Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h67F19C29241; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <p05100302bb2f30f767b6@[67.31.53.21]> Errors-To: listowner@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: Gail Spangenberg <gspangenberg@caalusa.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:9112] Fwd: [NIFL-FAMILY:1604] The family literacy elephant X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Status: O Content-Length: 4370 Lines: 102 I don't know who Betsy Rubin is, but I am taking the liberty of cross-posting this because I think her message is compellingly urgent and cuts across all areas of the field. All the more so as I keep learning about "controls" put in place in Florida, in the national network of public libraries, in language use at the National Institute of Health, and elsewhere -- some of which appear to be politically motivated. Is it that the NIFL (and other federally-funded or state-funded) istservs can't make MENTION OF or DISCUSS funding or policy or legislation (as opposed to organizing "get-out-the-vote" campaigns or urging people to contact their political representative) or must they do even this in contexts divorced from their content, and out of the public eye. If that is the case, it would seem to subvert important founding principles and legal watchdog, civil rights, and freedom of speech organizations should be paying attention. Gail S >Status: U >X-MindSpring-Loop: gspangenberg@caalusa.org >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:13:31 -0400 (EDT) >Reply-To: nifl-family@nifl.gov >Originator: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov >Sender: nifl-family@nifl.gov >From: "Noemi Aguilar" <naguilar@famlit.org> >To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> >Subject: [NIFL-FAMILY:1604] The family literacy elephant > > > >Posted at the request of Betsy Rubin > >Sandra Baxter states that "concerns had been raised" about certain postings >to the listserv. The very existence of the listserv appears to be in >jeopardy because some participants in the discussion have strayed into >lobbying territory--a violation that could result in the end of funding to >NIFL's discussion lists. > >I understand that NIFL itself cannot lobby or take a political stand. >However, I do not understand why individual users of the list cannot make >statements regarding literacy funding and other policy issues. These users >do not represent NIFL. >On the other hand, whether we like it or not, there may be only one possible >legal interpretation--that NO user of the list may urge others to contact >their representatives. But does that mean, too, that there may be NO >mention of funding or policy? > >For example, in a posting to the list, may one simply state FACTS about >upcoming policy decisions or appropriations? May one note whether funding >has been cut, or is at risk of being cut, for a government program that >supports family literacy? > >It is very difficult to separate policy from other "critical issues" in the >field of family literacy. Practitioners in the field wish to discuss matters >such as curriculum or professional development or family involvement when >they have a program to run. To state the obvious, no one can run a program >without funding. Every administrator, every teacher, every professional or >volunteer in the field has an interest in whether funding for his or her >particular program will continue. > >And most practitioners are interested in the entire field of family >literacy, not just their own programs. They believe that family literacy >services are vital to the future of the nation and the world as well as to >the success of individual families. Thus, practitioners have a direct >interest in policy. And funding is a central aspect of policy. > >Clearly, federal funding is not the only source of family literacy funding, >but it is an enormous source. Most states are dealing with severe budget >crises, and many private foundations are cutting or restricting their >giving. Without at least one major federal or state grant, it is difficult >to keep any program solvent. > >Professionals in family literacy wish to exchange information on all their >concerns, from curriculum development to public policy. To mix a couple of >metaphors, it's hard to ignore the elephant in the room and fiddle while >Rome burns. It is hard to get a discussion going if participants may not >speak their minds about the entire literacy effort. > > > > >Noemi Aguilar >National Center for Family Literacy >325 West Main Street, Suite 300 >Louisville, KY 40202-4237 > >Phone: 502/584-1133 ext 168 >Fax: 502/584-0172 >E-mail: naguilar@famlit.org > > > -- Gail Spangenberg President Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy 1221 Avenue of the Americas - 50th Floor New York, NY 10020 212-512-2362, fax 212-512-2610
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:16:08 EST