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 e9HIrc929253; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <v04210111b6124f8bf83d@[128.148.147.35]> Errors-To: alcrsb@langate.gsu.edu Reply-To: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Janet Isserlis <Janet_Isserlis@Brown.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:1063] Re: October Forbes Article re: "The X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Status: O Content-Length: 1017 Lines: 21 Daphne and all I'm not sure if the response we might generate would necessarily have any effect on folks who read Forbes (and yes, I'm likely making some ungrounded assumptions about who those readers might be); however, one question many of us grapple with all the time is how DO we speak in ways that Forbes readers and others of their ilk might attend to what we're saying at all? How do we convince folks who make the kinds of statements that are made in the article and/or who read and believe them? > The tests for literacy have increasingly come to look like IQ >tests" What do people think about this? >3. Some people at NIFL are toying with the kind of response that >should be formulated. I am wondering if a response is the best way >to approach this kind of article. Is it better to ignore-I mean do >we do more harm by calling attention to it, or is the attention >already there, and therefore we should respond. If we respond, what >do you think would be the best way to respond?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:46:46 EST