Consider…

How much ‘massaging’ of the workforce is necessary to gain participation? When does a worker interpret the strong encouragement from his supervisor to take part in a program as an order to do so or face the consequences? How do we answer a request to test everyone in the workforce to determine his or her skill levels in reading, writing and math?

As educators, we can present the case for voluntary participation as the best means to an end — forcing people to participate usually results in resistance so learning becomes another obstacle in the day rather than an opportunity to grow. We appreciate the help of our supporters in encouraging participation from the workforce. But when that encouragement turns into a requirement to participate, educators have to deal with the negative effects of resistance and misunderstandings about the purpose of educational activities.

Insisting that the whole workforce be tested for their literacy skills is an example of mandatory participation. In one such instance, educators found that workers defied the testing guidelines by talking to each other and helping out their co-workers, just as they would do in any normal work situation.

Confidentiality

In most good practice statements, confidentiality is first and foremost attributed to the reporting of test results and individual assessments of skills and/or progress. This record keeping and reporting is the most contentious area of confidentiality between educators and employers. In addition, educators generally agree that confidentiality is also extended to all an individual’s input in all phases of the program. Participants in workplace needs assessments and program evaluations are assured that all comments remain anonymous and no one will be identified in the reports. Work done during an educational program remains confidential unless participants decide to make it public in any way they choose. For instance, Taylor (1998) says that employees might decide if they want GED test results passed on or not.