[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Upcoming RHF Nomination Process

Tue Apr 5 19:59:19 BST 2022

I believe David has brought up this issue some time ago. If I recall correctly, it needs to be brought up at LRA as an item of business. There may be members who can spearhead this effort. Personally, I think it deserves discussion, consideration, and a vote.
Jerry Johns

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> on behalf of Brian Cambourne <bcambrn at uow.edu.au>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:21:08 PM
To: Henrietta Dombey <H.Dombey at brighton.ac.uk>
Cc: reading hall of fame <reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Upcoming RHF Nomination Process

Me too. I support P.David's  desire to fix these sexist and ageist inequities.
 Brian Cambourne

On 5 Apr 2022, at 10:04 pm, Henrietta Dombey <H.Dombey at brighton.ac.uk<mailto:H.Dombey at brighton.ac.uk>> wrote:

Dear Fellow H of Fers,

I am in complete agreement with David Pearson on this. "We ought to be eligible when our record of accomplishment merits it. "

Best to all,

Henrietta

Henrietta Dombey
Professor Emerita of Literacy in Primary Education
University of Brighton UK
________________________________________
From: reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> [reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>] on behalf of P David Pearson, Emeritus [ppearson at berkeley.edu<mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu>]
Sent: 05 April 2022 00:20
To: Kathy Hinchman; reading hall of fame
Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Upcoming RHF Nomination Process

CAUTION: This email may have originated from outside of the university. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
________________________________
I am thrilled to know that we have the opportunity, once again, to nominate so many deserving candidates for the RHF.

However, I continue to oppose the current standard of 25 years out from one's terminal degree. I think the standard is ageist, arbitrary, and anti-meritorious.
Ageist: The distribution of ages among those who meet the 25 years beyond the terminal degree could be very wide.

* Scholar A got a BA and Teacher Credential at age 22, taught elementary school for 5 years, went back to school to earn a Phd in 5 years. She is eligible for RHF at age 57.
* Scholar B got a BA in History and went directly into an MA+credential program, finishing at age 23. She taught for 3 years as a classroom teacher, wrote some articles for the Reading Teacher, collaborated on a teacher book for a publisher, started a free lance consulting company, and became well known. She is eligible at age 48.
* Scholar C got a BA and credential, after starting a family, at age 29. She taught for 5 years, during which time she completed an MA as a reading specialist, joined a local reading council, served as president, published 5 articles and a book, ran for and was elected to the ILA Board at age 48, at which time, she started a doctoral program. She finished at age 55. She'll be eligible to stand for RHF at age 80.

Not fair

Arbitrary: What's magical about 25 years. Some of us hit our stride early in our careers (I won't name any RHF members out of fear of missing someone), while others hit it later (we all know who we are). We ought to be eligible when our record of accomplishment merits it. Why does it matter if some have achieved enough to stand in 15 years, while others take 30 years? Most other prestigious elections that I know of (e.g., AERA fellow or National Academy of Education) have NO time in grade requirements. Why should we?

Anti-merit: I think we should reward merit (accomplishment in scholarship and leadership), pure and simple. To put a time in grade standard in place assumes that if you just hang around long enough, your turn might come. I think your turn should come when the record says it is your time. That is what we should be judging: Does the record meet the standard?

I am not suggesting that we should change the process and criteria this year. We need to stick with what we have.

But at some point, I think we should go to a strictly merit-based standard and let the "age" chips fall where they may.

My 2 cents forth.

David

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 3:37 PM Kathy Hinchman <kahinchm at syr.edu<mailto:kahinchm at syr.edu><mailto:kahinchm at syr.edu>> wrote:
Hello Reading Hall of Fame Members,

I hope this email finds you well. The email comes as a reminder to begin thinking about who you would like to nominate for induction into the Reading Hall of Fame. This induction will take place at the 2022 annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association (LRA). The nomination process will begin when I send you a call for nominations in early June, 2022.

As you are considering nominees, I want to remind you of the Voting Procedures for the years 2020-2025.

1. An inductee must have made significant contributions to the field for over 25 years after the terminal degree is granted.
2. The description of the nominee’s biographical statement can be up to 250 words.
3. RHF members can nominate living and deceased individuals and national and non-national individuals for induction.

According to these procedures, there will be two ballots. The first one will be sent out during the week of June 6, 2022.The second and final ballot will be sent out approximately two weeks later.

Many thanks and take care,

Kathy Hinchman
Secretary
Reading Hall of Fame

---
Kathleen A. Hinchman
Professor Emerita
Reading & Language Arts Department
Syracuse University

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“And in the end, it’s not the years in your life that count. It’s the life in your years."‑—Abraham Lincoln
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P. David Pearson
Evelyn Lois Corey Emeritus Professor of Instructional Science
Graduate School of Education
University of California, Berkeley

email: ppearson at berkeley.edu<mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu><mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu>
other e-mail: pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com<mailto:pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com><mailto:pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com>
website for publications: www.pdavidpearson.org<http://www.pdavidpearson.org><http://www.pdavidpearson.org>
*******************
Please use HOME ADDRESS for responses
110 41st Street, Apt 401
Oakland CA 94611-5237
iPhone: 510 543 6508
****************************************

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment.

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
where permitted by law.

_______________________________________________
Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment.

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
where permitted by law.

Brian Cambourne
bcambrn at uow.edu.au<mailto:bcambrn at uow.edu.au>

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment.

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
where permitted by law.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20220405/cc2206f2/attachment-0001.html>