Bits from Myers:
"the central problem in literacy theories is the problem of change - when,how, and why do people shift from one literacy to another" (p. 16)
"literacy is not an unchanging absolute" (p. 282)
"each shift in the nation's dominant form of literacy has been a battleground" (p. 102)
Myers comes back again and again to this pattern: each time we meet a standard, there is already a new standard waiting in it's place. Changing social needs result in changing needs in education. This summer, several of us read about this in Nila Banton Smith's history of American Reading Instruction (2002). Her timeline of shifts in thinking about reading instruction are somewhat different than Myers (for example, she defines 4 distinct categories of cultural shift between 1916 to the present for Myers 1 d/a category for the same period). But the notion of change as a constant in education is shared by Myers and Smith.
The "problem of change." Isn't this the human condition? We exist in a condition of wanting. Each time we achieve one goal, we've got a new one already in it's place. What we know to be true our own hears (that constant striving) is also true of our society and of the world. We can't stay still.
Is that a problem?
I'd say it's potential.
6 comments:
Audra--I totally agree. Change is inevitable, and when people hold too tightly to old (not bad) ideas and refuse to look ahead, we get mired down in ideological muck. There's certainly something to be gained from the past, but, as someone once said in some book somewhere, "if you teach the way you've always taught and expect the same results, you'll be disappointed," or something like that. :) Instead, we should be thinking "both/and" rather than "either/or"--taking what works and what's relevant and marrying it with what's new and promising.
On the same note, if we become too obsessed with change, charging ahead into the new, we run smack into a different kind of "ideological muck."
I would like to post a quote from my good friend, Andrea Johnson (who is also an English teacher). We were talking about how my transition to grad school was going. In response, I said something like, "Well, I came to grad school to discover some answers, and I think now, I just have more questions." Her brilliant response: "That's good. Once you find answers, you stop questioning."
While I agree with Jen that it shouldn't be an "either/or" but more of a "both/and", I also think if we ever become satisfied with remaining stagnant and stop questioning how things could be better, then we stop evolving. That's one of the reasons why I love teaching. I don't go in and do the same boring thing over and over again. Instead, it's all a big puzzle to me. It's a profession you can always get better at.
First, I love your "I love to do my homework." I used to feel the same way before I moved to Austin. There is way too much to do here. :) Anyhow, I like Myers MUCH more than Smith. As for change, I often can't seem to get to the achievement part; I want to change constantly. I seem to get more of the "ideological muck" that subtext (not sure who that is) speaks of. Change is inevitable.
Ah, but achievement is much like "the answer"... Once you get there what's the point of going any further.
Though I do agree with subtext that a drive for change can be as ideological as an adherence to the status quo.
Random, but related story. I want to get magnetic adhesive sheets from the hobby store to use for bumper stickers. Instead of permanently adhering an ideology to my vehicle, I want to option to change my mind on a topic. Though in this world of either/or I will end up being accused of waffling or being wishy-washy (depending on the news cycle). All things in moderation is what I say (and, well, Buddha).
And acheivement is such a vague and loaded term. I have students who move 4-5 grade levels on standardized test in reading, but since they are not "on" grade level they have not acheived. Makes me angry!!!!!!
Post a Comment