This hospital project was federally funded under the National Workplace
Literacy Program, and was intended to improve the capacity of the partners, the
Union Educational Bureau (representing its local health care union), Redwood
Technical College, and four hospitals "to develop systematic workplace literacy
approaches and strategies that assist hospital service workers in overcoming
job-specific skill deficits posing barriers to their continued employment,
increased productivity, and career advancement" (as cited on p. 3 of grant
proposal). The occupational classes targeted were primarily food service
workers and housekeepers. The duration of the program was eighteen months, the
norm for initiatives in the National Workplace Literacy Program.
The need for the project was argued in the grant proposal on a number of
grounds, as follows: (1) the targeted classes of workers lacked basic skills;
(2) immigrants needing ESL proficiency were included; and (3) new medical
technologies were changing the nature of work in the health care industry. It
was thought that approximately 15% of the targeted classes of workers were
underperforming and would benefit from the proposed training.
The needs of the hospitals were set forth against the backdrop of the
perceived nationwide decline in the level of literacy skills in the workforce.
Concerns were expressed about the sharply declining quality of applicants for
hospital service worker positions. It was argued that the state's formal
vocational training infrastructure prepared only a fraction of hospital service
workers. Redwood was the only technical college in the state offering programs
for these classes of workers. The proposal pointed out that, increasingly,
Redwood was being asked to expand these programs and that "integrating literacy
and basic skills approaches with job-specific skill training is viewed as the
most effective and efficient means for ensuring the productivity and retention
of service workers" (as cited on p. 15 of grant proposal). It was argued
further that there was need for consideration of "cost-effective methods for
delivering job-specific literacy skill programs on an ongoing basis," that
within the state "basic skills and technical skills can be integrated and both
taught at a fraction of the cost of separate types of programs" (grant
proposal, p. 15). This ideal of integrating basic skills with technical skills
unfortunately did not materialize in the project since technical skill training
was not allowed under National Workplace Literacy Program rules. The project
had to proceed under this constraint--a severe one for a vocational
institution.
Benefits expected to accrue from the project included productivity gains for the company, and literacy upgrade and career enhancement opportunities for workers. The following excerpts from the grant proposal are instructive:
A comprehensive training curricula (sic) that encompasses the full range of literacy and basic skills required of hospital workers across varied occupational classifications would be developed and implemented for the specific purposes of assisting workers in the four participating hospitals to retain their current positions, increase their productivity, successfully upgrade their skills in relation to industry changes, and create new opportunities for career advancement.
All training will be outcome-based and linked directly to expected job performance criteria that will allow for systematic evaluations of hospital workers by employees on an ongoing basis beyond the funding period.
Cost-effective strategies for the delivery of training via technical college education partnerships will be fully developed and evaluated. (p. 16)
Participation in the program was to be voluntary, limited to unionized workers of the classes indicated above. This requirement that the program be voluntary was another constraining factor, in that it offered the real possibility that those most in need would not submit themselves for the courses. They would not want their shortcomings exposed if they could help it.
The four hospitals in the project (to be referred to hereafter as hospitals A, B, C, and D) together employ 17,804 full-time and part-time workers, accounting for approximately one-fourth (24%) of the state's total hospital workforce. Of the 17,804 workers, 2,830 are classified as hospital service workers (i.e., nursing assistants and orderlies, dietary aides and food service workers, and housekeepers and building maintenance/custodians). A brief thumbnail sketch of each hospital follows.
Hospital A, an urban hospital, has a workforce of 2,026 full-time and 3,558 part-time employees. Some 740 of these workers (i.e., unionized health and nonhealth support service staff) were targeted for the project. This hospital is known nationally for its programs in an array of fields such as cardiology and orthopedics. It is also known as a center of excellence in nursing training in the state.
Also urban, Hospital B employs 2,580 full-time and 2,507 part-time staff. About 942 of these workers are classified as hospital support personnel. This is a teaching hospital and clinic, known worldwide for excellence in various specialties including organ and bone marrow transplantation and cardiopulmonary disease.
Hospital C, also urban, has 2,268 full-time and 2,092 part-time employees. Approximately 676 of these are service workers. It is well-known statewide and nationally for programs of excellence in an array of fields including cardiovascular medicine and obstetrics and gynecology.
