From the readings this week,  it is very fascinating to see the cycles of literacy throughout history. In The Rise of Mass Literacy it was said that the installation of a universal postal service really pushed the literacy of the world. That being said, a few years later the telegraph took over as the main form of communication, then the telephone and finally texting came about. Some may argue that this discourages literacy, taking away from formal reading and writing and becoming more elementary. Resnick and Resnick commented about literacy evolved throughout history for the elite to use is to formulate critical reasoning skills; however, is that necessary in today’s society. Of course, problem solving is a valuable skill, but isn’t it more useful to speak to the public? Why a separation between the population when literacy can be maintained at a “standard” level so that information can be digested easier?

That being said, what designates elite sponsorship from the non-elite? I attended  a private, Catholic school that was designed to have extreme standards of excellence. We were exempt from taking New York State standardized tests because we proved ourselves as “elite”. For how much we excelled in some areas, we failed in many others. Our literacy sponsorship was based on theory and not a lot on application. We were very structured, and most of our creativity was pushed in other directions rather than in our English classes. Our problem solving strength was weak, unless the directions were clear. How do you hold a standard of elite-ness in literacy, or is it even possible? Should we focus on individual literacy abilities in their own context instead of creating a standard for everyone to follow?

When Holly came to class she mentioned that the people she worked with, Brian specifically, can write their names but cannot read or really write any other words. I don’t remember if I thought that this was normal or what, because it didn’t strike me as being odd or a literacy trait. Both of the readings this week mention the ability to write/sign one’s own name as being a measurable literacy trait.

Resnick and Resnick say that, “if writing one’s name were what was meant by literacy, we would not be worried that illiteracy was a national problem. Yet the signature was not always a demand easy to satisfy” (371). For some reason, until reading these pieces, I think I saw writing your own name as an inherit ability rather than a learned skill. Even after teaching preschoolers how to identify the letters in their name, describing the shapes to them, and helping them practice writing their names; I somehow never understood that this was something people could not know. Even when reading the Akinnaso piece, I somehow did not grasp this concept when he discussed that in his village the people there would use alternative methods of signing a document because they could not sign their names.

I have a really sketchy memory of learning how to read and write and I think this plays into my understanding, or lack there of, of the process of learning how to sign your own name. I’m sure I didn’t just wake up one day with the ability to read and write perfectly, in fact my time learning was probably gruesome and that’s why I have blocked it from my memory. I do remember that my parents’ signatures always fascinated me and I would practice “cursive” by scribbling lines and curly-ques on paper until I learned how to form my name.

I have noticed lately that not many people sign their names in cursive anymore, but merely print their names. I remember my third grade teacher making such a stink about how important it was to learn cursive and how I was going to need to know for the future, yet I cannot remember a single circumstance where I have needed to write anything in cursive. This is probably a stretch, but I wonder if the lack of people signing their names in cursive is due to a lack of teaching it in schools or if it is merely a preference.

I also wonder if maybe teaching children to write their names is in some way their parents’ responsibilities? And building off of that, teaching them how to read/write. I think today we would say that it is mostly the parents’ responsibility, but reading this week’s pieces it seems that historically it is the responsibility of teachers and schools. Historically children surpass their parents’ literacy by miles, and this trend continues. With that in mind, is it then understandable if parents do not take it upon themselves to teach their children how to read/write and hire someone else to do it instead?  Do children gain something besides bonding time with their parents when they are not the ones who teach them how to read/write? In asking this question I am not assuming that not teaching these skills means not supporting them at home through reading to them or lending help when needed; I mean it in that when parents read to their children they are not setting out with the aim to teach their children to read but simply sharing a book with them.

As I read this weeks articles, specifically Resnick & Resnick, I realized that through most of the articles we’ve read so far, the only type of literacy we’ve been addressing is that which serves an infomation-gathering purpose: people are taught to read so that they can retain information about a subject or task, to further their educations/careers/lives, etc. In fact, the only article that comes to mind that expressed a need for literacy, purely for the joys of reading, is Rose’s article. Resnick & Resnick really focused on the movement in schools to get children to read so that they retain more information in school, and later can gather information from newspapers, manuals, etc. But where is the importance of reading simply because you love it, or for knowledge expansion?

That being said, which literacy is more valuable, in society’s opinion and in yours? While clearly people need to be able to read things to gain information, I also think that there is a huge emphasis on the “connection”, if there is one, between reading for fun and higher intelligence. I think it is interesting that so far we have only discussed reading as a necessity, and not as a fun activity.

