The bus trip to see the Harlem Children's Zone (http://www.hcz.org/) was amazing! I got to ride with 40 other folks from Rochester, most of them residents of the Rochester Children's Zone (http://www.rcsdk12.org/rcz/). We laughed, talked about everything, and generally had a wonderful time. As one of "the ethnographers" as they call us, I rode along, interviewing, observing - I'm like a kid in a candy store. It's been a long time since I've been able to do real ethnography and this project is a real gift.
We drove 6 hours down, visited the HCZ, met Geoffrey Canada, ate at Sylvia's, then drove 6 hours back. It was a long day but well worth it. I am continually impressed with the commitment of the Rochester people to transforming the lives of children in the northeast sector. They no longer accept the poverty, crime, poor schools, and dismal life opportunities in their community. I feel privileged to be able to tag along and feel a tremendous responsibiity to get this right.
Canada's project is amazing. They've done some truly phenomenal work. I'm concerned though about the overwhelming emphasis on testing and packaged curricula. He basically gave up on public schools (although he says he hasn't) and started a charter school. They do still send folks into the public schools in Harlem, but as "providers". He uses the term "conveyor belt" of services to describe what they offer; basically this means they start with new parents and go up to senior citizens. They really have done some amazing transformations of people's lives.
There are some significant differences between Harlem and Rochester though. Chief among them is money. Canada has $100,000,000 and a $35,000,000 annual budget. It's mostly private money he has raised with a huge amount from a friend from college. Plus he built his own building on 119th street for $42,000,000. No way Rochester has this kind of money. The other main difference is Canada himself. He is a strong, charismatic leader that is holding the whole thing together. Rochester doesn't have that either. What we do have though is a strong team. In the end, this may be the greatest strength.
So, last blog of 2006. Happy New Year!
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Friday, December 8, 2006
Policy Hangover
So I did the mayor's literacy summit. It's taken me a few days to figure out what I wanted to say about the whole experience. Overall I think I did okay. Twice I've run into people in the "street" who were there and who wanted to talk about what I said. Actually, both of them wanted to know on what I base my claim that there is no evidence that offers causal links between illiteracy and criminality (!), but more on that in a minute.
Being able to talk to policy-makers is something I've have been struggling with for a long time. I have wondered why policy makers typically do not ask folks like me to give input on their policy plans. Instead, they use “numbers” that use “folk” knowledge about literacy and how to understand it that ignores what research has told us for more that 25 years. My colleagues in policy point out that administrators, politicians, and news people don’t know what to do with qualitative research like mine or with the kinds of texts I typically produce. Cynically, I think they just don't want to believe that their long held ideas about superiority of the white middle class as the norm might need to be rethought, let alone eliminated.
Back to the summit...originally, no one on the committee had thought to ask a literacy researcher let alone me, but one of my colleagues pushed the issue. I was the only literacy researcher represented at all. The other panelists were institute directors or program directors who do not do literacy research, but rather analyze large databases to determine trends. I was shocked to hear two long-discredited arguments put forward without the blink of an eye [my eyes were wide open in astonishment]: 1) that illiteracy is a cause of criminality; and, 2) that African American parents do not talk to their children and they have to be taught how to do so. Not only were these assumptions taken as commonplace, in spite of my explicit naming of the fallacy of these points, but also NCLB and the resulting Reading First mandates were not of concern at all. It felt as though 30 years of research and practice had not happened. There were no teachers in the room either.
I kept my mouth shut for the most part in hopes that I would have a second opportunity to talk to the mayor and his committee about how to understand literacy and how to think about making citywide policy. We'll see. So far, my phone hasn't rung.
Being able to talk to policy-makers is something I've have been struggling with for a long time. I have wondered why policy makers typically do not ask folks like me to give input on their policy plans. Instead, they use “numbers” that use “folk” knowledge about literacy and how to understand it that ignores what research has told us for more that 25 years. My colleagues in policy point out that administrators, politicians, and news people don’t know what to do with qualitative research like mine or with the kinds of texts I typically produce. Cynically, I think they just don't want to believe that their long held ideas about superiority of the white middle class as the norm might need to be rethought, let alone eliminated.
Back to the summit...originally, no one on the committee had thought to ask a literacy researcher let alone me, but one of my colleagues pushed the issue. I was the only literacy researcher represented at all. The other panelists were institute directors or program directors who do not do literacy research, but rather analyze large databases to determine trends. I was shocked to hear two long-discredited arguments put forward without the blink of an eye [my eyes were wide open in astonishment]: 1) that illiteracy is a cause of criminality; and, 2) that African American parents do not talk to their children and they have to be taught how to do so. Not only were these assumptions taken as commonplace, in spite of my explicit naming of the fallacy of these points, but also NCLB and the resulting Reading First mandates were not of concern at all. It felt as though 30 years of research and practice had not happened. There were no teachers in the room either.
