Literacy Histories

Let me say at the outset that I hope this post will not seem too random or wander too far a field of our readings. With that disclaimer, I have found myself thinking about my own "literacy history" and wanted to look at that in light of some of the materials we have read lately.  The Arnove & Graff article started me along these lines and even as I try to formulate what I want to say, I am finding that the overarching richness of the article leaves me a bit speechless. But I will blunder ahead :-)

To begin with, I want to address the idea of shaping societies through literacy with propaganda - or campaigns. Propaganda is a harsh word, but real. I was struck by the relationship of literacy to the "political will of national leaders" and how that has been used historically to shape our societies. To my dismay, I have realized how much my own opinions and realities have been shaped by just such campaigns. A couple of years ago I read "Deer-hunting with Jesus" by Joe Bageant. This book is about classism and Bageant can speak authentically as a son of the "white working-class poor." Everything in the book was like going home for me, these were my family and friends (still are) and I saw so clearly how my continual growth in multiple literacies has reprogrammed me. Arnove & Graff talked about Freire's focus on "literacy as a process of individual consciousness raising and social change." Bingo. That hit me between the eyes. As I reflect on these things it also makes me angry. The article goes on to discuss how literacy and adult education efforts are always informed and oriented by particular political world views of social elites and dominant groups. I am working my way through Howard Zinn's  "A Peoples History of the United States" now and I shudder at how much history is left out of the texts that populate our schools. Maybe I am locked into what books I learned from, maybe things have changed and there is more diversity, more stories from the perspectives of oppressed groups, more lens through which to view our development as a "just society." Or maybe not.

Back to Arnove & Graff and the purpose of literacy campaigns, particularly those of religion throughout history which focused on control rather than growth and change, which is at odds with the Freirean approach. Reading the "materials and methods" of the Protestant Reformation (and others) devices - basic drill and repetition - makes me question what we are teaching this generation when every classroom minute seems to be focused on getting the correct answers on prescribed tests and little if any attention is given to developing the skills of critical analysis. On a side note, it is the children of the elites in society that flourish under the educational structures that produce the critical thinking skills that will guide the next generation of "leaders." A few persistent and especially skilled young people will overcome their educational poverty and lend voices to the public debate and this may change the conversations, a bit. But not nearly enough for real change, for as the article pointed out "unbridled literacy" is above all to be feared by those who hold societies positions of power.

While we were reading this article, I was receiving updates  from colleagues on the discussions on SB701 within the Virginia House of Delegates. (The Senate supported the bill, but the delegates tabled it.) SB701 was a very broad-based nondiscrimination bill for state employees. Regardless of where you stand on this the YouTube video of the testimonies   was enlightening.

Here is to new visions, to new ways of perceiving and naming the world... Cheers!

The Big "A"

The "a-ha" moment I had in the last class was about the assumptions in those conversations. It is very interesting and eye-opening to see what the deep assumptions imbedded in those communications and how they affect the content and forms of literacy.

To my understanding, the assumption of a conversation is slight different from the assumption we usually talk about. For example, in my TA class, we talks about the assumptions of different ethical reasoning lenses. The assumption of utilitarianism is that it is ethical to promote the greatest benefit for the majority while the assumption of libertinism is that it is ethical to ensure of freedom of each individual. The different assumptions of “ethical” lead to different criteria of the right behaviors in those theories. However, according to our discussion in last class, when we are discussing ethical principles, we share the assumption that there are ethical principles. The reorganization of the topic is the deepest assumption that allows people participate in the conversation. If someone has no idea what ethics is what ethical lenses are, it is impossible for him to understand the conversation and offer his opinion.

I find this point genius because it points out that what tranquilizes a person is not holding an opposite opinion as a minority, but having no knowledge about the topic. It might be difficult to be the minority in a debate, where your idea is rejected or challenged by others. You may feel stressful in those situations and struggle to defend your stand. However, it is much more frustrating when you have no clue about the topic at all and are not able to form your own opinion on it. When you are the minority, you can, at lease, get involved, understand others’ word and think consciously. But when you are ignorant about the assumption of the topic, you may feel stupid because you cannot understand what others’ are saying and cannot reason for yourself, which is extremely disempowering. In this situation, you are automatically expelled from the conversation.  

Realizing how much power is associated with the assumption of the topic, I believe it is of primary importance to inform each participant with the topic in advance when facilitating and encouraging a conversation. It is significant to make sure that each person is listening and speaking during the conversation, but the foundation of that is the each one’s acknowledgement of the basic assumption, the topic. If the person does not know the topic, there is no way for him to take or offer anything no matter how intelligent he is.  One example is the class I taught last Thursday. In the beginning of the class, I planned a discussion about the readings of ethical reasoning under my assumption that all of them should have done the reading and known the topic. However, the classroom was awkwardly quiet. I thought it was because they did not understand my question or that they were afraid what they thought were not correct. So I rephrased the question, and ensured them that there was no single correct answer and I just wanted to get them to talk about the reading. However, when one student admitted that she did not do the reading, I realized that I was not going to get the conversation going if most of them were ignorant about the topic. To fulfill the goal of the class, I changed my instructional plan and allowed sometime for them to read the articles and discuss them in small groups. After familiarizing themselves with the topic, they became much more involved in the conversation and had much to offer to the topic.

