Literacy and instruction are often over sold according to Frank Smith. Literacy is promoted as the key to success in our communities and society at large as if were a set of prescribed essential basic skills. Literacy, as Smith notes “is an attitude toward the world. A literate attitude makes learning to read and write possible and productive.” (p. 55).
We know that prepackaged instruction has a history of failure for our students and Smith knows “the only rationale for the new material and approaches that are introduced every year must be the inadequacy of everything produces previously” (p. 57). How many times have we, as teachers, followed the prescribed program, designed by professionals, only to witness our students alienated and frustrated by the program itself? I agree with Smith, the personal relationship that exists between student and teacher may very well “determine whether a student learns to read” (p. 56). We cannot minimize the role a teacher has in the classroom, a role that can greatly impact a student’s conscience and collaborative spirit and empower and engage a student in their learning. Is there really a prescribed program that can do all that? Programs have failed to acknowledge that a social phenomenon occurs with learning. Smith is right that “learning is a simple consequence of the company you keep” (p. 57) and “learning is produced by mutual participation in interesting activities” (p. 58).
As a teacher I know that literacy is powerful. I know that when I model my literacy behaviour for children it makes a difference. For example, I offer my students twenty minutes of uninterrupted independent reading time every day. During this time, I read because I feel it is important for them to see me reading! Sometimes I may be enjoying Fancy Nancy or a good Junie B. book other times I may be reading an assigned MSVU reading. The dialogue that occurs after an independent reading session is also just as important. Students may express that they didn’t the like the book they read because it was too hard, or they prefer something else because they were disinterested in the topic or story. Sometimes a student might conclude that the book wasn’t really for them because of something but perhaps so and so might enjoy it because of they are interested in such and such thing. Students will express that they found their books funny, interesting, factual, or magical and help hook other students into exploring the literature; students may enjoy a book because they have made a connection to the text. It is a powerful moment when another child says I think I might like to read that or try that or has a flood of questions or comments based on the in class talk that is occurring. So I do believe that the modeling of good reading and dialogue are valuable and essential to my classroom practice. No prescribed program can plan or do what I do in 40 minutes because it takes away from the authenticity of the moment. “All the prescribed programs, all the pre-specified and detailed objectives, and all the mandated assessments are impositions from outside. They interfere not only with the autonomy of teachers but [also] with the ability of teachers and students to act together in pursuit of learning” (Smith, 1995, p. 62).
Allan Luke also believes that literacy is a social practice. It is one that is “constrained and enabled by the changing economics and politics of schooling and communities” (p. 305-6). He argues that literacies are shaped and that the teaching of literacy has favoured advantaged groups. The world is changing and literacies are changing along with it. We need to stop with the nostalgic debates about the instruction of reading and writing and start discussing the literacies of tomorrow and work to help aide all our students in being literate members of their communities. What will the literacies of tomorrow look like? How will we, as educators, help reshape the teaching of literacy so that all students are treated equitably, not just the advantaged groups?
When examining remedial programs we have to be careful of the lens we use. In one instance, a student’s success with a remedial program narrows the reading (and learning) gap: a positive. Under a different lens, that same student is helping to preserve the archaic status quo: a negative. Dudley- Marley and Murphy (1997) noted that remedial reading programs “emerged to contain school failures” (p. 461) and although such programs support students who struggle to meet curriculum expectations, they also perpetuate that the set curriculum and expectations by the ministry and school are correct. Reading Recovery helps narrow the gap for our struggling students but it also “satisfies the needs of the dominant group… by sustaining structures of schooling” (Dudley-Marley and Murphy, 1997, p. 462). This is a double-edged sword! We, as teachers, want our students to be successful but what does it cost us all in the end if the discourse stays the same and the status quo is never challenged? This takes me back to September, all that is certain is uncertainty but where there is uncertainty there is hope. Long term change is what is needed.
References:
Smith, Frank, (1995) “Overselling Literacy”, Chapter 5, Between Hope and Havoc, p. 53-64.
Luke, Allan, (1998) “Getting Over Method: Literacy Teaching as Work in “New Times”, Language Arts, Vol. 75, p 305-313.
Dudley-Marling, Curt, and Sharon Murphy, (1997) “A Political Critique of Remedial Reading Programs: The Example of Reading Recovery”, The Reading Teacher, Vol. 50, p. 460-468.
