Daphne & Bonnita (this post starts in the battlefield - but I promise I 
make the connections towards the bottom)

I'm concerned about Bush's use of language(vocabulary) and perhaps this 
is where we can build lessons with our learners. We can build an 
explicate understanding between decoding vocabulary (what's the word) 
and language or communication (how those words get used), and how, 
overtime, language shifts.

What I found particularly frightening was his use of the term 
"radicalism" ("I am deeply concerned about the spread of radicalism").  
Priot to this, the language had been "radical extremists." Is it now 
shorthanded to radicalism? In Tuesday's speech to the U.N., he referred 
to freedom loving people as "moderates." So does this mean that those 
of us who might call ourselves the radical left are now equated with 
what he really means -- terrorists? Will radicalism become the same 
"dirty word" as liberal or fear-inspiring like the word terrorism? What 
does "moderate" mean? Is the radical right/conservative wing now to be 
understood as moderate?  Is conservative now moderate? Does this shift 
mean that those who might once have been understood as moderate have 
slid over to liberal? or is moderate  bigger bucket now... with 
liberals located, where? Are citizens of the United States, as we are 
represented by our government's action around the world, to be 
universally understood as moderate? Or are all those people from around 
the world, regardless of their religions or government structures - if 
they agree with the US (do US bidding), are they moderates? How do our 
students understand these words / concepts?

I had a similar reaction to Ujwala when I heard his remarks about a 
free society and benefits of liberty, especially as so many of these 
rights are deteriorating within our own country due to supposedly 
securing our homeland. As we move into voting season and learn about 
polling abuses and the effects of redistricting, how can we honestly go 
to the world and advocate for the "will of the people" and democratic 
elections? (especially coming from a president who was never honestly 
elected?) And with all the news about illegal wire tapping and torture, 
his remarks about human rights are especially disingenuous.

Anyway, back to our students...especially the connection for women, 
this can become a way to discuss how we use and understand language. 
What is the decoding part (what the words mean in the dictionary) and 
how does this  connect with how those words operate personally, in 
community, in the political?
Some connection might come when we try to describe something as a "safe 
space." This ties back to our previous discussion about violence and 
trauma. How do we describe safe space? How might it look differently 
for people with different experiences? Who determines what is safe and 
when?  What are the cultural connections to what becomes "safe space" 
e.g., use of touch, a look, removal from larger family system to a 
"safe house" etc.)? How does the creation of safe space connect with 
our understandings of freedom, free society, respect, liberty, human 
rights, democracy, pursuit of happiness, peace and so on that we see in 
our families, communities, country, and the world? and how do all these 
concepts -- or the creation of these spaces -- connect with education 
and learning environments and opportunities?

We could also discuss "tone," an even more elusive concept. It was 
interesting the focus on this global initiative and not so much about 
our needs here in the U.S. And though Bush commented negatively on 
"flowery" language, his own remarks were quite that way.
As I read the complete speech, I couldn't help but think of the "hidden 
curriculum" -- that the purpose of many early literacy movements (from 
Europeans to Africans) was to read the Bible and spread Christianity. 
This current initiative could be read as literacy to promote the 
universality of freedom... the "American way" (even though he says that 
he doesn't want to impose our vision of government on other countries).
The Bush's emphasize the way reading/literacy connects to transforming 
nations and leading to peace. Note, they did not say to the effective 
building of democracy! The Bush's talk also about illiteracy connected 
to poverty, the role of women to teach their children, the promise of 
reading that leads to prosperity, trade agreements, benefits of 
liberty. But how do our students see this? As we experience budget 
cuts, not enough classroom space, poorly paid professional teachers, 
WIA/TANFF imposed time limits on education as work release, 
disappearing Pell grants and raising of college tuition, NRS mandates 
that narrow what and how we teach or assess what students learn, how do 
we make sense of these remarks advocating for global literacy? How do 
our students, especially women, connect their experiences and what they 
they perceive as their roles in society to  these remarks? Do immigrant 
students coming to the US with no education hear these remarks 
differently than US born students failed by our public educational 
system? Is there some way we can deconstruct with our students how 
literacy serves them in their lives? What is the difference between 
literacy and getting ones GED to get a better job (or any job)? Would 
our students equate poverty with illiteracy? As they struggle connect 
literacy /education with making their own lives better, how do they 
understand the ways in which this connects them to a global community? 
How do immigrant students experience this?

Daphne suggested letters to the white house...to me, that's like 
shouting in the wind. Could we do something more local/global ourselves 
-- beyond an individual student or classroom but connected to their 
local experience? What if students could take this speech as a kind of 
program-based civics project and do a panel presentation representing 
various perspectives on it? It could be moderated by a teacher -- or 
some other local community leader and followed by Q&A from the 
audience. Such a project could include decoding vocabulary, 
comprehension, writing, public speaking... and be styled on the kind of 
"issues debate" we sometimes see during election season among 
candidates. The trick, of course, will be to encourage students to 
connect the speech to their own experience, but then to place their 
experience into a larger context with differing viewpoints and 
experiences. Maybe this could extend to a summary written by students 
as a letter to the editor or as an "in the news" opportunity. It could 
be connected to registering to vote or a discussion on how to 
understand what political candidates are putting forth as their 
platforms, etc. etc, etc.

ok - this post is too long -- now someone else's turn!

Mev



On Tuesday, September 19, 2006, at 02:47  PM, Daphne Greenberg wrote:


> Ujwala and Elsa raise interesting points. I wonder what connections we

> can make between their points, the White House remarks and our

> learners.

> For example, is it a good idea to share with our learners excerpts of

> the remarks, and have them practice speaking and writing skills based

> on

> them? What about a letter writing campaign to the white house by our

> learners in response to these remarks? I wonder specifically about the

> remarks related to women.

> Daphne