(I thought I was the only one staying up late tonight? :-)
Eugene, with all respect, I don't think our language constraints could
allow you to use the word "deficit" without a negative connotation,
blaming the one with "the deficit"... every word has a historical
baggage, and unfortunately this one, "deficit" has been too much
associated with genetic or brain/biological deficit... and this in turn
too much associated with denigrating certain groups of humans as
"sub-standard"...
I also agree that we should analyse "successful" stories, especially the
sociocultural contexts that have allowed for such success. On the other
hand, I think we equally need structural analysis, meaning we need to now
what kinds of systematic structural constraints educational practices are
under. Likewise, we need to know the institutional and job constraints
on us as academics and researchers. There's a Chinese saying, "Know
yourself, know your enemy, to win your battles". But I agreed I was a
bit on the "sad" side in my earlier messages... well, I think the
challenge is to smile in sadness' face. The challenge of structural
analysis is that it may make us uncomfortable for a while, but without
illusions, we stand a better chance of knowing what to do next...
Thanks for your response, and, it's been nice sharing with you these things!
Angel