Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f1D37H922109; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:07:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:07:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20010212.085719.9286.1.GDEMETRION@juno.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "GEORGE E. DEMETRION" <gdemetrion@juno.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:400] Re: Re Searching for UNational (Urban) Models X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 Status: O Content-Length: 12556 Lines: 215 Hi: Thanks to Lisa, Steve and Debbie for their recent comments. Steve presented an historical overview of the project and I will attempt to address Lisa's comments in another message. here I'd like to stay focused on the pedagogical issues raised by Debbie, which extend well beyond our program, but point to community-based programming in general. Hanna Fingeret addressed this issue in 1984 in an ERIC publication where she contrasted community-based programming with more traditional venues like ABE classrooms and one-to-one volunteer tutoring programs. (I'm working from memory, though the text is hidden somewhere here in my dungeon). In this scheme community-based programming would reflect a progressive pedagogy linking literacy to the highly particular issues that individuals were dealing with in a particular social context and such work, typically, would emerge through collaborative rather than individual efforts. Pushing that model a bit more, there would be less of a focus on systematic language development and much more attention on the issues raised within the community context to which formal language work would clearly subordinate. There was a strong emphasis in Fingeret's early work on the importance of social networks and an emphasis on exchange where, as as equal partners, those who may have needed some help with literacy, would provide assistance to their "teachers" or to the community in other ways. In her 1989 work with Paul Jurmo, Participatory Literacy Education, there seems to be a subtle and far from complete shift in her work away from critical literacy in the Freirian vein toward an embrace of self-directed learning, through which did stem from Freire's critique of banking education where knowledge is "deposited" into the empty minds of learners, Certainly in that work there is an emphasis on the importance of student groups and collaboration, as well as a contextual approach to learning, but the emphasis is on the literacy environment rather than the social environment of community-based organizations and the subordination of literacy to the social purposes of such organizations. As Fingeret began her massive study of what was then, Literacy Volunteers of New York City, the shift became even more pronounced away from critical literacy toward an emphasis of literacy practices--the utilization of literacy within varied social and cultural contexts--particularly of the individual as indicative in her latest work with C. Drennon, Literacy for Life. In this latest development there is clearly an emphasis on the emergence of a "literacy identity" and the various stages involved in its internalization. The social and cultural context of such an identity, as in her earlier work, is clearly laid out in this latter work, as is the emphasis on self-directed learning, though there is less (hardly?) any emphasis on social networks and the exchange model that characterized her earlier work. In this latest work, attaining literacy, though for self-defined and highly contextual social as well as individual purposes, is the main thing and that also represents an important shift in Fingeret's thinking, though, which may only reflect the different groups that she's studied over the past two decades. This is a long prelude to the issues I'd like to address, in thinking through the viability of a Freirian-based pedagogy, within the context of community-based organizations. I'll avoid discussion of the broad context of community-based agencies in the U.S. and stay focused on a place called Hartford, CT. While there are a few more radical-like organizations in Hartford, I would say that with one significant exception, the groups we are working with are largely apolitical in the ideological sense even though they may be involved in local politics in the sense of seeking to gain increased allocations of resources for their agencies. Still, in terms of a broad-based ideology, they would reflect a mainstream focus, though with variations. That does not mean that there is not scope for some local action, though, I would suggest, of a highly limited nature. By and large with the students and agencies we are working with the dominant focus in our collaboration is the development of literacy and English language skills. That is the main purpose for our being on site. (Steve, if I'm off base on this or if you see it differently, let us know). On this reading, though the students largely live in the neighborhoods of the community agencies we're working with or have a connection with them in other ways than geography, their goals and aspirations are not that different (if at all?) than those who are at our centralized reading center, which is the main program of LVGH. There, reflecting the insight of Fingeret and Drennon, the goals are largely individualistic with the emphasis on developing a "literacy (or ESOL) identity," though for social as well as for individualistic purposes. That is, in one way or another they have accepted what the historian of literacy, Harvey Graff, refers to as "the literacy myth," that somehow literacy transforms lives in significant ways. As we know, this myth is pervasive throughout the adult literacy community and is something that I've attempted to address in my work. I agree with Graff that literacy in itself, particularly short of the GED, does not lead to upward mobility, though I am also in profound agreement with Fingeret and Drennon on the many substantial values, both tangible and intangible of adult literacy education. That is, with Graff, I accept the concept of the "literacy myth," and agree with him that there is more than an element of false consciousness within it-hence, the enduring importance of the Freirian perspective. However, I take a more benign approach to the literacy myth, which I view as an essential myth (myth being used here as neither true nor false, but a world view) in moving the process forward among individuals in the hard work of