Zachary Uram
76-100 (o)
Sauer
05/02/97
Literacy and Educational Reform: A Paradigm of Standards There are profound problems in America's educational system. Scholastic excellence is far from the potential which could be realized. Statistics are sobering. Forty-three percent of people with the lowest literacy skills live in poverty (NIL); 17 percent receive food stamps, 70 percent have no job or a part-time job (NIL). So many people are coming out of the educational system without having mastered the basic requisite skills. The National Adult Literacy Survey found that over 40 million Americans age 16 and older have significant literacy needs (NIL). There have also been problems with academic performance. SAT scores started to decline in 1963, and continued to decline every year through 1981.(Crouse et al. 134) And a study of teachers indicated that significant disruptions in their normal class operations were caused by the SAT, and half of the teachers felt the SAT were "totally unmanageable." (Sanders et al 6) These problems indicate deficiencies in our educational system,and reflect growing literacy challenges. School systems in the US are extremely complex, largely multi-cultural, social systems for education. Researchers in the field of literacy studies have been studying causes of these educational problems, and have been trying to establish a more comprehensive understanding of what literacy is, by better. Insight into the nature of literacy will allow us to better treat and ideally prevent many of the existing educational problems. Rigorous understanding of literacy is difficult and complex.There are a vast array of educational, cultural, socioeconomic issues associated with defining and developing affective literacy models. Further, researchers, theorists, and educators have many dichotomies (Elster et al). Addressing these educational problems is a massive issue. Educational reformers, politicians, school boards and teachers differ widely in terms of reform policies, standards, and methodologies. In order to affectively understand and address these problems, a paradigm is needed which considers the connections and effectiveness of important standards. "If the assessment is to be used for the purpose of comparison, generalization, or decision-making, standardization is essential." (Sanders et al 10). Reform is needed in how these test results are analyzed. Standards must do more than just set higher graduation requirements. Evidently current educational practices are severely lacking in addressing the range of educational problems. Educational problems do not effect just the remedial and challenged students. Studies have shown that even students in the upper echelon of academic performance are not achieving as high as previous generations (E. D. Hirsch 3). Hirsch associates the decline of literacy in the US with the decline of shared knowledge in our culture. I would extend thus concept to say that the decline of literacy in this country can be associated with both the decline and lacking of standards. Contemporary US society has new challenges and educational issues which facilitate new standards and educational solutions.The standards paradigm needs to incorporate diverse methodologies for research and instructional practices that will encompass wider literacy perspectives. Curriculum, pedagogy, home, school and classroom culture are all interlinked. A new standards paradigm should reflect variety of standards being employed to target educational problem areas, as well as providing deeper understanding of cross-dependencies. The paradigm will hopefully also reveal some new links between the development of discourse knowledge in the schools, the classroom and home contexts, and academic competence and our measurement of it (Gutierrez 27-28).
Researchers such as Jonathan Kozol see the need for public education reform in regard to socioeconomic problems. His analysis was framed in terms of perceived educational inequalities and discriminatory policies against subordinate minority groups. Similarly, John Ogbu sees the critical issue of literacy problems, for subordinate minorities in America, to be the systemic, dominating, cultural and educational practices which discriminate and oppress these students into school failure and bleak notions of personal success in society. They favor reformative 'standards' of a largely political and pro-active nature, which would affect "political and ethical" change (Kozol 48). Will this type of standards best address the range of literacy problems? The model proposed by Ogbu and Kozol is limited to the minority groups, and there are many problem areas in educational practices which it does not cover. There are valid aspects of such 'standards,' but it seems they are too narrowly focused. In spite of such efforts, educational curriculum has not positively changed much. (Rabow et al. 335). As Ogbu advocates, there are positive changes that can result from a multi-cultural educational curriculum, but to affect real, integral solutions to the literacy problems of the US education system, we need to examine a multiplicity of 'standards' and reform strategies which address the domain of educational issues resulting in declined literacy. An important aspect of the standards paradigm is the establishment of a more balanced perspective of standards for measuring and affecting positive educational change in critical areas such as testing and educational assessment practices. Improved tests and assessment criteria can give a clearer 'map' of the state of literacy in the country, adopting such standards could greatly enhance our perception of connections in the education process which are contributing to the failure of current programs. Standards can be employed and results used to give an increased continuum of indicators of student learning. "It is possible to develop indicators to measure learning along important dimensions, closely related to the curriculum, both in standardized assessment instruments and in alternative forms of assessment." (Sanders et al 1) The standards paradigm has implications for many domains of educational practices. A model considering standards for areas such as: accountability, intellect, curriculum, educational practices, assessment, & academic research. Such a paradigm, can provide a useful conceptual framework (Raphael & Hiebert 259-260). The type, range and quality of indicator variables used in educational assessment will determine the credibility of the evaluation (Sanders et al 4). The main issue in the assessment debate is determining which indicators will best address specific purposes (5). To get a better model of the weaknesses, effectiveness of educational programs and systems in the US, carefully examined, customized assessment methodologies and performance analysis can be used to give a measure of how well the standards paradigm is working. It is also critical that there be effective and efficient management in the educational system, to correctly implement and monitor the use and reform of the many standards which are affecting reform (Covaleskie3).
Understanding the dynamics of these standards, their inter-dependencies and connections to literacy strategies will provide a truly powerful paradigm for addressing literacy issues.Adopting these strategies for reform and assessment, groundwork is being laid for a more effective understanding of literacy in the US. The standards paradigm can affect more comprehensive and synergetic approaches to the literacy problems. Hirsch's approach of using cultural literacy in the curriculum to get all students up to the same level of 'background knowledge", by having a good system of indicators and testing, evaluation procedures in place, school's would then be able to get a much fuller approximation of where they stand in detrimental issues such as disproportionate failure of minority groups , and lower level income students. This seems much more cost effective and beneficial than programs to raise the mass background knowledge of all students. Result in integrating educational processes such as testing and teaching, and considering feedback of academic researchers. Researchers benefit with better data and more conclusive of whether a particular methodology is/would work in the particular school(s). There are still budgetary issues and other concerns such as unforeseen complexities in pursuing excellence through systemic reform. (Covaleskie, 1) Curriculum is ripe with complexities which must be better understood for effective instruction. It can be defined in many various forms (O'Brien et al 447).
Another important standard to add to our paradigm are reading strategies. Instructional strategies "need to be supplemented with course readings exemplifying the culture of the schools, institutionalized practices, workplace realities, and teachers' values and attitudes towards current practices, students.. (O'Brien 455)An infusion model of content literacy and instructional knowledge (O'Brien et al 457) considers the above point regarding teacher input into the research agendas of literacy programs. Literacy educators and researchers can mutually benefit from cooperation. (459)The standards paradigm has many implications for educational objectives. It's effectiveness and scope of knowledge can be augmented by combining with special teaching strategies which address issues such as the need for programs to impart to students the value and excitement of learning, and achieving academic insight, over merely getting the highest grade. To instill in students a sense of active engagement in learning would be profound. One type of alternate teaching strategy that has been shown to generate student interest (Spear & Sternberg, 35-39) are using dialogical questions as opposed to the normal didactic style prevalent in classroom lectures. This illustrates a problem that is prevalent across entire socioeconomic spectrum of schools. We must insist on standards of genuine excellence. Reform needs to address ways of encouraging students to attain high standards of excellence, instead of just high tests scores (Covaleskie 7). We need standards for improving teacher dissatisfaction. One study showed that teachers felt teaching was less satisfying than it had been in previous years (Miller et al 69). Teachers felt under pressure as they were being held more accountable for student achievement. Teachers put emphasis on standardized achievement test scores, as a result, the study showed students were feeling bored and disinterested with the curriculum (69, 83). However students felt more challenged and engaged when they were given more complex literacy assignments. Curriculum standards must take this into account, educational reforms willbe more effective if students are enjoying the learning process. This does not mean that only dialogical strategies should be favored, but rather leaning environments need to bridge the gap between didatic and dialogical strategies which both have merits. Research needs to investigate methodologies that can be paired with the standards paradigm to foster innate desires for scholastic performance and excellence in students. The meaning of excellence warrants examination. Policies could try to enforce an increased appreciation in student's of excellence, but this seems rather fruitless. Issue such as these are perhaps best addressed outside the systemic domain of the schools. Here is one area where the concept of family standards could good results. Some examples of family literacy programs (NIL) include education for early children, it targets pre-literacy skills such as vocabulary building and verbal expression.Parent Time (NIL) programs which offer instruction on child nurturing, behavior and other functions.Effective learning environments could benefit from parent-teacher involvement This paradigm will provide literacy educators with new visions of literacy teaching and learning, ones that consider multiple perspectives and methodologies. The ultimate goal is a comprehensive theory of literacy. Assessment should allow for critical input into curriculum and instructional methods, such as unequal educational opportunity, and inequalities in educational finance. This process is important because of the inherent complexities in pedagogical descriptions of curriculum (O'Brien et al 447) Also it must recognize the roles of school, home, and society in literacy development assessment processes should involve multiple perspectives and sources of data. Literacy is a very complex issue, this is manifest in responses generated by literacy researchers. In the process of debating and analyzing standards and methodologies, there has been a prevalence of fierce debates, paradigm wars, and parallel play in literacy research (Mosenthal 574). Parallel play is exhibited in the formation of discourse communities in which individuals have dialogue with each other, yet the individuals ignore each other. Sometimes the debates have escalated into pedagogical wars, where apparently personal feelings take precedence over normal scholarly professionalism.
To initiate a true dialogue would require our collective ability--between our separate discourse communities-to agree on answers to the questions 'What is literacy?" and "What should literacy be?" As this ability is not likely to emerge in the near future, our only options for resolving these questions are to (a) engage in debate, (b) declare war, or (c) continue parallel play. Then again, there will be the occasional situation, such as (d), whereby members from one discourse group may criticize or openly denigrate the beliefs of one or more members in another community. This is likely to spawn a litany of commentaries which, once published, or released on the Internet, only cause the respective discourse communities to move further apart in the nursery. (Mosenthal, 574)The quotation illustrates how certain agendas can be very problematic and divisive in discourse groups. The time and energy could be better focused on real cooperative efforts to develop more effective literacy strategies. These and other factors can divide and fragment discourse communities (Mosenthal 575). Researchers have differing, favored methodological ideas for conducting literacy agendas, and they also have different standards for evaluating how effective these agendas are. It is important to see that, because of normal subjective processes such as our beliefs and value systems, literacy researchers can never provide a genuinely objective answer to the all important question "What is literacy?" We see this question as what we think should be the goal of literacy. So these agendas are encoded a priori. So, how can researchers arrive at any meaningful consensus on what should be the main literacy agenda for the various discourse groups? Right now there is no way to answer this, but, as Mosenthal points out, if we were able to answer this, "then (and only then)" could we have a basis for collectively understanding the answers to The Question: "What is literacy?" Perhaps this can never be answered in full treatment, but researchers can mutually apply standards to curb unproductive incidents such as personal denigrations and parallel play. Researchers such as K.Stanovich have called for an end to paradigm wars in reading (Kamil 244) Standards need to ensure that literacy research efforts are coherent and produce theory, as opposed to generating "rancorous and emotional" (Kamil 244) heated exchanges. This is not very productive. Michael L. Kamil argues that literacy researchers should focusing on accumulating "any and all knowledge about literacy in all its forms." (Kamil 244) I think this is prudent. He also argues that literacy researchers haven't made sufficient progress because the right questions aren't being asked. An inappropriate question is one that cannot be answered (245). The major point of Kamil's argument is that researchers have been eager to blame common lack of agreement on the issue of differences in perspectives. "We have fostered division rather than cooperation" (245) That is a very strong indictment. It's obvious researchers like Kamil are frustrated by a perceived wanting in willingness to concentrate efforts in literacy research. Again, the point is raised that arguments have been made personal rather than professional "or rational." (245) Perhaps the standards paradigm I am proposing can make a shift to producing more questions that can be answered. Kamil feels knowledge, within the field, has been secondary to winning. The following quotation by Kamil adequately sums up the issue of standards in academic research in literacy studies:
The first question we need to ask is "What are the standards that apply to our research?" Until now, the debate has often devolved into a series of exchanges that imply that one cannot judge research from a different perspective. Without fairly explicit standards, this is probably a reasonable statement. We do need at least one set standards and most probably multiple sets. As Howe and Eisenhart (1990) have suggested, the only sorts of standards that are appropriate for an entire field must be so general as to be of minimal guidance for individuals.It would be incomplete to just focus on standards that would address test scores and quantitative academic performance, without addressing qualitative and even psychological factors (Raphael & Hiebert 85), such as how we can motivate students to enjoy learning and cultivating their intellect. Such interdisciplinary studies can contribute meaningfully to literacy research, but in the process of synthesizing knowledge from these other fields, some academics warn (Pearson 11-31) against integrating knowledge at the expense of the core material being taught in either the literacy strategy or the domain of the disciplinary study. It is important to consider the effects of a content literacy approach,in which the focus of research should be on participants as well as strategies (O'Brien et al 457). Yet this is one of many literacy perspectives; just as there are different assumptions held by researchers on the range of literacy issues. Further understanding is needed of the complexities of how students form and value literacy in the schools.We must not forget the importance of sociocultural contexts. (Myers 1992) Successful movements towards a comprehensive understanding of literacy must involve fundamental changes in the social relationships among teachers and students. However, to make those changes fully, further research is required to reveal connections between literacy and social relations (298). With cooperation between educators, researchers, and actively involving students, and by employing standards to effectively establish better literacy practices for testing and assessment, the standards paradigm can make a real contribution to advancing our continuing search for the meaning of literacy and how we can integrate what we learn into our research and educational systems. This will take serious research, cooperation, accountability and effort on all educational levels. As discussed, certain educational practices and research methodologies will have to change. But, it will be worthwhile if effective reforms and aditional understanding of the aspects of literacy in the US are gained. At the same time, continuing reserch and ongoing analysis of the standards should occur while standards are being tested and refined.