Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fA6Ntm008619; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:55:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:55:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <LAW2-F129HfMVur6nzO00001ec9@hotmail.com>
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: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1910] RE: State Plans
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Status: O
Content-Length: 3747
Lines: 92
George raises some important issues. The flurry of messages about states
that have "adopted" EFF reminded me of something from this list. I went to
the archives and found the following question, dated July 18, 2000:
"Recently I heard, second hand, that all states have been mandated to plan
their implementation of EFF. Can anyone confirm that?"
And the response from Lisa Levinson:
"I don't know where you heard that, but EFF is and will continue to be a
voluntary standards initiative."
So what's the difference to programs between a federal mandate and a state
mandate? This reminds me of Tom Sticht's funny-if-it-weren't-so-true post to
the NLA, Implement This Immediately.
>From: "gdemetrion" <gdemetrion@msn.com>
>Reply-To: nifl-4eff@nifl.gov
>To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
>Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1909] RE: State Plans
>Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:11:08 -0500 (EST)
>
>Virginia and others:
>
>The issue on this in my mind is whether a constructivist circle (rich EFF
>standards) can be squared with a behaviorist peg (NRS levels) without their
>reduction into rubrics.
>
>If as a result of the EFF/NRS discussions, the second generation of NRS
>becomes substantially changed, not just in terms of content, but in terms
>of
>form--say the elimination of what Tom Sticht refers to as the "levels
>metaphor," this could be quite interesting. If, on the other hand, EFF
>will
>need to become a square peg through some form of quantitative reductionism,
>that's another matter.
>
>Big issues are at stake in this discussion, which point to how knowledge is
>defined through the exercise of political power. Are we willing to engage
>in a paradigm shift in terms of what (and by what methodologies and
>theories
>of knowledge) is to be determined as valid knowledge. At stake, I argue,
>is
>the viability of the constructivist epistemology (theory of knowing) upon
>which EFF is grounded. Also at risk is the ethnographic viability of what
>Merrifield refers to as the New Literacy Studies in terms of legitimizing
>the indirect variables of literacy practices, which she and others believe
>is at the basis of how literacy is assimilated within a contextual
>framework. These indirect variables or literacy practices, where language
>development and context are complexly intertwined, cannot be sharply
>delineated through levels, reduced to a quantitative metaphor that ranges
>from 1-6.
>
>Who or what gets to decide which paradigm prevails plays the most
>fundamental role in the public determination of legitimized knowledge. At
>the least, I believe, such discussions between NIFL and DEAL on the second
>generation of NRS should be publicly documented, updated on a regular
>basis,
>and on-going field commentary encouraged. Otherwise the field will be
>faced
>with a fait accompli by what some may view as a washington elite.
>
>That's a tough statement on my part, but I think it needs to be looked at.
>It's about legitimacy and the social construction of knowledge all the way
>down.
>
>George Demetrion,
> reporting in from the hinterland
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Virginia Tardaewether" <tarv@exchange.chemeketa.edu>
>To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 1:07 PM
>Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1902] RE: State Plans
>
>
> > I would think that as EFF drives changes that make sense into the NRS,
>we
> > will see changes across states.
> > Va
> >
> > Virginia Tardaewether
> >
> > Chemeketa {Place of Peace}
> > Outreach Instructor
> > Dallas, OR 97338
> > 503-316-3242
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 13:30:25 EDT