Return-Path: <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j29GpMC24919; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:51:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:51:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <DC59DD324318E44AA0C054AC1D7806BE0488A347@ca1ex1.air.org> Errors-To: listowner@nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Jacobson, Erik" <EJacobson@air.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:3184] Re: help for our learners X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 6213 Lines: 158 I agree with what Daphne and Janet have noted about fostering supportive classroom environments where students can discuss key issues from different perspectives. For that reason, I think I need to try and clarify my original comment that "I am not sure how far this conversation can go." By saying that, I did not mean to imply that conversations about serious issues cannot be a vital part of the classroom. What I was responding to was a statement in Daphne's original post when she asked the question about the Georgia bill while "putting aside pro life, pro choice arguments." Because those issues were central to the bill itself, it seemed to be me that any conversation about the bill that "put those aside" could not go very far, not that conversation about the bill (or the abortion issue) could not go very far. Erik Jacobson -----Original Message----- From: nifl-womenlit@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-womenlit@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Isserlis, Janet Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 6:35 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:3182] Re: help for our learners All re: the politics of the issue at hand, (and, by extension, of other pressing issues of the day): If a topic is of interest to learners and we are able to facilitate their doing research into, gathering information about and generally otherwise processing *information*, are we not doing our jobs? Daphne is absolutely on target to caution us against creating/fostering an atmosphere where one or another opinion is privileged in a way that silences others. Working from learners' interests, finding ways to gather and analyse information, however, seems to be very much what adult education is designed to do. Janet Isserlis > Erik, > You raise a good point, that it is difficult to talk about this kind of > topic without going into the politics of it all. But in reality, if we > want to include these types of topics in our adult classrooms (for > example, in a health literacy session, or a civics session), I think > that we do need to figure out a way to discuss and teach without > offending individuals on either side of the political spectrum. It is > difficult, and yet I think well worth the effort. I think that we owe it > to our learners to create environments such that everyone feels > comfortable sharing opposing views, while also sharing information that > may be important or valuable for them to learn. > I think that your first paragraph is an excellent example of how to do > it! > Daphne > >>> EJacobson@air.org 03/08/05 5:01 PM >>> > I think that it may be possible for women with lower-levels of literacy > skills to benefit from something like this, but only if the bill is > drafted with them in mind. For example, if the bill only requires that > the doctor provide information via oral communication about a list of > previously agreed upon topics, than there is no telling what kind of > information the woman would actually get - it would be the honor system, > and a doctor with strong beliefs (on either side of the abortion debate) > might be likely to provide a limited amount of information. On the other > hand, if the Georgia legislature makes this an opportunity to develop > and distribute a wide-range of reproductive health related materials > that are supported (with technical assistance, with health literacy > classes, etc.) for women with lower-levels of literacy, I could see some > potential benefits. > > However, I think it also impossible to put aside the question of 24 hour > waiting periods and the politics of abortion, so I am not sure how far > this conversation can go. > > Erik Jacobson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: nifl-womenlit@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-womenlit@nifl.gov] On Behalf > Of Daphne Greenberg > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 6:49 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:3169] Re: help for our learners > > This is a message from Sondra: > Daphne, I can't post to the listserv using this home computer so I > thought I'd put in my 2 cents to you. I am not sure I would call this > "health information." If they were truly giving "information" woman > should also be made aware of how safe abortions usually are in the US. > In addition, they should be made aware of all contraceptives that are > available to them, the full range of abortion options open and > available > to them across state lines, in addition to the costs, medical risks, > and true labor involved in giving birth and raising a child. Thats > what > I think! -Sondra > > > >>> alcdgg@langate.gsu.edu 03/06 9:35 PM >>> > In Georgia, the House and Senate just recently passed the most > significant change in abortion law since abortion was legalized in > 1973. > The bill is called the Women's Right to Know Act and requires doctors > in > GA to tell women who are seeking an abortion about the medical risks, > probable gestational age of the fetus, fetal pain and alternatives to > abortion, including adoption. After receiving this information, women> > will have to wait at least 24 hours to get the abortion. > According to Georgia Right to Life, this is a pro-woman bill, because > "women in Gerogia deserve to know all the alternatives and risks > before > they make an informed choice." > My reaction to this was that women who decide to have an abortion are > aware of the risks and the heartache involved, and therefore this bill > is not necessary. Then I wondered about women who have low literacy > skills. Putting aside pro choice, pro life arguments, and whether 24 > hour waits are necessary I wondered if this bill may benefit some > women, particularly those who have low literacy skills and do not have > access to health information. Any thoughts? > Daphne > > Daphne Greenberg > Assistant Professor > Educational Psych. & Special Ed. > Georgia State University > P.O. Box 3679 > Atlanta, Georgia 30302-3979 > phone: 404-651-0127 > fax:404-651-4901 > dgreenberg@gsu.edu > > Daphne Greenberg > Associate Director > Center for the Study of Adult Literacy > Georgia State University > P.O. Box 3977 > Atlanta, Georgia 30302-3977 > phone: 404-651-0127 > fax:404-651-4901 > dgreenberg@gsu.edu > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:50:23 EST