NLA Discussion: Public Forum

[John Comings]

I have a similar complaint about RLP.  As some of you know, 
NCSALL is drafting a document for discussion at a proposed 
National Literacy Summit.  To prepare this document we are 
sharing a series of drafts with groups of readers (learners, 
teachers, program directors, abe state directors, academics, 
policy makers).  Someone gave RLP the present draft.  I asked 
them to wait until the public version was ready for release, 
but they did an article anyway.  The article in RLP has a 
sensational headline that misrepresents what the document was 
trying to say.  I'm more than willing to defend a final 
edited version of this document but not a working draft.  The 
document was clearly marked not for distribution.  The issue 
here is how can NCSALL involve the field in helping us design 
research, analyze existing research and practice, and 
formulate conclusions if we have to worry 
about misrepresentation in newsletters?  I believe the same 
is true for the NLA list.  RLP should accept that this is an 
open discussion that is not for distribution.  Of course, 
anyone can read it by subscribing or following it on the 
LINCS archive and I think RLP could summarize a discussion 
and point readers in that direction, but I feel it is 
improper to use quotes.

----------------------
John Comings
john_comings at harvard.edu