Return-Path: <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h67DKIC24160; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:20:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:20:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <001301c34489$5b2eade0$2d881a0a@famlit.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Noemi Aguilar" <naguilar@famlit.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FAMILY:1604] The family literacy elephant X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2806 Lines: 65 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:16:48 EST