Hospital D, which is suburban, employs 1,307 full-time and 1,466 part-time employees. Of these, 472 are health and nonhealth support staff. This hospital is known for its work in trauma and crisis intervention. It specializes in a broad range of patient services in fields such as mental health, cancer, and geriatrics.
The Union Educational Bureau is a service arm of a major national union. As
set forth in its mission statement, its purpose is to "help raise the quality
of life of the Union membership ...." Its primary function is to "provide
information and referral services." It does this by working cooperatively with
"existing human service agencies." The bureau works in partnership with
educational agencies to offer workplace literacy programs for its clients. It
also specializes in educational programs for dislocated workers.
The bureau holds the philosophy of collaboration between labor, management,
and education partnerships in the planning and delivery of services to its
clients. It was in that vein that it joined with Redwood and the hospitals for
the project to be described here, with the clients coming primarily from the
local health care union, along with two other local service worker unions.
Redwood Technical College is a two-year postsecondary vocational institution
located in the suburbs of a large midwestern city. Accredited by the North
Central Association of Colleges and Schools, it offers over fifty majors
leading to diplomas, and, in conjunction with a nearby community college,
several Associate of Applied Science (A.A.S) degree programs. As indicated
above, the college is unique in that its curriculum is completely
individualized and outcome-based. Like other technical colleges in the state
and elsewhere, it has ties with industry, but here again it has unique
strengths through its customized training infrastructure, which is specially
staffed and which constitutes a deliberate thrust of the college. This
customized function is augmented by the college's distance education
capability. The college can tailor programs to specific employer needs. It
specializes in needs assessment and instructional design.
Redwood is sensitive to the contemporary work scene. Its mission
statement speaks of commitment to training "a diverse population
with lifelong educational opportunities leading to productive, meaningful lives
for the benefit of a global society ...." Goals set forth in its brochure
indicate, among other things, an obligation to "provide a skilled workforce for
the global economy" and to teach not just technical skills, but problem-solving
and creative thinking skills. The following excerpts of goal statements taken
from a college brochure reveal that basic skills have been integral to
programming, and that the emphasis here is increasing:
Within recent years the college has been customizing literacy training for industrial clients and has been acquiring expertise along these lines. This expertise has been recognized to the point where these two entities in tandem have won large federal grants under the National Workplace Literacy Program, with Redwood having major curricular, logistical, and instructional responsibilities. As indicated above, a major intent of these grants is to help the partners develop workplace literacy capability. Because participation in workplace literacy programs is a fairly new line of activity for vocational institutions, we sought to gain first-hand knowledge, through qualitative processes, of what is required of these institutions in such programs, what expertise they bring, what the limits of this expertise are, and, therefore, what the niche is to which they can lay claim.
As indicated above, the workers targeted by the program came primarily from food and housekeeping services. Of the 210 who participated, 150 (70%) were Caucasian, 38 (17.7%) were African American, 13 were Native American, 6 were African, 4 were Asian, and 3 were Hispanic. Two-thirds were female and one-third were male. In sum, the workers targeted were diverse, with the African-American representation being about three times that found in the state, the latter anomaly being a function of the low status of the jobs that were targeted for the program. The relatively high proportion of women was also a function of the classes of jobs targeted in the program.
Our purpose was to gain an in-depth understanding, through first-hand observation, of the unique role of Redwood in the implementation of this workplace literacy training program to be able to draw inferences that could be instructive for other vocational institutions as they consider venturing into workplace literacy programming. Were there aspects of Redwood's approach that appeared to give it a comparative advantage as a literacy provider? Accordingly, our focus was on the process of partnering, the basic philosophy of workplace literacy that guided the project, the approach to curriculum development that this philosophy engendered, the actual curriculum, and the approach to instruction.
Consistent with our purpose, the investigation concerned itself with the
philosophy and processes (e.g., partnering, developing the curriculum, and
approach to instruction) adopted by Redwood as it implemented its part of the
project, and not with promised outcomes of the project (e.g., increased
productivity or improvement in literacy). In any case, the project staff did
not establish the controls nor collect the data that would allow an evaluation
of measurable outcomes.
Our scope was limited to an examination of philosophy and processes. Instead
of stated outcomes, we used as our referents well-founded theoretical and
research-based positions (e.g., conceptions of the nature of literacy,
functional context theory, and the skills employers want) to be found in the
literature. Whenever we interrogated any of the stances or actions taken in
the project, it was against our understanding of positions to be found in the
literature.
