Final Thoughts

          When I think reflect on the material we covered this semester, I’d judge the most vital take away to be that this teaching business - if you’re really committed to it - is a tough row to hoe.  There’s a great deal to consider and many obstacles to surmount: there’s no money; students are inadequately prepared; there are special needs and affective factors; inherent and blatant biases in curriculum and funding; increasing standardization and stratification designed, in my opinion, to perpetuate long-standing inequities.  The worst characteristic of current day educational institutions, for me, is the new sharply focused purpose to train workers for the job market.   

     Education shouldn’t be about jobs; a good job should be a beneficial side effect of getting a good education.  Education is the answer to Carl Jung’s assertion that man (and woman) cannot stand a meaningless existence.  Education allows people to discover and express whatever meaning is important to their own lives.  It puts power in the hands of historically powerless people and gives voice to the silent.  It is an avenue for dissent; gifts language to poets and the writers of stories and songs. It allows, to paraphrase Freire, people to perceive and act against the source of their repression rather than simply experiencing it.  Done right, education is the equalizer.  So, let’s try to do it right.

           

Response to Discounted Dreams

    The most striking information conveyed by the documentary, Discounted Dreams: High Hopes and Harsh Realities at America’s Community Colleges, is the woeful underfunding of these institutions compared to four-year colleges.  Even primary schools are funded at a higher rate, per student, than community colleges.  There seems to be a punitive element contained in this equation.

      The majority of these schools serve a population that has already “failed” in some way.  People that vote, and the politicians that represent them, regularly vocalize their disinclination to commit more funds to people that aren’t likely to succeed.  Why should we care if Krystal Jenkins passes her math class? She, purportedly, had access to the same type and quality of education as did everyone else and she didn’t take advantage of it.  What is unspoken, but often supposed, is that people, like Kristal, that haven’t converted their educational opportunities into success haven’t done so willfully. They are considered lazy, foolish or not interested in being a participatory member of mainstream society.  In addition, Krystal fulfills a vital purpose in an economy that requires an army of low-wage workers with basic literacy skills.  In addition, as the economy stagnates, competition in the job market is fierce and low wage workers are controlled by the fear of losing their jobs and the bleak fact that missing even one paycheck can precipitate personal disaster. 

     There’s a lot of work to be done in this area.  People like Krystal need to be empowered with the knowledge that their subsistence level existence isn’t natural or inevitable.  People that have the ability to advocate for themselves need to be involved in the political process and vocalize the other side of the equation: that often people that “fail” do so because they have been disadvantaged from day one.  They never had equality with regard to educational opportunities and that the policies imposed by mainstream society  are, in large part, responsible for their failure. 

Response to Back to School by Mike Rose

ENGL C8053 Adult Learners of L&L

Professor Barbara Gleason

April 8, 2014

Responding to

Back to School by Mike Rose (2012)

  AND

Discounted Dreams: High Hopes & Harsh Realities

 at America's Community Colleges (2007)

 Please respond in writing to the quotes provided below.

Rose, Mike. Back to School: Why Everyone Deserves a Second Chance at Education, An Argument for Democratizing Knowledge in America.  New York: The New Press, 2012. Print.

The challenge as I see it is to be clear-eyed and vigilant about the performance of our second-chance institutions but to use methods of investigation that capture a fuller story of the institutions and the people in them. (16)

     While Rose doesn't expect us to close our eyes to the failings of our second-chance institutions, he suggests that the "continual broadcasting" of these failures creates an environment wherein pessimism further impairs the likelihood of success.  Students, teachers and policy-makers are all negatively impacted by an atmosphere in which the unspoken, but very clear, message is that we are on a fruitless mission.  Students may not give their best effort; it’s easier to “fail” because you don’t try than to “fail when you’re doing your best.  Teachers are negatively influenced both by students and lack of support by administration.  And, policy-makers start to operate under the assumption that these second-chance institutions are basically money pits that don’t enrich either individual students or the community as a whole.

