I am the only male in my book group (Margaret Finders’ book, Just Girls). The other members of our group are always eager to hear my opinion since mine is the only non-feminine view point. But, although I have never really stopped to think about it in as much detail or as critically as Finders does, nothing in her book has really made me stop and think, “Wow… that is fascinating!” When I was 12 years old I started working with children. I babysat for the neighbors. I helped with afterschool sports programs. I worked five summers at the church day camp. I have volunteered with the Boys and Girls Club and with Pathfinders (a church version of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts). I was raised with a primarily female influence. And almost all of my close friends are female. So, even though Finders uses a lot of research, data, and observations in her book, I was not surprised by anything she said.

 

I don’t feel like I learned anything incredibly life changing; but, that doesn’t mean I found the book to be a waste of time. Sometimes it is very useful to restate the obvious. For many years, my phone’s wallpaper had just one word: “breathe”. Seeing as how I have managed to survive all these years without even once forgetting how to breathe, this might seem a bit redundant. The point is that just because we know something, and do it, doesn’t mean that we can’t do it better. This book helped remind me exactly what many of my future students are going to be struggling with. It is a useful reminder that sometimes a lackluster performance might be socially driven, and not a lack of ability or interest.

 

In our book group we discussed what roles we thought we had been, or would be now. Many of us realized that we had been a part of the popular group without even realizing it at the time. Because I attended 7 different schools by 8^th grade I was able to experience both roles of the male-versions of “tough cookies” and “queens”. I definitely related to the yearbook examples. A couple of times I remember that a “kind benefactor” was responsible for purchasing a yearbook for me.

 

There is one point that I am still struggling with from Finders’ book. She stresses the idea of “gaining fluency by writing in a risk free environment…” (26). I think this is a great idea; if the students take advantage of the opportunity. I know that I would have just goofed off if there were no consequence for not writing, or for not writing anything substantive. How do we encourage without restricting?

In the article by the New London Group I was a little disappointed by the lack of clarification about what, exactly, the authors meant by “multiliteracies”. I understand that it is a “new approach to literacy pedagogy” which they intend to be a way to deal with the “increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in the world today” (1). And I understand how the six major areas (linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, spatial and multimodal design) required for functional grammars are important for explaining patterns of meaning. The authors seem to be intent on creating an educational template which can accommodate and facilitate a vast population of diverse learning habits and educational backgrounds. I think this is a noble and worthwhile endeavor. However, I do have some concerns as a future teacher.

I know that classrooms are overcrowded. How is one teacher supposed to learn and adapt their instruction to meet the specific needs of so many vastly different students? It seems like everyone is crying “unfair” if special needs aren’t met and catered to, lately. I understand, and agree that certain accommodations need to be met. For example: requiring wheel chair access and seating for the handicapped in schools is good. This is providing access for someone who did not have it. But, what if a student doesn’t speak English. Should the school provide an interpreter so that the student will have access to the education? This may seem like an extreme example, but it is how I see some of the approaches suggested by the New London Group.

Another concern, which I think this article is trying to address, is the ambiguity of English, and language itself. We all know that two plus two equals four (yes, I know even math has imaginary numbers, but, for the most part, and especially in elementary and high school, it is relatively concrete). But language is much more complex. A simple word like ‘okay’ can convey so many different ideas and messages. If someone asks how I am doing, I might say ‘okay’. But what am I really saying? Am I saying that my whole life is okay? Am I saying that I am healthy? Or maybe I am just being polite and trying to avoid conversation. This is where audio design and gestural design come in to play. What is the tone of my voice? Was I gruff with my response? Did I smile? Were my arms crossed? The word I said was English. I can teach students what that word means, how to spell it, and how to use it properly in a sentence. But explaining all of the elements of communication that can go along with it seems a bit daunting. Okay?

In the article Culture and Community, John Szwed states, “The stunning fact is that we do not fully know what literacy is” (422). I find this very problematic. With everyone arguing and debating about the decline of literacy, and reiterating the importance of literacy, I can’t help but feel that we need a clearer definition of just what it is that is being discussed. As Szwed goes on to say, “Clearly, there are problems in defining the activities of reading and writing themselves” (423).

Many reports that warn of failing literacy standards rely on narrow definitions of literacy. In the article Why Johnny Can Never, Ever Read, by Bronwyn T. Williams, Williams states that according to the 2004 report by National Endowments for the Art, “literacy was implicitly defined as the reading of great books that make one a great person” (180). This is wonderful news for me. I grew up on the classics, and still enjoy Hemingway, Homer, London, Hawthorne, Austen, and such. But now I feel guilty for reading books like The Hunger Games. This narrow and exclusionary definition of literacy also raises other problematic questions; like who gets to decide what a “classic” is? It seems that those who are considered ‘literate’ would get to decide. So, basically, if you belong to the club, you would choose books that you already read and enjoy. This can lead to a self-perpetuating, elitist mentality. Williams goes on to say that, “This helps explain why concerns about declines in reading and writing are often only about particular kinds of literacy practices” (180). It also ties in with what Sylvia Scribner discusses in her article, Literacy in Three Metaphors. Scribner explains how literacy is often tied to power in society: “The attribution of special powers to those who are literate has its ancient secular roots as well” (20).

Szwed offers a solution: “I would contend that ethnographic methods, in fact, are the only means for finding out what literacy really is and what can be validly measured” (427). Ethnographic methods of evaluation… well, that sounds great. But now I need to do more research to fully understand exactly what that means.

Someone brought up whether or not grammar should be stressed in the lower, elementary grades during our class discussion the other day. I don’t understand why so many people seem to be against the idea of stressing the basics at an early age in children’s education. I have heard the argument about not forcing students to read certain ‘classics’ or using red ink to mark the mistakes on their papers because it might discourage them. I understand the argument and, in some ways I agree. But, for the most part, I think it is ridiculous.

I believe there is a balance that needs to be attained between encouragement and correction. If it is done properly, it is called teaching. Personally, as a future teacher, I envy coaches; especially varsity sports coaches. The students they work with want to be there. In fact they have to try out for the team and work hard to get a starting position. Unlike some of the more traditional classes, like math, English and science, the skills these students are learning are not essential to obtaining a college degree (with the obvious exception of winning a sport’s scholarship). And yet, coaches are known for being hard on their athletes. They push them, and yell at them, and tell them to try harder. They punish the players when they mess up by making them run laps, do pushups, or by repeating the drill over and over until they get it right. It is called tough love. Many of these ‘sports’ coaches become life coaches as well.

Let’s compare an NFL football player to a master’s degree in English. Both take hard work, dedication, and many years to accomplish. Just having a love of football or reading is not enough. An NFL player does not just play football all the time; in fact, they usually only play one game a week. The rest of the time is spent on the basics: practicing, working out, running drills, learning plays, analyzing their opponents and preparing. But in school, there is this big push to just encourage students: “It doesn’t matter what they are reading, as long as they are reading.” “Don’t point out their mistakes; that will discourage them.” “They are too young to need to focus on grammar.” This, to me, seems highly problematic. Younger minds are much more receptive and open to new instruction. And the longer we put off teaching the basics, the harder it will be to correct the bad habits they acquire.

I know that in my future classroom I will probably have a few students who love to read and write; and even more who don’t. I will have students who are only there because they have to be. Parents will expect me to inspire their children. Faculty will expect me to keep order and discipline. The government will demand good test scores. The students will expect me to bore them and make their life miserable. And I… I will push the basics and encourage the exceptional.