Based on what have been discussed, one significant issue deserves our attention as adult literacy educators is that, instead of just teaching people how to think, we are responsible to show people what to think. Exposing learners to problems may be the most empowering thing we can do for them. Once they recognize the topic and share the assumption, they will be able to conduct the conversation and develop their thinking. This also ties with our class project beautifully, which is to disclose, but not to fix. Once we reveal the issue and provide people a chance to talk, they will be able to figure things out based on their experience and knowledge.

Push and America's Perfect Storm

Last week I finally developed the nerve to pick up the book "Push" and began the adventure of Precious' life.   With the readings of the previous week now stirring my thoughts, I consider this provocative story as I reflect on my feelings of "America's Perfect Storm".  While understanding that our current economic crisis is attributed to a variety of reasons, I had not considered the possible effects that education may have on the current and future situation.  Education obviously prepares us for the working world, enabling us to read and understand society so that we may be successful in its mix.  I so believe in the possibilities that education can provide, I am a tremendous advocate of the education for my own children and have (obviously) ventured out to continue my own.  But to consider "as better-educated individuals leave the workforce they will be replaced by those who, on average, have lower levels of education and skill." (p.4) was a very new perspective for me.  I often find myself surprised at how much more my own children are capable of doing than I was at their age.  Granted there is some loss of ability due to our dependence on things such as computers (we didn't have spell check when I was in school!), but to view them as less intelligent?  I struggle to agree with the theories in the article.  Their arguments are well articulated and supported by various data, so when faced with such text I do have a difficult time not considering it.  My own experiences with my children and their current education affects my opinion, but I suppose I should consider whether or not their opportunities are truly the norm.  Thinking back to fictional account of Precious' life, I feel my frustration returning.  How could someone treat a child the way that her parents do?  How can you not want to support their dreams and aspirations?  Too consistently belittle them and not offer or seek help knowing that they are struggling with their reading, such an important aspect of their education in its entirety.  The feeling that is expressed so vividly through Precious's tears when her teacher asks her so simply "are you in the right class?" My heart bleed for her and her unjust life.  I only hope that she becomes the heroine that I know she can, so this part I suppose is "to be continued"….As I ponder however her obvious desire to get the education that she should, I consider conversations that I've had with friends who are or were teachers in various public school systems.  The sad stories that they told of children with parents that do not care about them or their struggles with school.  My friends efforts to help them as much as they could, despite.  But what about after they left their classrooms?  Did someone take them under their wing then?  How many other children in our society are really living a life like those described in the pages of that little red book?  It's difficult sometimes to step out of our own realities and consider the reality known to others.  Perhaps the reality of so many that really are affecting our educational abilities as a country, as described in APS.  Conceivably our fate may be traveling the road detailed in America's Perfect Storm.  I for one however hope that there are some holes in their theories.  But for now, slightly outside of my own reality, I wonder how capable I could be in helping to change our path.

Remaining Neutral

        As I continue to gather my thoughts on the 1-2-3 project I view my artifact as more powerful every day.  I am not a fan of my artifact.  It removes my instructional assistant from my classroom and it brings me little information of use (more on this in the project), but its power seems to grow as I analyze my own feelings and try to project how other faculty members may view it.  Since it is put into circulation with my name on it, it appears as if I support this artifact when in truth I feel very differently about it.

        So as it grows in power I wonder how I will be able to project a neutral stance as I begin the interview process.  Will I be able to not tell others what to think of this form?  As proved in class with some dramatics I do not want others to tell me what to think when they present me with written words.  Yet, here I sit, convinced that I will be projecting my own resistance to my artifact when trying to remain neutral.  Will I be capable of interpreting and prying another’s experience with my artifact from them without influencing their words?  Since my artifact may be viewed as legal documentation will they read me as policing their use of the artifact due to my own positioning? 

       These reflections make me realize that disclosing my purpose, if not my own position, may help the faculty I am choosing to interview.  Although I still say I enjoyed the reading of the Urban Hotel chapter because the position of Judy Hunter was not explained, I weigh the value of disclosing my own purpose.  My ultimate purpose might be to eliminate the artifact, or re-design the artifact, but I am challenged by finding a way to make the interviewees more receptive to answering my questions without "bashing" the artifact.  Will I find a way to place myself in their position, define my purpose and remain neutral?  It will be my goal, though my learning curve may well be more curvy depending on the answers I receive.

Learning to read and write

The literacy campaign article this week was really interesting and kind of scary. It was a reminder to me that our country is one of the only societies in which modern day man is taught to read as a way not just to adopt a religious or political perspective, but to name their world. Naming the world is a new term to me, and I think about it a lot. To me the world has always been the world. People see the world differently, but naming the world carries so much more cultural information. Reading about how different groups learn to name their world and the consequences makes me wonder if I've named my world or just lived in it. I have some really interesting discussions with a friend who walks with me every morning (at 5:45 : ) We talk about my readings, and sometimes I share them with her. Talking about things I've learned or we've discussed helps me put them into the proper place in my own database and explaining things sometimes helps me clarify concepts and vocabulary in my own mind. But getting back to Arnove & Graff, I think one would have to look backward in history to be able to clearly see the purpose of a literacy campaign. I'm so impressed at the people who have been able to research and clarify these literacy campaigns. It reminds me that I have such a long way to go.