We sought and got permission to observe Redwood at work from the inside, as it executed its part of the project. Key informants involved with the project at Redwood, the hospitals, and the Union Educational Bureau were interviewed. They included college administrators, Union Educational Bureau officials, hospital project representatives, union stewards, instructors, and workers. We became an unobtrusive part of the project and were able to make close observations in the field for a period of nine months. During this period we conducted approximately fifty hours of formal, taped interviews, spent more than two hundred person/hours making observations at the sites (e.g., classes in session and promotional events) and conducting informal interviews, and examined documents related to the project (e.g., minutes of meetings and curriculum and instructional materials). We achieved triangulation through this process of observations, interviews, and document analysis, and through cross-checking of data across multiple sources. Finally, two successive drafts of our final report on the project were shared with the Redwood staff to substantiate the authenticity and accuracy of the observations and interpretations.
Just what makes a vocational institution suited to conduct workplace literacy
programming? This was a central concern of this study. Examination of the
institutions that have successfully won grants in the National Workplace
Literacy Program reveals that they constitute an eclectic array of deliverers,
including community colleges, universities, departments of education, school
districts, unions, community-based organizations, private contractors, and
two-year vocational/technical colleges. One reason for this diversity of
deliverers is that no single institution can claim a monopoly on literacy
capability. The literacy market possesses many segments (e.g., ESL, ABE,
technical skills and processes training), however, eventually these deliverers
must specialize in some way. They must carve out market niches based upon
their unique capabilities.
To try to discern Redwood's unique claims, we interviewed its project staff,
Union Educational Bureau officials, and hospital representatives attached to
the project. In addition, we examined the college's promotional brochures.
Since Redwood had been invited to be a partner in the project by the Union
Educational Bureau, we asked "Jane," the president of the bureau, to explain
the role that the college was expected to play. Jane indicated that while the
union had been "the administrative recipient of the grant dollars," Redwood
performed "the lion's share of the work ... they get the lion's share of the
budget." She pointed out that "they are curriculum specialists," who are able
to customize work-based programs for the classes of workers represented by her
union. "Ralph," another high-ranking official at the bureau, concurred that
the college brought "a great deal of sophistication" to the task of fashioning
workplace-based literacy curriculum. From the standpoint of the union
officials involved, then, it was its expertise in curriculum and instruction
design and delivery that made Redwood a suitable partner in the project.
Conversations with Bret, who had been president of Redwood, and John, who had
direct responsibility for the customized services aspect of the college's
workplace literacy thrust, provided unique insight on the peculiar strengths
they felt the college brought to this new area of programming. Excerpts from
joint interviews with them follow:
Researcher: We are interested in what vocational education institutions can do to foster workplace literacy ... what role vocational institutions can play.
Bret: First of all I think you've already mentioned that we are dealing with workplace literacy here and not just the overall concept of literacy. And that's the reason we became involved in it. [It] was specifically because the workplace has been [and] obviously fits in with the mission of the college and education for employment. It's maybe a key issue with productivity and making employees just better employees. It's a technical college. That was really our background, to make sure that we are training for employment. Up until four or five years ago we were not doing much in literacy as such. But we did find from our meetings with the [Union] Educational Bureau, as well as with employers, that there was a fairly consistent need out there for companies to be involved with literacy types of activities. So we are the experts on the instructional part [emphasis added] that is where we came in to this.... I think that is how we viewed it. That's why the [union] felt that we were a key partner in this ... is that they have the expertise in working with employees in a variety of service areas--we have the expertise of delivery of instruction. So that was our key role in that, and that's why we wanted to become involved in the whole process of working with literacy.
This perception of expertise in instruction geared to the workplace was consistent with the view held by union officials. But we were interested in whether Redwood did not now have to add a literacy-specific piece to its normal repertoire of competencies.
Researcher: You're bringing that instructional piece, but did you not have to add the literacy piece on to that? Traditionally, the vocational institution focuses on what does it take to get the job done. Do you now not have to add the literacy piece? Or do you just have to do the same thing you were doing before?
Bret: It was a combination of both. One is that our definition of literacy ... is the basic skills that employees need to be successful on the job.... With that definition then, some of the things that we had been doing were right in line with that definition. But there were some other things that we needed to add. We added those really as part of the various projects that we were involved with. What we added was really a lot of work with employers and the employees to find out what skills they needed [emphasis added], so it wasn't just our assumption of what was needed, but it was actually going in and asking the other people in the companies, management, and the staff that are there as to what they needed.
