Re: [xmca] apology to dialectic and more on "At Risk"

Hi Glen, glad to hear a new voice. As you probably see your test response
made it to the list. Love to hear what you have to say.

                                                                                                                               
                      GH
                      <documax2@gmail. To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
                      com> cc:
                      Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] apology to dialectic and more on "At Risk"
                      xmca-bounces@web
                      er.ucsd.edu
                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                               
                      12/11/2008 12:47
                      PM
                      Please respond
                      to "eXtended
                      Mind, Culture,
                      Activity"
                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                               

Eric/community: as a new user of the list, I'd like to chime-in on the at
risk concept.
Do I simply do as I'm doing -i.e, reply to a message. Does it get to the
list. Sorry for the ignorane.
Basically, I have been reading these excellent emails-discussion. It's
about
time I contributed, I guess.

Thanks
Glen

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:

>
> O.K. so now that I have vented about my frustration with the dialectic (a
> philosophy I embrace by the way) I will try to clarify my initial
thinking
> about 'at risk' and what possibly could be done to address this in the
> realm of public funding. No I can't sove the problem but perhaps I could
> start a bit of a noise about how researchers could refocus attention upon
> activity that facilitates the development of conceptual thinking. To
> one-dimensionalize the learner (as mike so aptly points out what the term
> 'at risk' does) dismbodies development from the cultural-historical
setting
> and insists individuals grow in a vacuum. For instance the Fifth
dimension
> has documented that students increase their academic skills in the fifth
> dimension type environment. There is not the label of 'at risk' tied to
> the students attending these programs but rather any and all students can
> benefit from such a program. Lois Holzman's performance community has
> great success in developing the minds of young people and once again 'at
> risk' is not the label used to define the population performing such a
> task. Does Ilyenkov's universal fit into defining how these programs are
> successful, yes, yes and yes. But the etheral nature of dialectic
> philosophy is such that it does not impress the bean counters. Do I
detest
> the bean counters and the money changers? Hell yeah! Are they a reality
> that is ever goint to go away? Not likely. What does impress the bean
> counters is success that is measurable and language that they are
familiar
> with. Perhaps pointing out how 'at-risk' one-dimensionalizes the issue
and
> then restating the same problem in a CHAT perspective, headway could be
> made towards reducing this leviathon of high-stakes testing and new
> language could be utilized that would allow a change in how education and
> other programs are funded. I realize that new language has been
introduced
> but more importantly as Foucoult points out what is necessary for change
to
> occur is that language hold's discursive power. Something currently that
> 'at risk' holds.
>
> eric
>
>
>
> ERIC.RAMBERG@spp
> s.org To:
> mcole@weber.ucsd.edu, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> Sent by: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> xmca-bounces@web cc:
> er.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: [xmca] "At
> Risk"
>
>
> 12/10/2008 09:32
> AM
> Please respond
> to "eXtended
> Mind, Culture,
> Activity"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes Mike, you summarize the issue very well. I believe the answer is
> qualitative research but I am frustrated to no end that all the great
> dialectic minds come up with is Ilenkyov's universal. What can that
do???
>
> help,
> eric
>
>
>
> "Mike Cole"
>
> <lchcmike@gmail. To: "eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> com> cc:
>
> Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] "At
> Risk"
> xmca-bounces@web
>
> er.ucsd.edu
>
>
>
> 12/09/2008 07:17
>
> PM
>
> Please respond
>
> to mcole; Please
>
> respond to
>
> "eXtended Mind,
>
> Culture,
>
> Activity"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You raise an important issue, Eric.
> Seems like the only way to get the kind of measurement that is demanded
by
> accountability mavens/funding agencies, is to one or two or three
> dimensionalize
> the issue in question, thereby squeezing the life out of the living
> phenomenon. A
> kind of strategic "de-systematizing" that denies murders to dissect, but
> provides
> raw meat for accountability.
>
> This strategy can produce interesting results. For example, the famous
> studies
> of Emmy Werner on risk factors associated with being born on Kuai. On the
> independent variable side: birth size, ethnicity, income, parents ed, etc
> and on the
> dependent variable side, success in school, death rate, encounters with
the
> law.
>
> Risky term, at risk. Being characterized by 2 or more risk factors in the
> Kaui study
> was not good for your health.
>
> mike
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:29 PM, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > The discussion about the Luke's article and the Stetsenko and Sawshuck
> has
> > given me food for thought about the term 'at-risk'. For the funding of
> > numerous programs in public education and social programs they dollars
> are
> > tied to students or clients identified as 'at risk'. "At risk' can
mean
> > what part of a city a person lives in, income level of a family,
> > nationality, tribal afiliation, etc. On the other had the Center for
> > Disease Control and Prevention the term is used for those individuals
who
> > are susceptible catching a particular disease or virus. For example,
> > because of the population of students I work with (severely emotional
> > disturbed) I have to participate in OSHA regulated blood-borne
pathogens.
> > This definition I believed has transformed from the field of social
work
> > and of course the field of social work is a direct descendent of Mills,
> > Durkheim and the like. Is it possible to define the term "at risk"
from
> > the dialectic perspective? Is it possible to measure prevention of
> > disease? Is it possible to measure the increase in quality of life
from
> > the introduction of programs for the 'at risk' populations?
> >
> > what do others think?
> > eric
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Thu Dec 11 10:52:30 2008