     Reliance on statistics and quantitative 

I am not claiming that the education provided by second-chance institutions will guarantee mobility, be an economic magic bullet. I agree wholeheartedly with the call for better economic policy, for I see what happens when people work hard, build skills, gain a certificate or degree, and then go into a world with no jobs or apprenticeships. (28)

     Rose correctly identifies the need for more programs that bridge the gap between educational institutions and the job market.  Graduates, emerging into a stagnating economy, often owing money to the government or banks for student loans, often either can’t find a job or can’t find a job with adequate salary and benefits.  These new graduates can quickly become demoralized and fall deeper into debt due to interest on loans.   The documentary, College Inc., illustrates just how desperate students are to acquire a higher education and just how negatively that acquisition can subsequently impact them. Women, in particular, can fall into this trap. Women, clustered disproportionately into minimum and low wage retail, fast food and clerical jobs, are willing to take on more student loan debt than their male counterparts. Students need more than a degree; they need counseling on how to connect their newly acquired skills to the job market. Community colleges and other second-chance educational institutions need to work to form relationships in the business community so that students can transition more easily from one to the other.  Internship for credit programs would seem to be an effective transition tool.  Unfortunately, these programs require a substantial investment of both money and staff hours and community colleges are severely under-funded. 

I am championing second-chance programs because I believe that when well executed they develop skills and build knowledge that can lead to employment but also provide a number of other personal,  social, and civic benefits. (28)

     In my opinion, educational institutions shouldn’t merely be training ground for workers.  The needs of the economy too often dictate curriculum development and the distribution of resources. Education should be about personal enlightenment; educational institutions need to teach critical thinking skills and methods for self-directed learning.  Self-directed learning methods are crucial in an era where literacies are continually devalued and job skills need regular refreshing.  In addition, educated people have the ability to advocate for themselves and their communities. They are more politically active; they’re more willing to approach and question the seats of power.  They also tend to invest more in their community; educated people want their children to be educated which can have a positive impact on primary schools. 

3. Please write down two quotes that stimulate your thinking OR write two questions that come to mind after you read Back to School (1-65).

1.      How can we create bridges between second chance institutions and the job market? 

2.      How can we stimulate local governments’ interest in funding community college graduates’ “after-care” when they’re barely willing to fund the colleges themselves?

4. What is one issue, question, or topic that CONNECTS the argument (or a specific claim) made by Mike Rose and the argument (or a specific claim) made by producers of Discounted Dreams?

     Both Mike Rose and the documentary, Discounted Dreams, indicate the importance of opportunities outside the classroom.  The skills acquired in school need to be relevant to real world situations. Students would greatly benefit from acquiring job experience while in school.  A great example of a program with a real chance of success is the paid apprenticeship that Jose Sosa takes part in as part of his culinary arts program.  He’s gaining education credentials and work experience simultaneously in a setting that often leads to employment.  Programs of this type are invaluable for the students and employers benefit by getting a pre-trained tested employee.  The documentary and Rose also both indicate the positive social aspects that these institutions can have.  Jose, a former gangbanger, is now a working father supporting a young family looking for a better environment in which to raise his children.

    

Objectified: Women and Perspective Transformation

Caitlin Geoghan

ENGL C0865: Adult Learners of Language & Literacy

Professor Barbara Gleason

May 6, 2014

Objectified: Women and Perspective Transformation

       

       The capacity of people to exceed all expectations is rooted in their impulse to question and struggle against opposition. Animals react to changes in the conditions of their environment without questioning what caused the change or whether the change is just. “I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself,” wrote the poet, D.H Lawrence. “A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.”  Animals are marvelously adaptive and survive incredible hardship; but, according to Paolo Freire, they are not challenged by their environment; they are stimulated by it.  Human beings have an entirely different relationship to our environment; before we drop frozen from the branch we will – at the very least – question the source and fairness of the conditions that threaten us.  

