NCTE published a policy document called NCTE Principles of Adolescent Literacy Reform that takes a hard look at the state of literacy education in the US, and makes recommendations for improvement.

The introduction to the report tells us that although reading has been an instructional focus for students in elementary grades, we now see that middle and high school students need help with “the complex literacy skills they will need to be successful in the information-driven economy.”

Citing statistics from various sources, the authors of the report justify their proposed reforms by telling us that:

  • Over 8 million students in grades 4-12 read below grade level;
  • 3000 students drop out of high school each day;
  • Only about half of our high school students can read complex texts.

They also say that since demands for literacy in a knowledge/information-based economy are increasing, employers are looking overseas for qualified workers. Furthermore, we’re told that these underliterate students are unable to responsibly participate in democratic decision-making.

Summing up, the authors step center stage and chant,

The moral imperatives that led the United States to establish public schools during the early days of nationhood remain: schooling must produce citizens sufficiently skilled in literacy to help foster the greater good within our nation and in the world beyond.

So there we have it, “to foster the greater good…” And whose greater good will that be? By now I am looking for some authors’ names, but can only find “The James R. Squire Office for Policy Research” at the bottom of the page. They may support progressive change, but in this case, I’d like to see a little broader vision. What could be broader than “within our nation and the world beyond? You may ask.

It’s not that I disagree with any of the facts, because I don’t know. It’s not that I disagree with any of the solutions, because they may be good ideas. It’s not that I disagree with the proposition that we could do a better job, because I know that’s true.

I’m leery of recommendations that are justified with functionalist economic arguments coupled with dire warnings about political cataclysm. Jacquelin Edmondson, (quoting Patrick Shannon) in “Asking Different Questions,” suggested that recommendations such as these may be an attempt by researchers to answer the questions posed by policy makers, in order to be seen as the source of valuable information (Edmondson, p. 114).

With a dose of skepticism, I read on. The rest of the report seems fairly sensible. The need to address reading instruction across the curriculum is emphasized. Specific recommendations are offered for improving motivation, comprehension, critical thinking, and assessment.

The report then dredges up slogans about “a growing body of research” which shows that professional development holds great promise for improving student achievement. I’m OK with this, but it sounds a bit fuzzy, like something recopied off the xerox glass and passed around at too many conferences. And then, Rod Paige is quoted, and I’m feeling morose about spending time with this screed, with 12 pages left to go.

Reading on, “To have significant impact, professional development should link to other parts of the instructional infrastructure in a given school.” Maybe, I wonder, they might mean something like what our district is doing now with the “embedded” math mentors for our new Everyday Math curriculum adoption - today I heard the word embedded, with respect to classrooms, for the first time. Maybe people talk like this in other places? Living in Alaska, I often feel grateful to be out of touch.

The last half of the report, starting with the Interdisciplinary Collaboration section, seems the most promising. It addresses the benefits to be found in collaborative communities of teachers working with students who are writing across the curriculum using multi-modal texts. Standards for literacy coaches are listed…and those coaches are, Yes! I was right, “job-embedded.”

Enough. The discourse of reform is wearing me out. We’ll bend Education back and forth until it snaps like a wire coat hanger. Then I can retire and let the younger teachers figure out how to duct tape it back together so it can do some useful work.

For a critical article about literacy and global economy, read James Gee’s The New Literacy Studies and the “Social Turn”. Literacy skills may not buy as much liberty as some people want us to believe.

It’s time for teachers to counter the business-driven education reform message with some noise of our own about economic reform. In case you haven’t noticed, we work downstream from the discharge pipe.

My principles of reform can be expressed in less than 15 words:

  1. Connect with people near you.
  2. Show enthusiasm for your work.
  3. Renew your efforts daily.

work cited:
Edmondonson, J., Asking different questions: Critical analyses and reading research. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1 January/February/March 2002. International Reading Association.