Ever since it was brought up by Brandt in one of her articles, I’ve really been interested with the idea of sponsorship and literacy. Resnick and Resnick do a great job of evaluating several different eras of sponsorship throughout the centuries. From the call and response of biblical text in the 17th century, to the educational reforms for literacy in the 19th  century, the idea of sponsorship has always been in the back of my mind. Many people, children and adults alike, were struggling to become literate. Most of the time they just got to the point where they could hold a job or read the newspaper, and called it good. As time went on, many changes occurred in the educational system and literacy rates began to skyrocket.

While this seems like purely good news, something bugged me as I read it: Where is the baseline for literacy at right now? I grew up in the fairly affluent region of Hershey , where most kids were just bred to be pumped out to a nice college somewhere. The School always made sure that we maintained our blue ribbon status, and we were held to a higher standard of excellence because of it. While I developed great reading and comprehension skills from it, I never really stopped to think what it was like for someone who didn’t grow up in an environment like that.

My Interviewee is a young man who went to school in inner city Philadelphia his entire life. He expressed to me, in no uncertain terms, that most of his teachers didn’t really give a damn about building up a resume like that. He said it was more of a matter of just getting you up to the “required level” and then sending you to the next grade. I just found it strange how you read about all these elite french technical schools and think “Man, I’m so glad things are different now!” Only to have something like this make you realize that maybe some things still need to change.

I’ll begin by stating the obvious. I have been out of elementary school for quite some time now. However, while in elementary school, I learned a great deal of information. Therefore, the ways I was taught in elementary school worked. Hence the reason I am sitting here today, educated, intelligent and succeeding.

Literacy standards have changed, as we learned from reading Resnick and Resnick’s The Nature of Literacy: A Historical Exploration. Through this reading, we learned about different major historical models for literacy development. Although very different, the three forms, Protestant-religious, elite-technical and civic-national, all conformed to the time period they were dominant in. Furthermore, each time period had educated, intelligent people, (at least to the level appropriate for said time period).

So what does this say? Let’s compare the simple and obvious. Each time period had educated people, obviously with debatable levels of literacy, but nonetheless, educated for their time. I am educated, for the present time. Each time period learned through different ways, at least three we can confirm from our reading. Therefore, their learning experiences were not the same as mine. However, it worked! They are educated, I am educated.

Resnick and Resnick concluded that “the claim is frequently made that a return to basics would improve our education system,” however, the consequences are unclear. I believe the consequences would be frightening. Times change because they are forced too. Literacy standards change because they need too. Therefore, models for literacy development change because they need to adapt. With constantly changing needs, our nation changes little by little every day. From making a living by farming to earning a living after college education, the classroom had to change. Children had to, and continue to have to, be prepared for different things. Undoubtedly, with all of the resources being created, classrooms will continue to change. Chalkboards become smart, white boards, pencils and paper become iPads, and grade books become spreadsheets. Change is unavoidable and constant.

For these reasons mentioned, I do not believe it would be smart to even attempt to make a return to the “basic,” whatever the basics actually are. I firmly believe that the “basics” could not prepare children for the skills they need in today’s world. I’m not advocating a move towards college education in kindergarten; however, I don’t feel the basics can cut it anymore. With ELLs, special needs and gifted students all in one place and becoming of equal population, modified and unique classrooms are needed now more than ever before.

What is your opinion on going back to “basics”?

My roommate’s parents came to visit this past weekend and conveniently her mother grew up in Austria. I was able to interview her in person rather than over the phone and it was really interesting. She explained different options that were available in school for her (she is 54). She explained that in school you made a choice at the age of eleven or twelve to go on the “university” route or the “trade school” route. After that all students moved in slightly different directions based on those choices.

After giving that background I can explain the main point of my post. Do we have the ability to choose our path of literacy at the age of eleven or twelve? How can we know how far we want to take our literacy at such a young age? She is unsure of how the school system is now, but when she was in school if a student chose to learn a trade he/she was only in an academic classroom until about sixteen and then moved on to learn the chosen trade. Those who chose the route that ended in going to a university were expected to choose even further the path of their education. There was a humanities route and more mathematical route, maybe a few others too. Because students choose this route at such a young age and continue that route through the rest of school there were not any general education requirements at European universities. They were covered throughout most of middle and high school education. She was unsure if it was exactly like this today, but even so, are we capable of deciding our lives like this when we are of middle school age? Is going through a typical education until just sixteen and then stopping to learn a trade long enough? Do we learn anything life-changing in those last few years of high school from sixteen to eighteen? Is sixteen only long enough if we plan to learn a trade; is it long enough if we plan to go to a university; is it long enough for anyone?