     Paolo Freire’s premise in Pedagogy of the Oppressed -- that there is need for a specific pedagogical method which would humanize alienated populations -- stems from his assertion that power and resources are unevenly controlled by half of an adversarial duality. 

      The Oppressor, or Subject, holds the major share of power in all realms—economic, social and political. The Subject class, by virtue of their position of power -- cultivated both by individual activism and institutional injustice – are able to act upon another group in a way that maintains their individual status and strengthens the systems that bestow preference upon them.

     The less fortunate participant in this duality, the Oppressed or Object, receives the action of the Subject. They are acted upon and – by virtue of their more passive position—become dispossessed. They are a “culture of silence…their ignorance and lethargy [are] the direct product of the whole situation of economic, social, and political domination—and of the paternalism—of which they [are] victims.  Rather than being encouraged and equipped to know and respond to the concrete realities of their world, they were kept “submerged” in a situation in which such critical awareness and response were practically impossible.” (Macedo 30) It is a consequence of this submersion that the Object class is dehumanized.  They become so immersed in reality that they are unable to see it clearly or to challenge it; instead they are simply stimulated by it and react to it. The Object class, like the small bird freezing on the bough, feels their condition but dehumanization blocks them from perceiving or responding to the cause of their condition.

     The Object class is twice bound:  by the situation imposed upon them by the Subject through direct action and by the effect this direct action has on the psychological and mental processes of the Object class. The adoption of the definitions and language of the Oppressor by the Object class produces a point of view which is as difficult -- if not more difficult-- to overcome than any external pressure. This attitude serves as a major impediment to any real progress and is the result of social conditioning which engenders a pessimistic perspective that views oppression as natural and inevitable.  The dual nature of these bonds requires action on two fronts. 

     For humanization to occur through Freire’s philosophy of education work must be accomplished on two fronts. First, there must be direct resistance to the status quo; however, this activism only addresses the action against the Object class by the Subject class.  The Object class must also come to understand the ways in which they are “hosts of the oppressor.” (Freire 48)   Although the Objects are certainly aware of their own underprivileged status -- both as individuals and as a socio-economic class -- they suffer from a “fear of freedom” (Freire 46) which causes them to behave in a prescribed manner defined by the Subjects.  In other words, Objects use definitions of success established by Subject to measure their own advancement. 

      This adherence to prescribed behavior supports and strengthens the very institutions and social attitudes that constrain them.  An individual of the Object class may become successful by the standards set by the Subject class; however, individual success does nothing to improve the lot of the group as a whole. In fact, that individual will be pushed forward and touted as an example of success for other members of the Object class to emulate; a tact chosen to shift the responsibility for oppression onto the Object class and to present their oppression as a choice.  The Object class—having internalized the attitude that supports the status quo—actually becomes an agent against its own interest. 

     The nature of the relationship between Oppressor and Oppressed is difficult to define on many levels.  A “successful” member of a traditionally oppressed group is, simultaneously, an Oppressor and one of the Oppressed.  In his introduction, Donald Macedo relates an encounter with a “young African American man who attends an Ivy League university.”  When asked about the political affiliation of his parents, the man told Macedo that his parents “usually vote with the white middle class, even if, in the long run, their vote is detrimental to most black people.” Macedo 15) This anecdote perfectly captures Freire’s characterization of how the Object can be a “host of the oppressor.”  The individual success—as defined by the Subject class-- of that African American head of household altered his perspective such that he identified with other members of the Subject class, rather than the traditionally oppressed class of which he is also a member.  Aligning himself politically with the Subject class both signals an acceptance of the rules they impose upon the Object class and shifts the responsibility of failure onto the shoulders of other African Americans. This example illustrates how insidious the effect of social conditioning is and how difficult it is to effect change in the systems that repress.