developing a literacy identity, which can have many benefits for individuals even though it does not result in class reconstruction. Some of my past research as well as several articles coming out this year, address this issue. See in particular the 1998 essay, "A Critical Pedagogy of the Mainstream," published in the Adult Basic Education journal. This can be found on line at: http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/a-cde.htm#D A new essay, likely to come out in the spring or summer edition of ABE titled, Motivation and the Adult New Reader: Case Studies in Literacy in a Deweyan Vein," also addresses this issue. The point being that the sharp dichotomy that Fingeret depicted in 1984 between community-based and more traditional programs perhaps needs to be attenuated, particularly in the conservative setting of a place called Hartford, CT. Still, I do not want to leave things here. Having laid out the importance of a literacy practices approach grounded upon the quest for a "literacy identity," which I think is a reasonable interpretation of what many folks seek through our program, I also believe there is room both for more critical as well as more functional perspectives that can be embedded within such a paradigm, even if subordinate to what most students would view as the main work of learning how to read and write and/or speak and understand English. I'll finish this with a short passage of an article I've been working on that speaks to some of these issues, which I believe has relevance both to community-based and more mainstream programs. Here's the> passage: __________________________________________________________________ Given a context grounded in a liberal and sometimes reformist political culture in which democracy is very much enmeshed with corporate consumer capitalism, it is difficult to be sanguine about any near-term prospect of a transformative politics of literacy linked to an emancipatory vision of social justice and equality within mainstream North American settings. Given also an ethos of individualism and self-realization as a powerful cultural value difficult for adult literacy learners not to internalize, it would be hard-pressed for programs like LVNCY not to focus on life improvement as a major instructional project. Shorn of its more radical polemic, which remains useful as a utopian boundary in a political culture that espouses the ideals of equality, social justice, and inclusive pluralism, as well as for programs able to take a more radical tact, Auerbach's project may be grafted onto a reformist vision. This would prove more congruent with the liberal stand of mainstream political culture, which would also result in wider appeal among such programs that do emphasize life improvement as the primary purpose of adult literacy education. While cooptation is always a dilemma, such an ideological shift could extend the literacy as practice emphasis on self-realization identified by Fingeret and Drennon and still result in significant change for ndividuals affected, even though this macro structure remains largely intact. An example is Auerbah's (1989) discussion of family literacy as parents develop skills to interact with the school system based on their terms rather than terms determined by school personnel. "The classroom becomes a place where parents can bring school-related issues and develop the ability to understand and respond to them. They can xplore their attitudes toward their own and their children's school experiences. They can assess what they see and determine their responses, rehearse interactions with school personnel, and develop support networks for individual and group advocacy" (p. 178). Such critical literacy can be logically grafted onto a life improvement focus in emphasizing issues where people live, linked to equity, voice, and access at home, workplace, and community settings. __________________________________________________________________ There is room here for progress of a reconstructive nature. What do others think? George Demetrion Literacy Volunteers of Greater Hartford Gdemetrion@msn.com Gdemetrion@lvgh.com Gdemetrion@juno.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <DEBBYDAM@aol.com> > To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 11:56 AM > Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:394] Re: Re Searching for UNational (Urban) Models > > I don't know if George and others have seen an artilce written in the > 1980s by Steve Reder and others regarding "Giving literacy Away." It is a vision for community based literacy that draws on using adult learner networks and helpers, as described by Fingeret and others, as literacy tutors or peer teachers. The issue with moving literacy out of the adult education classroom or tutoring environment seems to be providing enough materials, training, and support to individuals or non-literacy organizations so that they can take this on,. with help from literacy practitioners. The question is, as George has stated, how much help, when, and from whom, and how can we help such organizations get to the place where they own what they are doing? Again, this is something ALMA is wrestling with. We have found that working intensively with organizations (though we can only do this with a small number) on an issue that is critical for them, and working our materials, training and technical assistance into the solution of that project is> helping us understand what it takes to move literacy into new places. We are currently working with about 12 of our hubs in this way, and hope to learn from them strategies and approaches that will help us elsewhere. For example, we are working with training programs that did not have any literacy component to integrate TV411 materials into their existing work; we are providing intensive training and technical assistance to a small cbo program that uses community volunteers on portfolio assessment; we are working with an adolescent Frierian literacy program on helping participants create their own videos; we are working with health educators on creating materials for> community outreach and education that build literacy learning into their> work. All of this places us more in the arena of informal learning, situated> learning as Wenger and Lave call it, apprenticeships, etc. If literacy is to reach more adults with greater authentic power, we believe this is the direction we need to understand and move in. DD
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:33:03 EST