Before we embark on the task of evaluating the liberal argument, let us consider a preliminary challenge to the critical perspective arising from the practical experience of ABE professionals which, if upheld, would severely damage its case. That is, many of those who are directly involved with the practice of adult basic education in Canada can report instances, perhaps a number of them, of adults who have made use of literacy and basic education opportunities to step into better jobs, or into job training programs which have ultimately helped them to acquire more rewarding and remunerative work. ABE has worked for these adults, and perhaps they would be the first to say it.

On its face, this impressionistic evidence seems to contradict the assertions of the critical perspective and to render the criticism of the liberal perspective unnecessary, or at worst, an exercise in sophistry. However, what is not so apparent here is that there are two different units of analysis being discussed: the individual (i.e. the lives of particular illiterate adults) and the collective (i.e. illiterate adults as a group or collectivity).

No one can seriously deny that some, perhaps a large number, of Canadian adults have experienced economic and social mobility as a result of their participation in basic education classes or a combination of basic education, job training, life skills training, etc. However the effects of these programs might well be quite marginal in terms of the proportion of people they have helped to achieve a non-poverty income. What is being debated with regard to illiteracy is whether or not there is a systematic causal relationship between it and poverty which provides the basis for an educational strategy capable of making major reductions in the incidence of poverty. The critical perspective denies that such a relationship exists. Note however that no question is raised as to the need and right of illiterate adults to literacy and basic education opportunities of whatever form, only whether or not presently existing ones constitute an effective means of reducing poverty as the liberal perspective alleges. On these grounds, the present. should not be seen as an attempt to refute the experience of ABE professionals who can point to instances of success in aiding impoverished adults to achieve mobility, but rather as an attempt to move beyond a form of practice that can deliver only isolated individual successes to one which holds the promise of effectively supporting the final abolition of poverty itself.

The Liberal Perspective on the 1950's and 1960's

The discussions in this chapter is based on data from the decades of the 1950's and 1960's in Canada, the same period that was the source of evidence for the liberal perspective during its initial formulation. Let us begin by briefly reviewing the analysis of this period as presented by Arthur Pigott, former head of the Canadian Association for Adult Education and one of the foremost early adherents of the liberal perspective among adult educators.

Writing in the early 1960's, Pigott suggested that the post-War prosperity of Canada was coming to an end.1 The unemployment rate in Canada was higher than in any other Western industrial nation, and many groups and regions were suffering particularly severe hardship: