Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id OAA14288; Thu, 11 May 2000 14:31:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:31:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <002e01bfbb76$825f9360$c91f8f80@virginia.edu>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: Debbie Tuler <djt9u@virginia.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1011] RE: Summit Feedback Process: The Goal
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
Status: O
Content-Length: 3972
Lines: 102
I too think the first goal should be scrapped: the comparison to other
countries is irrelevant, a goal should not be phrased in terms of a single
test alone, and target dates seem meaningless.
The second goal statement is a bit better but needs work. First, "will
benefit from" sounds like a judgement or rather than a goal, I suppose
because it is so vague. Also, as the old saying goes, we can lead a horse
to water but....I like Tina's comments about putting responsibility in the
hands of those creating the goal. I think the focus should be on developing
a system that can provide quality services, opportunities, and help learners
meet their goals. I also disagree with the explicit use of the acronym EFF
although I think that what it represents should be infused in the entire
document. (It's rather cheeky for them to state in the intro that the goal
of the summit "was to begin developing a vision and action plan....", as if
it hadn't already been started years ago.
Debra Tuler
Organizational Development and Training
University of Virginia
2400 Old Ivy Road, Suite B
P.O.Box 400803
Charlottesville, VA 22904
(804)243-8968
-----Original Message-----
From: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov]On
Behalf Of Rgspacone@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 9:39 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1003] Summit Feedback Process: The Goal
NIFL4EFF Colleagues,
On Monday, I proposed we use this list to discuss the draft Action Agenda,
created at the first National Literacy Summit in Washington D.C., Feb 14-15,
2000. The Agenda summarizes the action proposed in that meeting in the form
of eight priority areas and related action steps. This Agenda will guide the
field over the next ten years and is the core of current and future Summit
activities. It is being refined through a consensus buiding process and will
be modified in response to feedback solicited from other interested
stakeholders across the nation. I have initiated this discussion assuming we
have an interest in EFF and that we believe EFF is vital to the current and
future development of our field. I also assume we think it's important to
express our informed opinions and actively particpate in the formal
consensus
building process. This discussion forum is a place where we can begin that
process, and evaluate the draft document to craft constructive feedback to
submit to the Summit steering committee.
The first question for our consideration focuses on the goal for the action
plan being developed through the Summit process. There are two proposed
goals. The initial goal is from the Foundation Paper, the original draft
paper to detail the challenges facing the field, and to recommend the
priority strategies and action steps to develop a more literate nation:
"By the year 2010, the United States will be the most literate nation in
the world, with 70 percent of the population achieving literacy at or above
the NALS Level 3."
Based on their concerns, at least one Summit group drafted an alternative
goal:
"Adults in every community in the U.S. will benefit from a system of
high
quality literacy services that helps them reach their full potential
as workers, family members, citizens and lifelong learners."
Choosing one of these two goals, or crafting an entirely new one, will be a
valuable contribution to the development of this action agenda. Here's the
question:
Do you agree with the goal as originally presented or the alternative
goal? If you would like either goal to be changed in anyway, please
pinpoint what needs to be modified.
NIFL-4EFF Colleagues, what do you think about this?
Thanks,
Ronna
P.S. The concerns that led to drafting of an alternative goal and a summary
of the goal discussion is located at the National Literacy Summit web site:
<http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/summit/agenda.html>
Ronna Spacone
NIFL-4EFF List Facilitator
Rgspacone@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:11 EST