I kept my mouth shut for the most part in hopes that I would have a second opportunity to talk to the mayor and his committee about how to understand literacy and how to think about making citywide policy. We'll see. So far, my phone hasn't rung.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Turkey buzz
So I've tried a couple of times to post from my treo to no avail. It must be this beta version of blogger. I was at NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English) and tried to post some reactions to some sessions I saw; frankly I wrote a nice posting during a boring one! Alas those ideas are floating around in cyberspace somewhere.
It's the day after Thanksgiving in the US and I'm working on this talk I have to give to the Mayor of Rochester's Literacy Summit on Tuesday morning. I feel like it's my one shot at making a difference. I know that's not literally true, but it's the first time I've been asked to give a talk to such a policy making audience. The mayor's public mission is to make Rochester "the most literate mid-sized city in America." But the path they are taking uses a definition of literacy as decoding, and they are using old, long discredited arguments about links between "illiteracy" and criminality and locating the "problem" in children and families. They didn't think of asking me originally, but my colleague pushed the issue. So now I'm on the agenda. I'm worried and nervous. I'm trying to figure out how to say what I need to say in a language and tone they will hear; all in twenty minutes! I've basically decided that if I can get the Mayor to question what he means by literacy and to think for a minute before he buys the commercial line hook, line, and sinker, then I've done something worthwhile. Maybe he'll want to talk further.
Wish me luck.
It's the day after Thanksgiving in the US and I'm working on this talk I have to give to the Mayor of Rochester's Literacy Summit on Tuesday morning. I feel like it's my one shot at making a difference. I know that's not literally true, but it's the first time I've been asked to give a talk to such a policy making audience. The mayor's public mission is to make Rochester "the most literate mid-sized city in America." But the path they are taking uses a definition of literacy as decoding, and they are using old, long discredited arguments about links between "illiteracy" and criminality and locating the "problem" in children and families. They didn't think of asking me originally, but my colleague pushed the issue. So now I'm on the agenda. I'm worried and nervous. I'm trying to figure out how to say what I need to say in a language and tone they will hear; all in twenty minutes! I've basically decided that if I can get the Mayor to question what he means by literacy and to think for a minute before he buys the commercial line hook, line, and sinker, then I've done something worthwhile. Maybe he'll want to talk further.
Wish me luck.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Sunday musings
I tried to add a post late last night from my Treo, but kept getting an error message. I wrote about writing from a Treo and how it connects to what Lankshear, Knobel, Kress and others call new literacies. It was interesting to be writing on a such a small screen and getting frustrated at how small the screen was. I'm so used to composing on a computer that now screen size is an issue. Kress is certainly right when he says we have moved from text to screen in contemporary times.
In my work with teachers, new and veteran, I wonder how to avoid pedagogizing new literacies or simply colonizing out of school literacies for school purposes. Whose purposes are those anyway? I have already seen "lessons" in keyboarding and other "skills" that make me worry about what on earth schools think they are supposed to do. I think Gee's right when he says school are irrelevant these days. Necessary for success in a new capitalist world, but irrelevant to any sort of authentic meaning. Yet somehow, I don't want to give up on schools. Or maybe it's the children in them that I'm worried about. I see a lot of damage being done these days and I can't live with that.
In my work with teachers, new and veteran, I wonder how to avoid pedagogizing new literacies or simply colonizing out of school literacies for school purposes. Whose purposes are those anyway? I have already seen "lessons" in keyboarding and other "skills" that make me worry about what on earth schools think they are supposed to do. I think Gee's right when he says school are irrelevant these days. Necessary for success in a new capitalist world, but irrelevant to any sort of authentic meaning. Yet somehow, I don't want to give up on schools. Or maybe it's the children in them that I'm worried about. I see a lot of damage being done these days and I can't live with that.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Introduction
I've tried to start a blog a few different times. Tried one that was personal and one that was professional. This one is both. As a literacy researcher, I am interested in exploring literacy practices of everyday life. As a professor at the University of Rochester (http://www.rochester.edu/Warner/faculty/larson.html) I teach courses in teacher preparation and doctoral courses in research methods and curriculum.
I called this blog "literacy, life, and laughter" because I want to write and think about all these things and to hear from others about what they are writing and thinking about along these lines.
I called this blog "literacy, life, and laughter" because I want to write and think about all these things and to hear from others about what they are writing and thinking about along these lines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)