As a consequence of the 1984 policy, literacy funding nearly doubled in five years. However, the targeting of that funding — overwhelmingly favouring the formal system — has been contentious. In 1985-6, when school boards were granted open funding for literacy, their budget for literacy was $13 million. By 1990, 80 of 82 school boards offered programs; they received $24.1 million, over 90% of provincial literacy funding. The popular groups had increased in number to 70 in 1985-6, and their budget was $1.2 million. But their funding has been nearly frozen since then, and by 1990, had increased to only $1.9 million. (There were then 75 groups, with 35 RGPAQ members). The 1984 policy mandates schools to support what it called "independent" or "non-profit associations," saying, "The school network will continue its literacy programs using its own methods, and will support the activities of the independent sectors while respecting their originality." In practice this has meant that since funding does not cover all the expences of popular groups, many now work sub-contractually with school boards, sometimes uneasily, to increase their resources.

Many organizations have continued to promote a broadly based literacy strategy. An RGPAQ document in 1986⁸⁴ deplored "the uneven development of the two literacy networks," and called for a global, flexible strategy. The argument was elaborated in a 1989 report from l'Institut canadien d'éducation des adults,⁸⁵ and recapitulated in 1990 by the Conseil superieur de l'éducation (an advisory body to the government on all education matters).⁸⁶ In this critical view, Québec is in a "paradoxical" situation⁸⁷ — it has clearly distinguished literacy from basic education, invested substantial financial resources in literacy during the 1980s, developed literacy networks, and organized research and publications; yet it has produced no global plan for literacy. The global plan called for would be developed through wide and open consultation. It would address literacy needs and learning within people's life situations, usually as members of cultural and linguistic minorities, and as people in persistent poverty, with difficult access to social, legal and health services. It would recognize that illiteracy often reflects a rejection of educational institutions. Consequently, programming would be diverse and flexible, to address various specific milieux. There would be a mobilization of resources from all sectors, since "being at the service of others requires great flexibility concerning the resources to be implemented, and joint action among all those involved."⁸⁸ School boards and popular education groups would have a balanced participation. The strategy would encompass literacy in schools and the prevention of drop-outs. To date, the government has not responded to calls for a broad and flexible literacy strategy.