Exploring the Language We Use With Workforce Partners

Thanks, Chrissie, for inviting me to join this discussion on Exploring Language we use with workforce partners. I am looking forward to learning from others participating in this discussion as well as sharing my own perspectives. Since we are discussing the terms we use, let me begin with "workforce partners."  My understanding is that this refers, broadly, to at least three often very different kinds of organizations that adult foundational education programs or adult schools might partner with: 1) occupational training programs offered, for example by community colleges or community-based not-for-profit organizations, or possibly by for-profit organizations; 2) workforce preparation organizations such as career ("onestop") centers or other organizations whose purpose is to help job and career seekers; and 3) employers and/or organized labor organizations that offer workplace foundational skills to their employees or union members and, in some cases, also to employees ior union members' families.

You asked: What are some terms that you have seen used by adult education providers that workforce partners might not know?

Here are some terms and acronyms that I have seen used by adult foundational education providers that workforce partners may not be familiar with:

Adult English language learning, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), English as a Second Language (ESL), English Language Acquisition (ELA), and English Language Learner (ELL)

Adult Basic Education (ABE)

Adult Basic and Literacy Education (ABLE)

Adult Basic Skills Education (ABSE)

Adult Education  (sometimes abbreviated as Adult Ed)

Adult Education and Literacy (AEL)

Adult Foundational Education (AFE)

Adult learner

Adult literacy

Adult Secondary Education (ASE)

High School Equivalency (HSE)

Lifelong learning

Lifelong and lifewide learning

Non-formal education

Workplace basic skills

Workplace literacy

and probably many others.

I hope other participants in this conversation will add to this list.

David J. Rosen

djrosen123@gmaIL.com

Chrissie you asked, Why is it important to align terminology we use to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?

It depends on the context, the audience, and the extent to which WIOA Title II is funding the program. For example, in some states -- Massachusetts and California are two examples -- the overwhelming amount of public funding does not come from the federal government; it comes from the state. In that case, programs may need to align their terminology with what their state public funder prefers. In cases where a program has partnered with an employer and/or a labor union to provide a workplace education program, it is more complicated. If there is state funding for this, for example as in Massachusetts, when communicating with the state terms like “workplace literacy” or “Workplace basic skills education” or whatever term the state calls its program may be best.

However, my years of experience in workplace foundational skills (a relatively new term that many may not be familiar with yet) convinces me that these usually are not the best terms for a workforce or workplace foundational skills program to use in communicating with prospective or enrolled students, work supervisors, and others in the company or labor union.

Here’s one example: at the beginning of the 1980’s recession the Polaroid Corporation decided to offer an in-house education and training program to enable its employees who needed basic skills as well as job skills training to qualify for the company's new jobs. (Sound familiar? It’s what some large and small companies are scrambling to do now.) This was one of the first “workplace basic skills” or “workplace literacy” programs (a term used by the U.S. Department of Education) in the country. However, when the Polaroid Corporation rolled it out using a name such as this, the employees who needed these services did not sign up. The company discovered that the problem was the name of the program. When they changed it to Technology Readiness program, without a reference to “literacy” or “basic skills”, employees signed up, and it was a very successful program. The new name signaled what the company and employees had in mind, namely that employees who acquired these technology skills (and English language and/or basic skills) would qualify for the new jobs in the company.

Here's another example, from my own experience many years ago as a consultant to the McDonald’s Corporation to help the corporation design a new English language program for immigrant, low-wage employees that restaurant owners or managers wanted to train for managerial positions such as shift manager or restaurant manager. Early on, our design team tackled the challenge of naming the program. In thirty minutes we came up with a name, unique to McDonald’s, that clearly described what was being offered, one that has continued to this day. In our deliberations, several names were suggested, then one of our team said, “It doesn’t matter what _we_ call the program, the adult learners will just call it English.” The McDonald’s staff person who was leading our team then asked, how about if we call it English Under the Arches? There was unanimous enthusiasm for this plain language, nicely-branded name.

From my experience in workplace foundational skills programs, the name chosen for the program should take into account advice from the company and/or labor union sponsoring the program as well as from the education provider, and perhaps also be field-tested with potential participants regardless of what the name in the federal act or state budget that provides funding for the program might be. Consideration of whom the audience and purpose are for oral or written communication about a program is always a good idea.

