Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id JAA01977; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 09:00:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 09:00:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <v03010d04b28ab0bac008@[128.148.147.28]> Errors-To: lmann@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Janet Isserlis <Janet_Isserlis@Brown.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:2683] Re: $ 7 million X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Loren said: >.. I would like to see these demonstration projects well > coordinated into some kind of network so that what is being learned > can be communicated across projects and programs. In other works I > would like to see the whole effort coordinated perhaps with its own > Institutes and supported my a coalition of staff developers and others > who could provide skills and facilitation in pulling the whole thing > together. This idea - or some variation of it -- seems important for a number of reasons. Reading Loren's post, I recognized in her descriptions of inquiry projects work that I *know* people have taken on locally - here in RI and/or elsewhere - and can already imagine that without 'official' recognition many of these projects will be reinvented and/or the actual work that's been done ignored either because it may not meet particular research criteria, or because no one knows about it. In many cases inquiry *should* be a process of local (re) investigation/search - but the findings and processes can teach and suggest much to others about ways of knowing their own contexts. Assessment is a chronic issue, as is the notion of measurable outcomes and accountability. Is there a way to use all that money to really really bring people together, look at promising practice, disseminate the findings in meaningful ways, engage learners and practitioners and most of all NOT prescribe particular outcomes (ie. WIA/work-based outcomes), but to really focus on pedagogy that values learners and their goals, and also enables practitioners to challenge themselves and one another to see what's been working and how we can envision building on and increasing the way we make and use knowledge? As much as I realize that accountability is a huge issue in connection with funding, can we also get some acknowledgement of the fact that better reporting does not forcibly equal better pedagogy? How/when will the decision[s] be made around spending this fabulous chunk of money, and by whom? Janet Isserlis Literacy Resources/RI http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Swearer_Center/Literacy_Resources/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 13:27:26 EST