Return-Path: <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id hB9M4Nm11752; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:04:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:04:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <002001c3be9d$e8316500$130101c8@workstation1> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion@lvgh.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:868] Re: FW: we do exist X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 4487 Lines: 85 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Virginia Tardaewether" <tarv@chemeketa.edu> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 1:45 PM Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:867] Re: FW: we do exist > I'm up for interesting dialogue and new threads of existence Let me give this a shot and take up as well Eric Appleton's suggestion of introductions. I work at Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford LVGH). I'm their manager of community-based programming. I operate Basic Literacy and ESOL sites in and around Hartford, CT. I had a brief stint with LVA National (96-97) as their Director of Materials Development and worked closely with LVA founder, Ruth Colvin, in the editing of the fourth edition of her textbook, I Speak English. Previous to that I was in another position at LVGH as the manager of the Bob Steele Reading Center. In that position, I helped the agency establish small group tutoring, which since 1990, has become a staple of all of our programming. We also did a lot of work in fostering student essay collections, and in conjunction with Trinity College and the Connecticut Humanities Council, developed an extensive oral history collection of the lives of Basic Literacy students. I cut my teeth on the writing of Hannah Fingeret, who I view very much as a mentor from afar and a major pioneer of our field. In all of my work as a practitioner and as a writer, I seek to both preserve and build on her legacy. In their various ways, Susan Lytle, Elsa Auerbach, and Allan Quigley have been major inspirations, even when I have taken issue with certain aspects of their work. More recently, I have come to appreciate the insights of Juliet Merrifield and Tom Sticht even when I've disagreed with them; perhaps especially so since a critical confrontation with their work has caused me to think critically about my own. The same is so with the EFF project. Through the listservs I've come to appreciate the collective wisdom of Catherine King, Eileen Eckherdt, Andres Muro, Nancy Hansen, Archie Willard, Janet Isserlis, Sally Gabb, Loren McGrail, Bob Bickerton, and of course, David Rosen. Obviously, I'm leaving out names. These names collectively represent something of the profound wisdom of the field at the practitioner and scholarly level. This wisdom, which was pervasive in the 1990s, is severely marginalized in the conservative era of 2003, where much of the insight represented by these names is being displaced, or at least subordinated to another world view, in which a certain view of science is effectively deconstructing this legacy. That at least is my apprehension. I experience this marginality both as a practitioner and as a writer. Accordingly, what I seek is to link up with communities of reflective practitioners and field sensitive educational scholars to collectively work through some of the challenging issues of our time in the effort of carving out and strengthening the field of adult literacy and ESOL, particularly below the GED level, where such wonderful learning takes place, that is still so difficult to document in ways that those who are not so convinced can appreciate. I see the challenge as at least twofold: a) To lay out the rationale of our field on our own collective terms based on our own best practices and intellectual explanations, even amidst the disagreements and divergent perspectives (let them be ours!) b) To enter into the stream of normative discourse with those more focused at the policy sector both at the program efficacy and research arenas. That is, while it is crucial to successfully grapple with the challenges imposed by increasingly stringent accountability and funding streams, it is equally important, in my view, for the field to maintain the integrity of its own house at the level of practice and research. Among other things, I would hope NIFL-FOB could be a venue for a working through some of these issues. Given the fact that this airwave belongs appropriately to the people who participate in it, at least in part, the integrity of the field is in our collective hands. While there are powerful forces beyond the field's immediate control, there are certain arenas of influence that we do have, which I believe it is incumbent on us collectively to utilize. Obviously, this is a challenging mandate, but one that can only be avoided at the cost of our collective survival. That's my two cents. George Demetrion
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:00 EST