     According to the 2010 US census, women hold a slight majority in numbers in the United States. Women account for 50.8% of the population.  While it is a mistake to view any group as one unified body, it’s also a mistake to believe that members of the group don’t have anything in common.  Women may differ with regard to race, politics, socio-economic class, religion, and any number of other factors; however, all women in the United States function within a social system that is not unbiased toward them.

     Women have made great strides toward equality in the years since this country’s foundational charter—The Declaration of Independence—declared all men equal.  The battle—hard fought—hasn’t been continuously progressive.  Instead, women seem often in the process of taking back what was taken away.  The universal women’s suffrage movement has its roots in female anti-slavery associations that were beginning to speak out publicly in the 1830’s.   Women of privilege, white and married to property owners, had already held and lost the right to vote.  In New York, the women’s right to vote was revoked in 1777. In 1780, women lost the right to vote in Massachusetts.  In 1784, women lost the right to vote in New Hampshire.  The last state to revoke, New Jersey, did so in 1807.

     Colonial voting restrictions in the United States reflected Victorian notions about gender, defining women as weaker than men—both physically and mentally-- and prone to hysteria. Arguments for a white, male-only electorate focused on what the men of the era conceived of as the delicate nature of women and their inability to deal with the coarse realities of politics. The arguments against women’s suffrage were based on ideas conceived by men, but many of the most outspoken opponents of women’s suffrage were women.

     Anti-suffragists appealed to society’s conceptions of male and female roles and the proper relationship between the genders.  Outspoken anti-suffragette, Helen Kendrick Johnson -- among other women -- accepted the paternalistic protection of men as natural and correct and claimed that women’s suffrage was undemocratic.   She wrote in a New York Times editorial, that the suffrage movement “is bringing this land to the verge of civil war.”(Johnson 1925) She considered the movement to be “the opposite of everything that makes for civic and social righteousness,”(Johnson 1925)  and considered suffrage movement to be humiliating to women in that it suggested that women should enter an arena in which they, in the judgment of both God and men, had no place.  Despite intense opposition, the suffragettes prevailed.  They gained the legal right to vote in 1920.

     The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, did more than grant women the right to vote; it made us citizens by repudiating that language in the Fourteenth Amendment that defined citizens of the United States as male. The legal prohibition was lifted; the suffragettes had gained the power to participate in the process: to elect politicians that would work toward women’s interests and to run for office.  

     A group of determined women had been able, through a process of activism and verbalism, to “construe a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience in order to guide future action” (qtd. in Taylor 5).  They had corrected an inequality under the law, however; social mores are often far more intractable and repressive than any legal injunction.  Women, even after the official success of the suffragette movement, found themselves facing intense social condemnation when they exercised their right to vote.  Women were still considered a largely undesirable element in the public sphere. They had changed the law but had been unable to externalize and eradicate the socially accepted role of women, held by many women—suffering from “fear of freedom”-- that women should be confined to hearth and home. Despite social pressure, enough women were willing to overstep their accepted role and exercise their right.

     The right to vote, once gained, was utilized in larger and larger numbers as time progressed.  Although women currently hold only a slight majority in terms of population, there’s a larger gap when it comes to the activity of eligible voters.  Statistics gathered by the National Women’s Political Caucus assert that the proportion of eligible females who voted has exceeded the proportion of eligible males who have voted in every presidential election since 1980.  In terms of raw numbers, female voters have outnumbered males in every presidential election since 1964.

      Women also outnumber males in voter registration.  In 2008, there were 78.1 million registered female voters and 68.2 registered male voters.  In the 2008 presidential election, 60.4% of eligible women voted (70.4 million women) while 55.7% of eligible men voted (60.7 million men.) In nonpresidential election years the gap is smaller but still significant; in 2006, 48.6% of eligible females voted (51 million women) as opposed to 46.9% of eligible men voted (45.1 million men.) The majority, both in proportion and number of eligible voters, is held by women. 