What Bret was suggesting here was that from his institution's perspective, workplace literacy meant the ability to perform jobs competently. That being the case, the college was not entirely a newcomer to this area of programming. Literacy in the context of workplaces did not necessarily have to mean the three Rs.
We suggested to Bret that perhaps it was the practical nature of vocational teaching and learning that made his institution suited to such literacy programming. He concurred, explaining as follows:
It's been an applied approach, in that it's not just doing it in the classroom. But what we've done is related it specifically to the situation that the employees will be in, so that they are not just hearing about some things, but they're actually living it. They know what's going on. Everything that is done had been done in an applied context [emphasis added]. And that is, in my opinion, why technical colleges are so unique and so important to the whole area of workplace literacy.... Many other institutions, whether it's a K-12 school district or whether it's the university, their instruction is not as applied, is not as workplace applied as the technical colleges. I think that is the key difference in what we are talking about here.
From the perspective of college personnel, then, it was a tradition of customizing curriculum for workplaces and offering applied courses that made the institution a natural for being a partner in workplace literacy. These could be described as technical competency reasons.
One alternative that these officials did not explore was that the institution had face validity--that it was credible on account of what it embodied, namely a postsecondary education opportunity. We were to hear this perspective expressed elsewhere. When asked about Redwood's contribution to the project, a business representative of the local union offered the credibility explanation:
Representative: I think it was absolutely necessary.... Really, in my mind, [Redwood] legitimized the whole program ... I mean they're teachers ....
Researcher: What if it had been City public schools, rather than a vocational school? Would it have been any different?
Representative: Well, in my mind, [a] vocational school would be more--progressive wouldn't be the word--but most of the people that are in the bargaining unit have either their diploma or GED. Most. Now a lot of them ... sure don't. And not that [that] really matters, but it seems like votech probably turns more people on.... In other words, if City public schools would have offered it, people would have said, oh, you're dumb. You have to go back to school. Votech offers it, it's [not] secondary education, it's advanced education.... That's what I meant by progressive.
Jim, a hospital official associated with the project, expressed the view that Redwood was "attractive" to workers. It was relevant--unlike regular schooling. But on the question of its unique contribution to the project, he was willing to allow that conceivably another provider, such as a school district, could in the same circumstances deliver an equivalent program. The following excerpts capture these thoughts:
Researcher: [Redwood] as a technical college, of course, has a vocational background. Do you think that made any difference? Say one of the school districts had come with the same kind of offer ... ?
Jim: I don't know that I can give you an honest answer. I think that the fact that they are a vocational school is attractive.... If a City school district came, I do not know if there would be any resistance or difficulty (getting people involved) or if it would be easier.
Researcher: I can ask the question better. Do you see anything in what (Redwood) has done that has been good that's because they are a vocational school?
Jim: Again it's hard to say. I think it will all depend on if a school district were to present this, how they would do it? How you do it and how you present it and how it's packaged is [going to] make a big difference.... I think that the idea of it being a vocational school is attractive to our employees.... I can't say for sure, but my guess is that, knowing that this is a vocational-based organization that's putting the time and effort into it would create something of an expectation of our employees, well, this is going to be relevant training. This isn't [going to] be social studies and geography. This is [going to] be aimed at specific job skills. But I'm not saying that the school district couldn't put it together. I'm saying [that], I think, was an underlying expectation when you are talking about vocational school.
When the views of all parties canvassed on the question of Redwood's workplace
literacy credentials are taken together, four clearly perceived strengths of a
technical college emerge: (1) a tradition of working with industry to
determine work-related needs, (2) the ability to convert workplace-based needs
analyses into curriculum, (3) an appeal to workers as higher education and not
public school remedial education, and (4) the acceptability by workers on the
perception that programs will be workplace relevant.
One obvious strength of a college that could not find a place here was the
ability to deliver technical skills, which, as indicated before, was not
allowed in the context of the grant. Thus, the curriculum that Redwood could
offer, though workplace-based, had to be taught, and indeed was taught, under
school-like conditions. In the circumstances, the view that a nonvocational
provider might be an equally credible partner in the project was not
unreasonable. In partnership with unions and industry representatives, it is
quite conceivable that school districts can develop capability to deliver
workplace literacy programs, especially when such programs do not require a
technical skill component and when they focus mainly on decontextualized
workplace basics such as the three Rs, communication, and so on. To carve out
their special niche, vocational institutions must illustrate clear separation
of their capabilities from that of competitor providers; they must do so by
claiming ground where others cannot easily traverse and/or by showing that they
are better at doing what competitors do. They cannot seriously claim monopoly
on the teaching of reading, writing, or mathematics. As Bret points out above,
their strength is in work-based applied curriculum and instruction. They are
not literacy specialists per se.
