning, and Urban Affairs: A Course

Application in Public Policy and Administration* * This paper is in part derived from "The Role of Critical Social Analysis in Public Policy and Administration: A Service Learning Course Application in Race, Inequality, and Public Policy," Contemporary Justice Review 5:4 (2002), pp. 351-369, by Edward J. Martin. New Political Science, 25(3), 407-431. doi:10.1080/07393140307185

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, An American

Heritage—Federal Adult Education: A Legislative History 1964-2013, Washington, DC, 2013.