     The question is: who are women voting for? According to the National Women’s Political Caucus, women occupy 20 seats in the US Senate; men hold 80. Women hold 79 (17.9%) seats in the House of Representatives; men hold 356 seats.  There are currently 5 female governors in the United States; 45 male governors.  As of 2013, there are 1,779 (24.1%) representatives in state legislatures who are women. And, 12 of the mayors of the 100 largest cities in the United States are female.  The simple answer to the question: who are women electing?  Men.

     Women are hugely underrepresented in the Fourth Estate which has a deleterious effect on women with political aspirations. Studies conducted by the Women’s Media Center found that women comprise between 35% and 40% of reporters and on camera commentators in four studied areas: broadcast news, print, internet news and wire services.  When women report on issues they’re more likely to deal with health and lifestyle issues and less likely to report or comment on scientific, criminal justice or political topics.  Women are also less likely to be guests or contributors on Sunday TV talk shows which largely deal with political topics.  Women make up only 14% of those interviewed and 29% of round table guests. 

     The scarcity of women both behind and in front of the cameras that daily broadcast news and political commentary is problematic, but equally troublesome is what women say -- or don’t say --  when they do appear.  When commenting on the legitimacy of female candidates, women in the media often espouse a slightly updated version of the anti-suffragettes argument.  They emphasize the importance of family values and traditional marriage. They lament the negative impact the election will have on the female candidate’s children. They use code words to discuss female candidates’ personalities:  emotionally volatile, chatty, shrill or mannish.  

     One of the most prominent women in politics, Hillary Clinton, is often criticized, by women in the media, for her decisions regarding her personal appearance.  During her tenure as Secretary of State, there were regular debates about whether or not she should wear makeup, glasses or a ponytail.  Now, when a 2016 run seems imminent, the Hillary Project, an anti-Clinton PAC with several high-ranking female contributors, has released an online game that “allows viewers to virtually slap the former secretary of state across the face.” (Chozick 2014) This type of vitriol is deeply disturbing. There’s a palpable sense that the goal is not to defeat her politically but to humiliate her publically. 

      Although acceptable behavior for women has undoubtedly changed, the roles remain defined: woman’s domain is hearth and home; the man still considered a better fit for the world outside the home.  The aforementioned commentaries, by women in the media, about a politically powerful woman are further examples of Objects acting against their own social groups’ best interests.  Women in positions of political power are scarce; all women would benefit from greater representation in the legislative process.

           The scarcity of women in legislative positions means that women’s issues are not presented with the frequency that they should.  When they are presented, they may not be treated appropriately, as was the case in 2012 when the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, chaired by Darrell Issa (R-CA) convened an all male panel for a hearing on an important --to women-- contraceptive coverage rule.

     The Paycheck Fairness Act, approved by the House of Representatives in 2009 and blocked by Senate Republicans in 4 subsequent votes, is also an important measure for women as it would address a substantial gender gap with regard to pay.  Again, in the vein as female anti-suffragettes, some of the most vocal opponents of the Paycheck Fairness Act are prominent women in the media and in public office.  Phyllis Schafly, a well-known conservative activist, believes the best way to empower women is to “improve pay for the men in their lives.” (Woods 2014) Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas) called the bill “condescending” to women and Terri Lynn Land, currently running as the Republican candidate for Senate in Michigan, said in a 2010 speech, “Well, we all like to be paid more and that’s great, but the reality is that women have a different lifestyle….and they’re more interested in flexibility in job than in pay.” (Woods 2014) The very thinly veiled implication of these statements being that women need flexibility to successfully fulfill  their conventional role as primary caretakers of children and that they should count on  men to take care of any financial shortfall.

     It seems even as women gain power, we subvert it; we are, using Freire’s terminology, “hosts of the Oppressor” and still suffer from the “fear of freedom” which would allow us to truly affect systemic change and further the interests of women as a group.  What is necessary for women is to undergo a perspective transformation.  In essence, the first movement toward true equality is an acknowledgment: we are still not equal.