David J. Rosen

djrosen123@gmail.com

Adult educators (in the US but also in Canada, New Zealand, and other countries) sometimes argue that employers, healthcare providers, and other stakeholders that work with and serve foundational-skills-challenged adults need to use "clear language" (sometimes referred to as "plain language") when communicating with those adults.  Adult educators (and specialists in linguistics and other fields) have provided guidance on how to design more effective written materials and oral communications to use with non-native-English-speaking employees or with customers who have gaps in their reading or English skills, etc.   This current discussion reminds us that we should ourselves be careful to communicate clearly with other stakeholders we might work with.  Doing so can support efficient dialogue, understanding, and collaboration with those potential partners.  In past efforts by adult educators to set up workplace basic/foundational skills programs with employers or work-readiness basic skills programs for job-seeking clients of workforce centers, adult educators have too often used terminology and messages that are not clear and lead to frustration or inefficient action. (I'll add more to this theme later in this discussion, but welcome comments from others.) 

My great (late) brother-in-law (who sold ball bearings) used to urge English-major-turned-literacy-guy me to "take a marketing course," as he felt being able to "market" oneself was useful no matter what one did in life.  I'm now thinking maybe he had something there.  

This discussion got me thinking that, for adult educators who want to communicate effectively with potential and actual "workforce partners" (i.e., potential learners and their communities, other service providers, employers, labor unions, policy makers, funders...) it is important to be clear about who those partner audiences are, why it might be useful to communicate with them, what information you'd like to convey to them, how you'd do so, what their likely prior knowledge and interests might be related to that information, etc.  In short, adult educators should develop a communications (or "marketing"?) plan, which in turn should be based on the adult education organization's own strategic plan.  

For example, do you (as an adult education organization) want to raise the community's (including potential learners, community organization, employers, et al) awareness that AFE can help learners succeed in their work-related roles? If so, how might that help you improve recruitment and retention of learners and/or attract support from employers and funders?  Taking the time to think through the who's, why's, what's, and how's of your "marketing" (aka community outreach, communications....) could provide you with a foundation/framework for the various messages you'd customize for various audiences and purposes.  

But, in addition to developing such an overall plan, you'll have to carefully craft the wording and delivery of the more-specific messages you'd convey, to ensure that they are understandable, positive but not overly stated, accurate, and reflect and support good practices. Within the adult education field, there are examples of both good and bad messaging that has been used to talk about "the problem of workplace literacy," "workers who need basic skills," "what can be done to solve this problem."  (I'll add more to this later, but welcome comments.)

P.S., By the way, I like Chrissie's comments above about the need for good planning based on communications with stakeholders. This is very consistent with good work previously done in work-related AFE.

Colleagues,

I have been asked to consider this question: "How can we work with partners to help them understand the terminology we use?" 

I don’t think this is always the right approach. If an adult foundational education program’s partner organization – for example a company, labor union, or occupational training program, has a term or name to describe something already -- and if that works -- it might be better to use that term. For example, suppose an adult foundational education program is partnering with an occupational training program to provide training to entry level medical lab tech assistants who are immigrants or refugees, and who may lack both occupational skills and English language skills. Perhaps the occupational training program already has a “Lab Tech Assistant Training Program.”  If so, then perhaps a program name like “Lab Tech Assistant Training Program for New Americans” would work.   If the partner organization doesn’t have a program name yet, for example if this is an entirely new occupational training and education service, then it might be best to create a name that is new for both the education provider and the partnering organization. In any case, a name such as “Adult Foundational Education” or “Adult Education and Literacy” would not be a good choice for the name of the workplace or work preparation and education program offering the education services as itv would not resonate with partnering programs or organizations, or with potential program participants. 

Some may wonder, is it ever useful to use terminology from the WIOA legislation? In my view, sometimes the WIOA II definitions work very well in several contexts. A WIOA II program term that I like, for example, is Integrated Education and Training (IET) because it says clearly that both education (often English language learning, but not necessarily only that) and occupational training are offered to learners, and that they are integrated, perhaps for example by introducing as English language vocabulary the terms that learners will need when employed in the industry and positions they are preparing to work in. The touchstones, I believe, are: 1) who is the audience (or who are the audiences) you are trying to communicate with, 2) what is the purpose of the communication, and 3) is what you are communicating in plain language and clearly and correctly understood by the intended audience?

David J. Rosen

djrosen123@gmail.com

I did not see the term credentials defined in the WIOA definitions. Did I miss it? We use it as an umbrella term encompassing about any certification, diploma, license and the like. Is there an official definition?

Joe Coffee

Dr Joseph Coffee

Director

Law and Public Safety Education Network (LAPSEN)

626 Austinville Rd, Troy PA 16947

570-549-2210

571-488-8986 (cell)

jnc11@msn.com

www.lapsenetwork.org