Since basic skills are so central to the discourse on literacy, we were interested in whether the ability to deliver such skills could be part of the case for Redwood being a workplace literacy provider. Workplace basics include learning to learn, the three Rs, communication, creative thinking/problem solving, self-esteem/goal setting, interpersonal skills, and leadership (Carnevale et al., 1988, p. 16). These skills correlate with those set forth in the SCANS Report (1991). As indicated above, vocational institutions have a tradition of teaching the theory related to skilled occupations--welding mathematics, business English, or technical writing. And, due in part to accreditation requirements, such institutions have been increasing the general education component of their programming. We sought to establish just what the status of this aspect of programming was at Redwood. Excerpts from an interview with Bret and John are instructive.
Researcher (paraphrased): How are things like mathematics, English, [or] communication, programmed in your curriculum, separately, across the board, or within courses? It seems to me that a technical college must have things like basic numeracy--basic skills.
Bret: There's different approaches to that in our programs that offer Associate degrees. The general education requirements, such as English and math ... are done through the community college. So those courses are no different from most college courses. Now there are some specific applications that are done at the college. For example, in the area of technical report writing, that is not a general education course that's at the community college ... it's one that we have specifically to meet our needs. So that's an example. So we do both. And so, in some cases, it's our technical faculty that does the teaching of that because they have the background. But in the other areas it's the general education faculty, from our campus or from ([he community college].
Bret explained further that collaboration with the community college was part of an understanding within the state. When a technical and community college are co-located, the latter must provide the general education, and the former the technical aspects of programs. This rule points to the fact that, in normal circumstances, technical colleges are not viewed in the first instance as general education or basic literacy providers. But they have a respected tradition of making the close connection between general and technical skills (i.e., welding math, business English). That Redwood had such a tradition is evident in the following excerpts:
John: Going back to basic skills and the curriculum area ... I spent a little over fifteen years as a classroom instructor--the auto-body shop. And [in] the curriculum that I wrote, there were units that dealt with math. And I can give you some specifics. One would think that, well, you're going to teach spray painting. Well, it's not enough just to mix chemicals and adjust the spray gun. There's a whole set of materials that are developed to accompany it that dealt with weights, measures, and volumes. Because if you don't understand those things, you can't mix paints in the proper proportions.
Researcher: In some ratio?
John: Right. Right. And in the major collision repair, we were teaching measurements, and we're talking not only in inches but in the metric system. We're dimensioning. And also in the front end steering, basically what we're teaching is geometry, because it's all angles. So in every one of those modules that we developed for the curriculum, for those areas, there were math components. So we were teaching the occupational math in the context for the auto-body trade. And that is really the gist of the type of math when you talk about context. To me it's a very live, very real example.
Teaching ratios in the context of measuring paint and mathematics in the context of auto-body repair are unique pedagogical events that set vocational institutions apart from other institutions. This is quintessential functional context instruction, a defining capability and natural preserve of such institutions.
As indicated above, the grant proposal took the line of the mainstream literature on workplace literacy, citing the need to teach literacy in context. To do so required literacy audits, inclusive of the testing of workers, job analysis, task analysis, and examination of literacy samples. We were interested in hearing firsthand articulation of the philosophy of workplace literacy and examining how it became operational in practice. Here we relied on interviews with Redwood's project staff.
The basic question, "What is workplace literacy?," needed to be asked of the project staff of Redwood in order to help us understand the philosophy brought by the institution to the project. The definition of workplace literacy is not without contention. For example, labor representatives are likely to subscribe to a more expansive definition than corporate representatives (e.g., Sarmiento & Kay, 1990). Some commentators have interrogated the dominant functional literacy paradigm, juxtaposing it against a conception of critical literacy (e.g., whole language, or Freire & Macedo's [1987] notion of reading the world and the word) that they believe is more likely to lead to worker autonomy, and to fuller participation in the democracy (e.g., Gowen, 1992; Greene, 1991; Hull, 1992, 1993; Kazemek, 1991; Resnick, 1990). These commentators tend to view literacy not as a set of skills to be learned but rather as a form of cultural practice. They believe that one is socialized into literacy practice through various forms of apprenticeship in institutions that include schools, family, community life, and workplaces. They remind us of the critical nexus between literacy and existence--that workers have an existence beyond work--as parents, consumers, and so on. The arena of debate, therefore, becomes (1) what should be the content of the workplace literacy curriculum, and (2) how broad its scope should be.
