Adult Literacy Education Winter 2021 - Forum: Serving Learners with Barriers - Part 2 of 3

Oct 15, 2026

The text is a scholarly response discussing adult literacy education and how to serve learners facing barriers. It critiques the practice of “creaming” high-score learners and challenges labeling adults as “hard to serve,” arguing such framing misdirects attention from systemic and civil-rights issues affecting access to quality education, health care, and housing. It also argues for fairer evaluation metrics that consider equity-focused supports, recommends policy reforms such as the REAL Act to restore PELL in prison programs, and advocates person-centered language for people with criminal justice histories and ESOL needs.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time10 min

AccessFree to download

Forum: Serving Learners with Barriers

Response to “There Are No Hard-to-Serve Learners, Only Ill-Served Ones”

Critique of “creaming” and “hard to serve” labeling

Equity-focused evaluation and policy supports

Person-centered language for criminal justice histories and ESOL

ADULT LITERACY EDUCATION Winter 2021 [http://doi.org/10.35847/JSchwartz.3.1.60](http://doi.org/10.35847/JSchwartz.3.1.60) Forum: Serving Learners with Barriers (Part 2 of 3) Response to There Are No Hard-to-Serve Learners, Only Ill-Served Ones by Erik Jacobson, Montclair State University Joni Schwartz, City University of New York, LaGuardia Community College A decade and a half ago, the community of adult educators to which I belonged called the phenomenon that Jacobson describes in There Are No Hard-to-Serve Learners as “creaming.” This is the practice of choosing to serve certain students, in this case those with high scores on their initial GED® practice test or students with advanced TABE® scores, so that we fulfilled our performance objectives and more easily demonstrated employability. We knew what we were doing. The reasons were economic; we needed to show outcomes that would continue to make our adult education program eligible for funding. As Jacobson states,“despite WIOA language explaining that variations in students’backgrounds will be accounted for in evaluations, some programs remain concerned about how the skill level of the students they enroll may impact their outcomes, and thus their funding.” This was the concern in the instance with which I opened. Whether this concern is fully founded or not, I agree with Jacobson that the labeling of individuals as hard to serve is unfortunate and misdirected in that it suggests that these students are somehow deficient and are the problem rather than identifying complex systemic issues that make some adult education programs necessary in the first place. To be more specific, how prepared an adult student is for employment at a living wage, career credentialing, acquiring a highschool diploma or GED®, or fluency in English is often dependent upon and intersected with civil rights issues of equality and equity. Systemically and institutionally, there is disproportional access to quality education, health care, and housing for people of color, the poor, and the immigrant. This disproportionality is often driven by race, class, and immigration policies. Jacobson is right. Evaluation metrics should not solely measure individual employment placements, recidivism, or movement away from public assistance without accounting for how programs and policies support and provide access, opportunity, education toward equity. One simple example is the Restoring Education and Learning Act (REAL Act) which has bipartisan congressional support and, if passed, restores the PELL Grant in prison adult education programs. This is one common sense, cost effective, and systemic approach to outcomes putting the onus on institutional change (Grawert, 2019; Sangree, 2019).* I am reminded ofIbram Kendi’s distinction between an assimilationist and anti-racist Correspondence: [jschwartz@lagcc.cuny.edu](jschwartz@lagcc.cuny.edu) 60 approach to American issues of inequality and racism. Assimilationist’s perspectives place the responsibility for poverty, employment, education difference, and racism on individuals and their need to improve and meet certain outcomes. Anti-racist perspectives challenge policies because policies construct and maintain inequalities; racist ideology follows (Kendi, 2016). Following Kendi’s framework, labeling students hard to serve is assimilationist in nature, therefore decidedly racist. We, as adult educators, and those responsible for WIOA policy would do well to ponder. But I diverge. Overall, I agree with Jacobson’s predominant premise – words matter. And the use of the term hard to serve is at best misinformed and at worst harmful. I strongly agree with Jacobson,“Recognizing that there are no hard-to-serve students, only ill-served ones, will help clarify the political project required to remove the barriers that stand in these students’ way.” Language is a first step. Unfortunately, Jacobson does make one error when referring to people f

FAQs

What does the author criticize about the adult education practice of “creaming”?

The author describes “creaming” as choosing to serve certain students with higher initial test scores to meet performance objectives and improve funding outcomes, while overlooking learners who face greater barriers.

Why does the author argue that labeling students “hard to serve” is harmful?

The author contends the label suggests the students are deficient, when systemic and civil-rights issues create unequal access to education, health care, and housing. The framing is therefore misdirected and can be racist in its assimilationist nature.

What language does the author recommend instead of terms like “ex-offenders”?

The author argues that “ex-offender” (like related “ex-” labels) is pejorative and reduces people to their worst moments. They recommend person-centered identifiers such as people who experienced the criminal justice system or formerly incarcerated citizens.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Chumphorn