I’m sure at that age I thought I knew who I wanted to be and what I was interested in. I’m sure I was wrong. Do you guys think we are capable of deciding what sort of literacy is our strongest (humanities, math, science, a trade) in middle school? On the contrary, should someone be choosing what we study through middle and high school, as is the case in most American school districts?

Resnick and Resnick bring to attention the changing standards of literacy by focusing on three major historical changes in literacy. The standard form of literacy during the first historical change (Protestant-religious education) focused on “reading, reviewing, memorizing, and recalling familiar material,” which was usually a prayer book or other religious materials (373). The second historical change was the elite-technical school, which included the development of higher education for the elite (374). The standard of literacy expected from the elite few now included “the development of problem solving capacities” as well as learning “theoretical knowledge” (375). The final historical change was the civic-national schooling. In this change, literacy and education began to be secularized, public schools were established, and teachers were adequately trained to be in teaching positions (378). Unlike the higher education schools, these public schools provided basic instructions in reading, but they mostly promoted “a love of the familiar,” or patriotism (379). America followed a similar trend by beginning with focusing on oral reading and recitation (380). However, the development of standardized testing lead to a supposed scientific method of analyzing literacy (381). The standard of literacy that is expected of today is one that requires being able to read new material and extracting information from that material, which is higher than any standard that literacy was held to before (371).

I do agree with Resnick and Resnick’s final conclusion that returning “back to the basics” will not be a suitable method of teaching literacy to children because of the lack of comprehension and critical problem solving that was missing from the “basics.” But would it be a bad idea to simply change our standards of literacy? For example, would considering “functional literacy” to be a suitable form of literacy to reach instead of a literacy which requires critical thinking and potentially higher education necessarily be detrimental to society or education? Resnick and Resnick agree that applying functional literacy as a standard for literacy would increase literacy in the population. Since literacy higher than a functional form is generally not used in the daily lives of the majority of the population, why should everyone be held to such a high standard of literacy? I think this might be a possible method of diminishing the “illiteracy crisis” that America is facing. If changing the definition of what it means to be literate is out of the question, then how do we ensure the entire population attains this higher standard of literacy and what would be the purpose of reaching mass literacy amongst the population? Furthermore, should people that don’t attain this high literacy level be considered not as beneficial to society?

I had another post in mind, but I’d be remiss now to abandon the furrows I’ve made in a far and forgotten field just because our class is sent traipsing single-file through the hot sociopolitical cañon. I’m talking about “love.”

I’ve written previously about my feelings, and the intimacies of literacy, ways that one might (learn to) engage with art and criticism. By this logic, to be literate is to be intimate with things, having things right in front of your face and being unable to ever completely peel yourself away. It is not different for personal relationships—among or between people—being in love. But that’s one way of literacy that we might lose.

Continue reading AS IF →

‘Murica.  Land of the free, home of the brave.  For me, being American was something that I was born with.  It wasn’t something I had to earn or struggle for in any way, shape, or form.  In “‘American by Paper’: Assimilation and Documentation in a Biliterate, Bi-Ethnic Immigrant Community,” this concept of American is flipped on its head.  For the people in this essay, being American isn’t something you are born with (for the most part).  Being American is something that is earned, either through marriage, family connections, or testing.  To become American for these people, there are a few things that have to be done first.  The main roadblock to Americanization for most of the people in this essay is a naturalization test, an examination that involves things such as “paying a hefty fee ($675 as of this writing), reading sentences in English, writing dictated sentences in English, and orally answering civics and history questions in English,” (57).  The problem, though, is that the vast majority of the people taking this test can barely read English, much less write sentences and answer history questions.

So, let’s say the person passes this seemingly arbitrary test, achieving their papers and becoming “American.”  What happens next?  Cristina, one of the people in this essay, sums up this feeling of being “American” very eloquently:  “I’m American by paper, not because I was born here. So I’m still an immigrant. I’m like [new Brazilian immigrants]. I just have a piece of paper that I’m American [. . . .] I’m not American. I just have the papers by law,” (58).  So, Cristina paid a large sum of money, took a test, and gained official documentation, but she still feels less American than me, someone who didn’t actively do anything to become American.  Why is it that earning Americanization feels less legitimate than having it given to you at birth?  What does the fact that the naturalization test can only be taken in English say about America’s position on other cultures and different languages?  What does the fact that “marriage to a U.S. citizen, not education, seems like a surer path to the rights and privileges of the legally document U.S. mainstream” say about our priorities in regards to the development of education and literacy for immigrants?  And finally, does any of this change the definition of what truly “being American” is?