In The Politics of Workplace Literacy, a case study of African-American hospital workers (employed in housekeeping, food service, and laundry), Gowen (1992) points out the cruciality of literacy philosophy in determining curricular and evaluative issues in the project. She explains as follows:
Margaret (a project consultant) holds the most influence in developing lessons and materials. She represents one perspective on workplace literacy. Her definition of the problem and its solution fit within the public discourse about workplace literacy.... Her goal is to help workers to develop the skills necessary to survive in the current system and to advance within it. On the other hand, Aisha (project instructor) holds a very different conception of the problem and its solution. As a social activist with a background in self-help models and Freirean study groups, Aisha believes that the system needs to be changed. She sees the goal of workplace literacy instruction as empowerment through the development of a critical consciousness in order to change the current social, political and economic system. In the middle and pulled in both directions for a variety of reasons are Noreen, Karen, Rose, Amanda, and Sarah.... These differences in the way the literacy problem is conceptualized by the various members of the project have a significant influence on the development and outcomes of the classes. (p. 22)
Gowen goes on to point out that a hope of the project staff was that the training program would help the hospital primarily, but would also transfer into other areas of the employees' lives, "developing self-esteem and creating initiative for more education and advancement" (p. 37). Gowen continues with the following:
Thus, the King Memorial project is initially grounded in the belief that what is good for the employer is good for the employee--to be flexible, to define self in terms of work, and to seek advancement in the system. And if employees see personal value in this training, Margaret hopes that some of them will seek further education on their own time. What this story does not include is the possibility that employees might perceive their literacy needs differently--that they might believe that what is good for their employers is exploitative of them, or that the system might not be as open as Margaret believes it to be. (p. 37)
And, indeed, Gowen (1992) reports that the workers found ways to resist the
curriculum, which had focused narrowly on their work tasks. One worker
protested, "I don't want to know nothing about no mopping and dusting" (p. 93).
Another reported that her favorite assignment was having to watch the movie
Raisin in the Sun and to write a personal response. She took pride in
that essay. Yet, project staff of opposing literacy perspectives had disagreed
on the efficacy of that particular assignment in the context of a literacy
program for cleaning personnel.
We surmised that how workplace literacy was conceptualized and defined by
Redwood would dictate and guide its curricular and instructional actions. We
expected, consistent with the project proposal, the curriculum development
traditions of vocational institutions, and the stated preference of the U.S.
Office of Education and its National Workplace Literacy Program auditors (e.g.,
Kutner et al., 1991; U.S. Department of Education, 1992), that the functional
context approach would be uniformly approved.
We asked Pete, curriculum specialist for the project, to tell us how he defined workplace literacy and to explain how that definition guided his curricular actions. Included in his answer was the following:
When you're in a setting where people are doing a specific job, and they actually have a job, then you have to be much more specific. That's what I see is the difference between workplace literacy and training ... and basic education.... It's organized towards some specific set of problems that people have to solve with that information. It's sort of like the example of a calculator. A calculator is only a tool towards solving some problems. You can focus on teaching people how to use a calculator or you can focus on the problems that they have that they use the calculator for.
Pete was drawing the line here between specific and general literacy, much like Sticht (1988, p. 68) does in his discussion of the issues inherent in defining illiteracy. This distinction between the specific and the general is central to the case for the functional context approach. Pete explained further that workplace literacy had to do with those prerequisite skills that enabled one "to do [one's] changing job."
Researcher: OK. I think that's crucial. In other words, flexibility seems to be a big part of it. Are you flexible enough [to cope with change]?
Pete: Yes, yes. And related directly to that is that the job characteristics are changing in such a way that they're now multi-tasking all these employees. Asking them to do many things out of the specialty area that they were trained in before, and therefore they can't keep up because they don't have the background in the five things they were trained in.... So it's the changing work environment that is creating some of the--what I am calling "literacy" problems.
