Visiting the Archives at The Reading Teacher Listserv: Hugo's Still There...

I stopped participating in the reading teacher’s listserv some time back, but I still browse it from time to time to see what interesting topics have come up. I saw a couple of threads earlier this month and, well, the listserv is still sometimes not that nice a place…

Both threads (subject lines: “really illiterate adults” and “under-estimating failing learners”) started with a posts from Val Yule, though the larger discussion seems to tie back to a post that (predictably) mentions dyslexia in an adult. In the first thread she said that she had met people “whose problems are too great to be able to learn.” Val’s post, taken in context, is innocent and well meaning. She’s talking about the use of distance education tools to help illiterate adult.

But Val commits an egregious error of philosophy and assumptions. Any standard school vision statement in America is likely to include an acknowledgement that all people can learn. It’s an underlying assumption of public education and a cornerstone of disabilities rights. I don’t know that she meant it, but she said it pretty clearly: some people can’t learn.

Twenty-nine hours later there was only one reply to Val’s post and no one had mentioned the gaffe on her part.

Enter Marshall Eubanks. Marshall’s only previous post was when I decided to leave the list (June 2, 2008). And it was not complimentary toward the list. Here he expressed a simple idea, I thought: he asked how the list could tolerate someone suggesting that there were people who can’t learn. “This talk is tolerated here .... I am simply amazed…. How can anyone make the statement …and be taken seriously as an educator? Shame on you and shame on anyone that tolerates this statement.”

It took nine minutes for Hugo Kerr to post a response: “This needs a more adult explanation.” Hugo ignores Marshall’s complaint completely, is sarcastic out of one side of his mouth (suggesting that Marshall might not be capable of making a more developed argument on the issue), and demands respect from Marshall out of the other side of his mouth.

A few hours later Beth Forrester posts in the same vein as Hugo. She’d Googled Marshall and wonders if he is this or that particular Marshall – posting his employment information to the list. “We know who you are.” That tactic was used on me, too. I can’t remember who it was that offered to get hold of officials in my school district and have my blog posts about the list taken down for me.

In the second thread Val talks about the limits that, in her view, some learners have: “However, there are different ceilings for what different people can achieve, just as there are in athletic skills, so it is important to help people to learn what they can without stressing them to go too far too fast.”

And Marshall replies… “My, my, my .... genetically deficient people/populations that should simply be ‘trained’ to survive. Hitler made this determination in Germany and murdered millions. Shame on you Valerie .... shame!”

In an email that is a thread unto itself, Val speaks directly to Marshall. She is civil and professional, and explains how some of her own personal handicaps have brought her to her views. As I see it, Marshall’s concern about her statements are reasonable (and expressed in a manner that is clear enough not to need further expansion). At the same time, Val’s remarks are open to some level of interpretation and don’t necessarily make her the Nazi sympathizer that Marshall first thought.

Val made a statement. Marshall expressed his shock at its implications. Val clarified it in a very professional manner.

And there was Hugo. Hugo said that Marshall’s comments were “at the very least not helpful!” Hugo is wounded, he says, over Marshall taking the list to task. And what does Hugo want? He wants Marshall to “make proper argument?” Well, of course that’s what Hugo wants…

About a day after Marshall’s original post in the thread I first mentioned, Hugo replied to Beth (the “We Know Who You Are” Post) and suggested that they should “give up” on Marshall coming back for the fight. “Having spewed his bile all about he has now gone to ground. We should wash the bile off as best we can and hope the smell fades over time.” Hugo's prose sounds almost Biblical - Ezekiel or one of the minor prophets, perhaps. But the truth is that Marshall's points were concise and important. And while Val addressed them professionally, Hugo sought to make it personal on behalf of the list without ever conceding that the ideas involved (all people can learn, we don't believe in eugenics anymore) had some significance. And Hugo thinks Marshall is childish...

LOL. And they called the moderator on me! I wonder where Julie Coiro is. I would have hoped that these sorts of threats and belittling would have been addressed privately back in June. Oh well.

Anyone can read posts to this listserv at the listserv's searchable archives.

Hugo's New Book

I have a review of Hugo Kerr's new book, The Cognitive Psychology of Literacy Teaching: Reading, Writing, Spelling, Dyslexia (& a bit besides) available at Suite101. You can read it here...

A Note for Hugo Kerr

A week ago, on June 1, Hugo expressed some concerns on the reading teachers listserv - concerns over the fact that I had decided to blog about my experiences on the listserv and, more specifically, about my conversations with him and what I thought of his position on dyslexia. You can read those concerns, in his own words, here in the listserv's archive (hosted by the International Reading Association).

Hugo's concerns are summed up in this statement from him (from his posting):

I have no redress or protection from quote or misquote – I certainly feel I cannot rely upon being fairly dealt with on this site.

I thought I had addressed that concern somewhere, but in looking back over my blog posts here and at Constructivist Leanings, and after going through my own postings to the listserv in the days before I left, I can't find where I did that. So I'll do it now...

Hugo (along with anyone else) is welcome to reply to anything I write by simply commenting on the blog post he wants to respond to. I will gladly publish his comments (and anyone else's) unedited, as he submits them. The only exceptions to that policy that I can think of are that I would not publish comments that included threats (expressed or implied) or personal attacks (that is to say, attacks on my character as opposed to my position). Of course, Hugo is a gentleman and a nice enough guy that I can't imagine either of those things being problems with any comment he submits; but there are other people in the world...

