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 iAN1bRQ05375; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:37:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:37:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <BDC7FD09.6809%lketzenberg@resolutionpictures.com> 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: Laurie Ketzenberg <lketzenberg@resolutionpictures.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:10597] Re: Question re. LEP terminology X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 391 Lines: 10 Re the "LEP" word/acronym/label: does anyone consider that its pervasive use in government-speak/institution talk (i.e. Departments of Education and Labor, grant writing, assessment reports, etc., etc.) may be why it persists in the discourse? Those 3 letters carry tremendous meaning in our field. Addressing this would be huge. Does anyone think it's necessary? Please share! Laurie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:55 EST