To be workplace literate, then, meant being able to cope with impending changes in one's work environment and one's job. This way of conceptualizing literacy matched a human resource priority at the hospitals which was to create a multiskilled worker. The status quo was that workers specialized. In the case of food service workers, as Pete explained, one could be doing desserts, the other could be on the tray line, and so on. Now the hospitals were interested in cross-training. Pete explained further:
Instead of having the kitchen person be the one who does the food, serves the food, brings it back, and the nursing assistant person be the one who measures the intake and output of who ate for the medical charts, and the environmental services people be the ones who come in and measure this and measure that, and clean the rooms and make sure everything is fine, now they want to assign a cadre of people to that unit and they do all those things.
Bret explained the college's perspective on workplace literacy:
What we are saying [is that] workplace literacy is the basic level skills that employees need to be successful on the job. The traditional view of literacy has been a matter of reading, writing, and perhaps some math skills. And our definition was perhaps a little bit broader than that, but ... it was geared to the workplace and the skills that employees need to be successful.
John responded with this characterization of how literacy ought to be considered in the context of the project.
I think there's a common perception. It revolves around the word literacy. The perception is that when you hear the word literacy, or lack of literacy, in the case that we're dealing with, that we, many people automatically just assume, make the assumption, that we're talking basic skills, reading, writing, and math. But what we're looking at is the differential between basic ... what we would call basic educational skills, reading, writing, and math, and the reading, writing, and math necessary to perform their jobs ... my definitions have changed as we've gone through because it's emerging, and the last one that I wrote is "using printed, written, verbal, and technology-based communication in a work-based context to achieve the goals of the work organization and the individual."
John went on to point out that at the core of the issue of workplace literacy is the need to cope with workplace changes such as new technology or new ways of communicating. The problem is external to individuals. It is forced by the dynamic character of today's workplaces. One has to keep up with the new knowledge and the new technology, or by default come to the condition of workplace illiteracy. He suggested that the solution is to acquire the disposition of lifelong learning.
Jane, a literacy specialist at Redwood, whose additional role was to publicize, organize, and implement the program, explained that the project was aimed at the 20% or so of workers who "can't quite understand the material that is presented through their job--the people that are having just a little bit of trouble with the reading, the writing, the math." According to Jane, while it was not a goal of the course to teach poor readers how to read, they were not turned away:
We didn't turn anybody away. If someone came, and I don't know that anyone has come in the project that flat-out can't read anything--but we had some very low readers and we just helped them out. We helped them through it. But what I'm saying is, if we really had someone who couldn't read, the goal of the project is not to teach them to read. The goal of the project is to help them out with their job, with this workplace and the application of the material that we have [emphasis added]. But if we start them out as a rank beginner who can't read at all, we're not [going to] teach them to read. But they would still take the class, so we had, especially with our ESL people, people that did have difficulty. But they made it through. And they enjoyed it, and we gave them the help they needed. But it's not a teaching you to read class. Even the reading class was not a teaching you to read class. It was taking words apart and a whole different emphasis. [If] you couldn't read word one, this wasn't for you.
These four key members of the project staff had concurred in their conception of workplace literacy. To them, the core challenge for workers was how to cope with the changing work environment and their changing job-tasks. And for the bottom 20% or so of the workforce, this challenge was acute, particularly where their changing job-tasks required added increments of proficiency in job-related reading, writing, mathematics, or communicating. The conceptions they set forth were in tune with the mainstream discourse.
As alluded to above, one of the challenges for the project staff that was imposed by the grant was to differentiate between training (which would be the responsibility of the hospitals and beyond the scope of the grant) and workplace literacy. This was not an easy separation for project staff to make, since training problems that result from change fitted with their operative definition of workplace. Furthermore, responsibility for dealing with supposed illiteracy in the workplace falls to training departments. The difficulties the project encountered here are captured in the following excerpt:
Jane: Because we were careful that we're not offering training courses, we can't just offer classes in learning how to do the math for a specific thing because now we're training people. And the grant is very sensitive about training people. If everyone can't make this, (or) do this math formula, then that's a training issue. It's not a workplace literacy issue.
What Jane was saying here speaks of a fine separation indeed. The teaching of mathematics related to a specific aspect of work was a training, not a literacy issue. But the teaching of workplace mathematics in a general, decontextualized sense wasn't. And indeed, when mathematics was taught in the project, the disposition was to decontextualize and to cluster skills across jobs rather than specialize within jobs.