What’s Up?: The Rapid Increase Of Young People In GED & Adult Education Programs

A Forum — July 26, 2002

Today’s forum addressed a growing concern of adult educators: an influx of younger participants into Adult Basic Education (ABE) programs. Jean Thomases, consultant, led a discussion session with panelists familiar with ABE programs in New York City. There are two distinct types of alternative education in which NYC public school youth enroll. One is managed by the NYC public schools, the other consists of independent ABE programs often managed by community-based organizations (CBOs). Both types of ABE programs offer courses to prepare participants to pass the General Educational Development (GED) test.

Panelist Alan Werner, Deputy Superintendent for Alternative, Adult, and Continuing Education Schools and Programs of the New York City Board of Education, described the school district’s ABE program. If a NYC public school determines that a student should be transferred to another school—for example, due to poor attendance—it may refer him or her to an alternative or adult program run by the school district. Procedures are in place to ensure that (1) a formal transfer is made—students are removed from the register of the sending school and added to the alternative school/ABE/GED program register (students must bring a letter from the ABE/GED program to be officially withdrawn); (2) the school is still held responsible for these students’ achievement (for example, it has to claim a “drop out” if the student drops out of the ABE/GED program and if the student graduates from the program the sending school gets credit); and (3) students continue to receive services including counseling, limited English proficiency (LEP), and special education services while in the ABE/GED program.

Panelists Martha Kamber, Director of Supportive Services, Sunset Park Adult and Family Education Program and Edith Gnanadass, Deputy Director, Discipleship Outreach Ministries both of Brooklyn, NY described the increasing numbers of young people in their CBO-run ABE programs. Both their programs have traditionally served older adults. Kamber and Gnanadass each described how the enrollment of 16-24 year olds in their programs has greatly increased in the last few years. Gnanandass described an increase from 2000 to 2002 from 50% of participants between 16- and 24-years old to 75%-85%. In addition, this group of young people is getting even younger with 40% of the 2002 group being 16-to 17-year olds. Many more young people are on the waiting lists to get into these programs.

There are a number of concerns regarding increased numbers of young people in ABE, as follows.

Accountability, Services and Funding

Students in ABE/GED programs not run by the NYC Board of Education are not being tracked by the school district so:

a) Students are not identified for and are not eligible for services under Title I or for limited English proficiency (LEP) or Special Education. They rarely continue counseling, although about 25% have some continued contact with high school guidance counselors according to Gnanandass who actively works to get some students readmitted to traditional NYC public high schools. Many students in ABE/GED programs have learning disabilities that were not identified in traditional schools, however they are outside of the school system and no longer eligible for special education services.

b) CBO-run ABE/GED programs receive $63 per participant per day in adult education funding. In contrast, NYC schools receive $9,000 per student per year.

c) When students who have low attendance, low literacy skills, poor achievement, discipline problems and/or are overage for their grade leave public school the benefits to the schools are great—especially when these students are not counted into strict new attendance and performance requirements. Kamber and Gnanandass both speculated that some students are “counseled out” or “pushed out” of school and seek out ABE/GED programs as the only places that will accept them. They wonder if the numbers of young participants desiring to get in their programs will increase as more accountability standards are put in place.

ABE/GED Programs not Equipped to Work with Youth

CBO-run ABE/GED programs are very different than public schools; this can work both for and against young people.

For

In some cases this works to a young person’s benefit, particularly when they are outnumbered by more mature and motivated adult learners. When the majority of participants are young, this benefit is lost. ABE/GED programs also offer accepting climates with high expectations for all, characteristics Kamber and Gnanandass suggested were often missing in public schools. The settings are smaller and some specialized services are available such as supportive services, career counseling, knowledge about postsecondary options, how to interview for jobs, and employability training. Some programs place students in college. ABE/GED programs also are more flexible than public schools regarding a young person’s home language.

Against

ABE/GED programs are geared towards motivated adults—individuals who are there on a voluntary basis, who have reached a point in their life where they are self-motivated to return to school and learn. Although ABE/GED programs are trying hard to accommodate the young people, programs are also accountable for their funding and to the adults they were intended to serve. Assisting a 16-year old with poor reading skills means at least a two-year investment, longer than might be needed to assist an older learner. While Kamber and Gnanandass reported that many young people are very interested in continuing their education and feel like the public schools will not take them back, others are mandated to complete some sort of education, for example as a condition of their probation or parole. Unmotivated young participants can also slow down the class for each other and the adult participants. Personal and social issues experienced by adolescents can also add to classroom distractions. These might include emerging sexuality, marijuana, alcohol, gangs, unstable homes, precarious living arrangements, being teen parents, and financial issues.

Additonally, low skill levels can really limit the value of the ABE/GED program, especially if the GED cannot be obtained. True GED-prep classes are actually quite demanding—an 11th grade reading level is now needed to pass the GED, and many of the entering young people have reading levels of 5th grade or below. Therefore, many younger participants enrolled in ABE/GED programs are really in pre-GED prep courses, just working on their basic skills. Then there is the question of how much the GED really benefits young people versus staying in school to get their high school diploma. Attaining the GED can have important benefits such as allowing students to enroll in two- or four-year colleges, but is also associated with less positive results than attaining a high school diploma. For example, GED attainers are less likely to stay in and do well in college partially because they do not have the foundational skills and study habits needed for college success, according to Alan Werner. GED attainers also tend to make lower earnings than students who earned high school diplomas.

Kamber and Gnanandass suggest that young people will seek out alternatives to public schools in increasing numbers and that policymakers should keep their eye on this emerging situation. One immediate policy approach, if schools are indeed pushing young people out to make their numbers look better under new accountability rules, is to hold sending schools responsible for outcomes of any child even if he or she has entered the ABE/GED system and also asking that special services (LEP, special education, counseling, Title I) are continued. Increasing parent involvement in choices made by or for high school students is also an important goal. Werner also suggests reviewing the system for disproportionality in who is referred to ABE/GED programs both within and outside of the Board of Education system. He noted that the majority of the participants are male and were overage for their grade.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org