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?
The article seemed to say, “Technology has slowly killed off literacy”. An idea I would like to throw around is, can you consider texting a form of literacy. Most of us would say that texting is a form of literacy, since it entails reading and writing. Thus, our culture has developed a dependency on texting and in order to text, reading. Now texting is certainly not considered an elite skill, in fact it is the least formal of all the communication techniques it seems. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that the standard level of literacy which we would assume is low can be easily measured by the number of people texting.
I feel like it’s impossible to hold a high standard of literacy over a long period of time for a majority of people. I also went to a private, Catholic school throughout middle school and all of high school. Even though my school prided itself on academics, there were plenty of people who fell far below what the normal standard of literacy is, much less what would be considered to be the elite level. I think that treating everyone on an individual basis would be far better than have a standardized idea of what being elite really is. Because everyone has a different method of learning and understanding, it would be impossible to fairly and easily make a standardized literacy test that would be fair for everyone.
I too went to a small, private, Catholic school for my entire life, but my experience seems to be rather different. My school had excellent outcomes on Standardized testing so much so that they used my class as an experimental group to show how the top kids in the country would do on a new set of questions. We were the literary elite for 6th graders. My teachers were great at making sure we each had our own standards of achievement but also stayed on track with the national standards. This allowed everyone in our class to meet personal goals as well as communal ones. Reading and writing were stressed in school especially reading for fun and writing creatively. We were constantly surrounded by reading and writing (We would begin 7th grade Science class with a brief grammar lesson). This only encouraged us to rise above national standards and become the “elite.”
I went to an arts centered magnet school, where we “majored” in an area and the only real overlap within the areas was in our academic areas. I focused on writing and so I had classes like Nonfiction, Intro to Critique, and Poetry. My critique class was the one where I learned the five paragraph essay for the first time, and the class that I think helped me with the writing section of my SATs. I always wondered why this class or this kind of class was not required for the other students in other majors to take. Teachers complained that the dancers or theater majors weren’t as serious about their academics, but they didn’t have the overlap like we did. Their interest wasn’t piqued in these classes and so they just didn’t care.
I don’t think that the reason people are not as advanced in their writing as they should be isn’t because their teachers don’t know what to teach them, but because they don’t know how to interest them. It goes back to what Resnick and Resnick said, students’ interpretation of what literacy is for is what really influences their reading/writing abilities.
I feel as though excellency may be in the eye of the beholder to a small degree. Most anyone would agree that Lawyers, Doctors, Scientists, and other “Successful” jobs all demand a high degree of literacy. These people have to go to school for years and years to attain these idealized professions. They have to acquire entire new vocabularies and ideas just to be able to keep up with the fast changing professions that they’re aiming for. I feel that the majority of people can recognize that literacy and excellence go hand in hand in cases like these. With that being said, I feel as though it’s very hard to assign the standard of “Excellence” in general, especially to high school students. While the aforementioned jobs all are often lucrative and offer plenty of benefits, can they really be considered excellent? If I can only read and write at a tenth grade level have I lost my chance to attain excellence forever?
It is a shame that America has become so focused on grades that children’s innovation and creativity have clearly fallen into a distant second.