ERIC Number: ED317710
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 1989-Sep
Reference Count: N/A
Functional Context Education: Policy and Training Methods from the Military Experience. Background Paper No. 41.
Sticht, Thomas G.
In the mid-1960s, as part of the "War on Poverty," the armed services accepted up to 100,000 personnel per year who would have been rejected had not standards for reading and mathematics abilities been lowered. Over 80 percent of these persons completed their tour of duty and more than 90 percent were rated above average in their service. An error in test norming in the late 1970s permitted the enlistment of almost 360,000 young men with aptitude test scores below the minimum standards of the time. These enlistees, on the whole, performed satisfactorily. The military used four strategies with the lower ability recruits: limited assignments, provision of extra help and time, revision of training courses, and establishment of special training units. The military provided functional context literacy training through FLIT: The Functional Literacy Program; FLING: Functional Literacy for the National Guard; and JORP: Job-Oriented Reading Program. Other functional context training efforts include electronics technician's training sponsored by the Ford Foundation, functional context education workshops, technology transfer in the job skills education program (JSEP), and the McGraw-Hill functional context basic skills project. The paper concludes with implications for human resources development policy and practice. Three figures, 2 data tables, and 25 references are included. (CML)
Descriptors: Adult Basic Education, Adults, Basic Skills, Education Work Relationship, Educationally Disadvantaged, Functional Literacy, Job Skills, Literacy Education, Low Achievement, Military Personnel, Military Training, Norm Referenced Tests, Personnel Selection, Standards, Success, Technology Transfer
Publication Type: Information Analyses
Education Level: N/A
Sponsor: Department of Labor, Washington, DC. Commission on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Efficiency.
Authoring Institution: N/A