Conducting Interviews

I've conducted interviews before, and listening to other people's experiences interviewing a classmate was really interesting. We had some of the same questions, and the interviewer heard much more than the answers. I've been thinking about structured, semi-structured, and unstructured questions for my case study. The feedback on the interviews is helping me create better questions. It's going to be difficult for me to have interviews with some of the stakeholders, at least face to face. I won't be going with a single organization or entity, and my questions have to be tied together to bring about the answers to the literacy question I'm trying to ask. Susan Gale, you are very perceptive when it comes to interpreting answers. Even when I was the one being interviewed, Lisa brought out a point that I need to be reminded of. Eye contact. There is sometimes a cultural overtone to it. I remember reading about students having trouble in a California school because the teacher thought the children were being deceptive and evasive. It was brought to her attention that in some cultures making eye contact with a figure of authority is disrespectful, and the children had been properly raised in the eyes of their parents. Dr. Muth is correct in indicating that we need to be very aware of non-verbal communication, especially as the interviewer. An interviewee's body can sometimes provide the comfort level the person is feeling with the questions. I know it takes a lot of practice to become a good interviewer. In addition to your questions, we talked about having to be aware of any biases you bring to the table. Yes, you rehearse your questions before your interview, but you also, in my opinion, have to rehearse your body language. My thoughts for today : )

Mass Literacy Campaign

 March for Immigration Reform 

A friend shared this "text" with me on Facebook, and I thought I would take a stab at some critical  discourse analysis.  I'm not really sure how to begin, or if I'm on the right track.  Your thoughts and feedback are welcomed and appreciated!  For the sake of transparency, I am pro-immigration/ pro-citizenship.

On the surface, this text is part of a mass media campaign for an April 10th march for immigration reform in Washington, D.C.  The purpose is social change, social justice.  I see a family and the English words "all in for immigration reform."  The march seems to be a wholesome, worthy cause.  The text initially appears to be a grassroots, community level effort, rather than a top down, government sponsored campaign.  I wondered about the date, April 10th, and whether there was some significance to it.  Other than being the 100th day of the year,  I could not make a connection. 

The black and white drawing seems race-neutral, although I immediately thought it to be a Latino family. I think there is  a stereotype that immigration is about Latinos.  I need to remind myself that not all immigrants are from Latin America.  

Then again, we heard so much about the "Latino vote" after the last election.  What stakeholders are pursuing the Latino vote?   I visited the website listed on the text and found a long list of sponsors, including  Casa de Maryland, and labor unions 32BJ and SEIU.  32BJ is a local affiliate of SEIU, a union with, according to its website,  2.1 million members.  Wow, that's a stakeholder with a lot to gain from the resulting legalized workforce of "11 million for citizenship." What other stakeholders are involved in the A10 event? 

 I read this paragraph on the Casa de Maryland website:

On April 10th, we will make our voices heard loud and clear that we expect Congress to fix our broken immigration system in 2013. We will educate, march, rally, pray and knock on the doors of Congress until President Obama signs commonsense immigration reform that includes a realistic path to citizenship. 

For too long, our communities have suffered under a defective and outdated immigration system that stifles our economic growth, makes political scapegoats out of immigrants, and tears families apart. The time is now for justice. The time is now for citizenship!


Does the "commonsense" referred to in this paragraph imply that immigration reform is an issue involving all Americans?  For it or against it, each one of us is affected?   Going back to our class discussion, and use of the words common sense in discourse analysis,  I'm not sure who is excluded.  Who is not part of the immigration discussion?  Then again, I guess the purpose of a mass literacy campaign is to get everyone involved, one way or another.  

The web site asks people to register for the event by providing name, address, and email.  I wonder what kind of marketing and solicitation organizations that data will be sold to. 

This is my final opinion:  I think there are big stakeholders on both sides of the issue who have a lot to gain from a huge turnout on April 10. SEIU has a lot to gain.  It's not that I think labor unions are bad.  I think the local 32BJ would have "Maria's" best interests at heart, but, with 2.1 million members, I think SEIU's stakehold is much larger than the individual's welfare.  Both Republicans and Democrats have a lot to gain;  the Latino vote changed the course of the 2012 election.  Each party wants to win votes and blame the other for not fixing immigration.

Everyone seems to be courting the Latino vote.  When I look back at the text, I'm not sure anyone  has that family's best interest in mind.  I think this immigrant population is being exploited by both sides of the reform issue.  I think there are stakeholders who benefit from the status quo: a good controversy makes good publicity for groups pro and con.   I also wonder who is looking out for the non-Latino folks.   Maybe Asian and African immigrant populations aren't large enough to warrant a mass literacy campaign by labor unions and politicians.  Maybe I have it all wrong.  I hope I do.  I want the A10 march to help that family.

Thanks and let me know how you read it!  Susan