If that's not fair (the idea that I'll publish comments unedited, as they are submitted), I don't know what is.

I also reserve the right to not publish anonymous comments (though I have never exercised that right). While your name is probably enough (especially if you're a reading list member), you can create a Google ID for free here in a couple of minutes.

I talked previously about reaction to the idea that I might actually quote things that had been said on the listserv. In regards to that, Hugo said this when he expressed his concerns about my blog:

It is absolutely disingenuous to claim that a posting on this list can be quoted (perhaps even misquoted) then be referenced and pass muster for academic discourse purposes.

And yet the Modern Language Association's (MLA) style guide describes a format for doing just that - referencing listserv postings. So does the American Psychological Association and the International Organization for Standardization (see section 5.3.1).

But I suppose the broader question is whether my blog is academic discourse. And the answer to that is this: my blogs, here and elsewhere, are just blogs. They are personal in nature (they're about my thoughts), informal and conversational. This is not a peer reviewed journal or a paper to be presented at an academic gathering.

Leaving the List

I unsubscribed today from the reading teachers listserv. Perhaps someday I'll sign back up, but for now I've decided that we can do without each other. I told list members that anyone that wanted to communicate with me privately could, but that I wouldn't respond to emails that went to both me AND the list. (I was tired of being talked AT while they postured for each other...)

I write about this here on my personal blog instead of on my education blog, Constructivist Leanings, because there really isn't an educational issue involved. I'm simply blogging about my experience on the listserv.

On May 24 a list subscriber asked if anyone knew anything about a particular curriculum package - a package designed to address dyslexia. She said it: the "D" word.

Mention of the "D" word almost always provokes a response from another list subscriber, Hugo Kerr, who says basically that dyslexia doesn't exist and that we should not talk about it because doing so is counterproductive and helps to perpetuate the myth of dyslexia.

My synopsis of his words, I'm almost certain, wouldn't suit him and he'd claim that I've misrepresented his views (set up a straw man); but I don't believe I've done that. And Hugo's words are available for anyone to read in the listserv's searchable archives, hosted by the International Reading Association. Just type "Hugo Kerr" in as a search string. You can do much the same thing with this Google search. (Actually, all of the deep links here come to your courtesy of the IRA's website - except, of course, the actual Google search just mentioned.)

So someone jokingly told Hugo to cover his ears and, on cue, Hugo showed up to explain about dyslexia. He started with:

Seriously, this is a real issue and a real and worthy battle. There are very real issues of disempowerment and ingrained failure around this one. I will content myself with my regular plea for deliberate deployment of scepticism...

The response was fairly brief and ended with Hugo suggesting that the conversation be continued off the list. Someone else suggested that Hugo try to restate his position on dyslexia for "the sake of all the teachers out there who haven’t heard your persuasive argument" - new list members who might not have been around the last time the "D" word popped up. Hugo's response ran to just under 440 words.

And me, being who I am - well I jumped into the discussion...

I've always been a little puzzled by Hugo's position. In the four or five years I've hung around the list, my knowledge of reading has grown and I am now certified in reading. But that doesn't mean my knowledge doesn't have its limits. The irony in this discussion is that I've come to largely agree with Hugo. But there are nooks and crannies in his position that trouble me and I've never been able to decide why until now. I thought this might be the opportunity.

Hugo is a hard person to debate. I tend to follow a process: listen to someone, try to restate what they said so that you can be sure you understand them, formulate and ask a question. The problem with that process (in my experience) is that Hugo rarely agrees that you have adequately restated his position; he seems to become defensive and usually says in effect that "it's more complicated than that" - which, of course, gives him a way out, later, if you think you see some contradiction or problem in his reasoning. When all else fails, he seems to close down discussion if it appears that his position is going to undergo serious challenge. And that is what he offered to do on this occasion.

Frustrated, I suggested that perhaps I'd just remove the discussion from the listserv and, given that I had a lot of his material to look at from the archives, try and work out what I thought of his position on my blog...

Well, you'd a thought that someone peed in the punchbowl. Hugo asked that I not mention his name; I thought that request was silly, given the fact that he's got a new book on the subject out (check his website) and has published more that 1,200 postings on the reading teachers listserv. How do you talk about someone's views without saying their name?

That was May 31. Since then I've been berated, bullied, and kind of threatened. Evidently at least a few of the more vocal people on the list have been under the misimpression that a listserv is a series of private conversations. If I quote Hugo, I'm betraying a confidence (even though it's all right there in Google). I've always thought that when I wrote the listserv I was stepping up to the mic in a room with twelve HUNDRED people in it (the approximate number of subscribers, I think) and that what I said was being recorded for posterity. Some list members haven't arrived in the 21st Century yet...

So I signed off the list today.

You can access individual emails from the beginning of this particular conversation about dyslexia until Hugo suggested that we drop the discussion here.

You can read individual emails from the conversation starting with Hugo's suggestion that we quit the discussion and running through the point where discussion turns to the question of what to do about me here.

And you can access individual emails from the conversation leading up to my departure here, in the reading teachers listserv archive.

Enjoy.

And boys and girls, remember! The microphone is still on...