Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Response to Deborah Brandt’s Literacy and Learning: Reflections on Writing, Reading and Society

In the winter of 2010 I interviewed two candidates for our receptionist position at my onsite management office. Each person was strong in their own way and I was torn as to which person would be the best fit. In the end I asked them both to provide a writing sample for a memo to the shareholders. It is without question the person with more experienced and two years of college under her belt was the best candidate. There were no corrections to be made on her work and she was made an offer. However, the candidate declined the position and it was offered to the “runner-up.” Today, I diligently look at any memos or letters she writes before it is posted or sent out to others because it represents this office and on a larger scale the company that employs us.
Deborah Brandt’s book caused me to see writing as more than just a creative venture for an artist or a necessary component to obtaining a degree. Whereas in my writing classes at NYU we discussed the economy of words and how saying less is sometimes more, here she is exploring, among other things, the economy of knowledge, a term which was unfamiliar to me until now, and how combined with literacy, “writers put knowledge in tangible and thereby transactional form”(117). Writing is used in a multitude of fashions we take for granted. The prospectus received by your 401(k), the instructions for assembling goods and the employee manuals distributed at work are all scrutinized before even reaching the audience for which it is intended. It makes the work of writing seem more valuable that the act of reading. Ms. Brandt points out that reading is not given the same authority as writing in the work place (146) when in fact the two go hand in hand. It is clear there is a system of checks and balances when it comes to knowledge writing. An extensive amount of reading by various individuals must take place before any approval can be granted. What goes out into the world is a representation of the entity and sub-entities that support the information. There is no room for errors in this type of writing because in the end it can be costly.
This book began as a series of interviews and developed into a detailed analysis of our relationship to reading and writing outside the confines of school. Writing has changed and evolved and will continue to do so in our mass information charged society where we want things quickly and in bite size pieces so we can move on to our next task. The economy of words meets the economy of knowledge and when one must cut a 30,000 word manuscript into a 500 character per screen Power Point presentation (132) it makes me wonder what’s not being said. What's being left out? Are we dumbing ourselves down?

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Response: Just Girls: Hidden Literacies and Life in Junior High

It is interesting how our reading of this text comes right on the heels of Other People's Words by Victoria Purcell-Gates. A striking similarity was the discourse of the school administrators with regards to the students who have and those who have not. The cookies and the urban Appalachians are similar because they are perceived as invisible by the dominate society. It is clear we have a greater responsibility as educators. As teachers we have taken on the role as literary sponsers whether we embrace term or not. Deborah Brandt makes a solid point in Literacy and Learning (25) that as sponsers we enable or surpress the literacy of students and the cookies and the Appalachians are certainly having their literacy surpressed. These texts made me wonder, how can I keep from making the same assumptions that these others educators have made? What strategies do I have to keep me in check so that I may engage all of my students and not the priviledged few?
I noticed the types of books that the cookies and the queens were reading, however I didn't get a sense of what the class was reading as a whole. Class time reading of multiple genres would be the opportune time to engage the girls in texts that will challenge them socially, open them up culturally and change the discourse that prevails in enviornments that place them into a marginalized category. I see Mr. Stone's satisfaction that the class is reading in two ways. First, he has achieved in creating a specified time when the class can select a book of their own and quietly read. No one in the class seems to give him a hard time about it. In his mind, this is successful use of class time and there is a sense of pride in his response "...But see. They are all reading." (16) It seems a little self congratulatory to me. It is as if he believes he has accomplished something that is hard to acheive with middle school students. Secondly, in carving out this niche of quiet time, he inadvertently allows them to see which texts he reaches for during his spare moments. Although the author doesn't say it, I'm comfortable with believing his students are keen to what reading he is drawn to and base their selections on what they see their sponsor doing. I'd like to read this article in it's entirety as I wonder if the author touches on what texts the language arts program in Northern Hills share as a class.
What is most interesting is that in observing this school for a year Ms. Finders is now reassessing her evaluation of the school and "the pedagogy that(she)had so completely embraced." (117) How can you not respect someone who after 13 years of teaching language arts in junior high and serves as a supervisor of teachers has had shift in thinking about the pedagogy of students? The teachers have become comfortable in the beliefs of the myths of middle school students and they seem not to notice what affect it has on their students and their teaching. Ms. Finders does.