Thanks Laurie (and Ujwala - and all others)

I, too, am not happy about this development...and agree with all the  
observations previously mentioned. Thanks for noting the  
"maginalization" factor Laurie -- I have been thinking it but was  
afraid my wording would be too harsh.

I've been back and forth in my own perspectives about this.
1) it's a done deal so complaining is like, well, you know - and with  
most things nifl-listserv connected - decisions are made by $$ or  
perception or policy without polling the users....so, really it's not  
about us or what the field would find useful!

2) Let's make the best of the situation and really challenge ourselves  
to discuss issues of gender, race, class/poverty with deeper analysis,  
and struggle to identify the ways institutionalized oppressions are  
intersected while gaining clarity on how sexism, racism, classism each  
operate independently and together.

3) Let's make this a truly vibrant combined list and make our  
discussion bear on the other listservs -- workplace, assessment, and  
all the other lists -- for indeed, it seems that standardized  
assessment decisions (for example) are not neutral and - dare I say -  
sometimes exacerbate the "-isms" existent in the ALE system! let us not  
be silenced!

As for taking the women & literacy list somewhere else...I have long  
thought that independently of NIFL or the ALE Wiki that WE LEARN would  
(should?) be the "logical" place for such community discussion on women  
& literacy. We are willing -- we just don't have the capacity at this  
time -- so if anyone is interested and has the energy in talking with  
WE LEARN about how to make it happen, please contact me off-list  
(welearn at litwomen.org)

and as a related item -- I have intended to bring this tidbit to the  
list awareness for some time...and it now really fits with our  
discussion about the "defunded combining of the lists."

In December 2005, Reading Today, a journal of the International Reading  
Association, lists the hot topics for 2006.  Among those topics are  
functional literacy items like, comprehension, direct/explicit  
instruction, informational texts, phonics, and word meaning/vocabulary,  
along with a few policy-connected issues, namely, early intervention,  
English as a second language/English-language learners, high-stakes  
assessment, political/policy influences on literacy, and scientific  
evidence-based reading research and instruction. The "cold" topics  
include: critical literacy/reading, family literacy, gender issues in  
literacy, literature-based instruction, motivation, multicultural  
literature, and writing. This bit of information becomes significant  
for WE LEARN because those so-called "cold" topics form the core focus  
for the projects of WE LEARN, a participatory-based nonprofit  
membership organization and educational movement based in critical  
pedagogy and popular education practices.
(more detailed info can be found at: What’s hot, what’s not for 2006.  
(December 2005). Reading Today, 23(3), 1. by Jack Cassidy and Drew  
Cassidy  
http://www.reading.org/publications/reading_today/samples/RTY-0512- 
hotnot.html - Nothot chart -  
http://www.reading.org/downloads/publications/whatshot06.pdf
Though, critical literacy, family literacy, multicultural literature,  
and writing were indicated as "should be hot," gender issues in  
literacy were designated as "should not be hot.")

Mev Miller
WE LEARN
www.litwomen.org/welearn.html




On Monday, October 23, 2006, at 09:13  AM, Laurie Sheridan wrote:


> I'm in agreement with Ujwala (and others who have expressed

> disappointment) about this.   Just seeing the title, "Poverty, Race,

> Women and LIteracy" makes it sound a little unfortunate to me, kind of  

> a

> catch-all--women's issues aren't ONLY about poverty and race, and

> poverty and race aren't ONLY about women.    Well, I'll say it--it

> sounds a little like the list for all the "marginalized" folks, lumping

> them all together.   I think I, and most of us, use somewhat different

> voices and perspectives in talking about women (and as women), and in

> talking about poverty and race, even though the overlap is  

> considerable.

>    Do we know who uses each list-serv, and was the decision to merge

> them based on overlap there?   I am trying to be optimistic that this

> will involve a wider group of e-mailers than either list alone, but

> something is also going to be lost in the translation.

>

> I do have great faith that you, Daphne, will be able to keep at least

> much of the focus on women, though.  And also on poverty and race!  It

> just covers an awful lot, and I hope this listserv continues to be

> meaningful on both fronts.

>

> Laurie Sheridan