       The first step, according to Freire’s pedagogy, is praxis: that combination of action and reflection which will allow the Object to “understand [the world] and transform it with [our] labor.” (Freire 125) When the Object understands the world they will no longer merely feel their needs, as animals do, they will be able to perceive and reflect upon the “causes of their needs.” (qtd. in Freire 117) This insight will allow the women to focus on the societal structures to be transformed.  Societal structures can be based in and enforced by institutions, as the legal prohibition against women’s suffrage was, or they could be a socially accepted frame of reference: a “structure of assumptions and expectations that frame an individual’s tacit points of view and influence their thinking, beliefs and action.” (Taylor 5) This “structure of assumptions and expectations” proved difficult to transform in the case of women’s suffrage.  Even after the legal battle was won, many people—women included—believed that women shouldn’t have the right to vote.  The socially accepted assumption behind the prohibition, that women’s purview is the domestic sphere, remained; that assumption has been tempered by time and now remains in only in the fringe.  

     Now at issue, equal pay for equal work.  Women -- more often than ever heads of household and/or primary breadwinners, are disproportionately clustered in minimum wage positions, socially guided toward  “female-typed occupations—such as teaching or nursing”  all of which require a college degree (Dwyer 34) and “have fewer options in the low-education labor market than do men “ (Dwyer 32) -- feel our need. And, as women involved in the fight for suffrage did, modern women are beginning to identify and reflect upon the causes of their own oppression and to act against them.  While women, as yet, lack the political clout to affect policy change regarding unequal pay, we are addressing our disadvantaged position by direct action.

     Women are developing a more critical world view by, using Mezirow’s definition, learning “how to negotiate and act upon our own purposes, values, feelings and meanings rather than those we have uncritically assimilated from others.” (qtd. in Taylor 5)  The creation of the virtual face-slapping game by the Hillary Project led to a 40% uptick in web traffic and online contributions to Ready for Clinton, a “super PAC” that supports a Clinton candidacy.  Jen Bluestein, a political strategist who formerly ran communications at Emily’s List -- a political action committee that backs female candidates who support abortion rights -- said, “instead of fearing sexist attacks, we wait gleefully for the next one.” (Chozick 2014) She attributes much of the record-breaking fundraising in this election cycle to gender charged attacks such as referring to Wendy Davis, a Democratic candidate for Texas Governor, as Abortion Barbie or calling Alison Lundergran Grimes, a Senate candidate from Kentucky, an “empty dress.” (Chozick 2014)   Increasing donations to organizations that support women with political aspirations reveals the burgeoning opinion, by both men and women, that women deserve a greater role in the political process.

     Women are further addressing equal pay disparity by becoming an increasing majority of college students.  More education will equal better jobs.  Prohibitions will be lifted and, as more women engage in the process, social expectations will change; the paradigm will shift in favor of women.  Like the women who fought for their right to vote, modern women will struggle to improve their conditions in the workplace. It will be an incremental struggle of victories and setbacks.  A process: lessons learned, reflected upon and talked about; plans will be implemented and discarded, revised and redone. Freire’s theory of pedagogy is best viewed as a cycle rather than a linear model with a beginning, middle and end.  The very notion that learning ends is antithetical to Freire’s theory as the determined end would produce a new static system and static systems resist change.  The success of the women’s movement is dependent upon and reflective of the basic tenets of Freire’s pedagogy: women must engage in the process and use our own language to claim what is rightfully ours. 

Works Cited

Chozick, Amy. "Outrage over Sexist Remarks Turns into a Fund-Raising Tool." New York Times 28 Feb. 2014, New York ed., A1 sec.: 1. Print.

Dwyer, R. E., R. Hodson, and L. Mccloud. "Gender, Debt, and Dropping Out of College." Gender & Society 27.1 (2013): 30-55. Print.

Kendrick Johnson, Helen. "The Suffrage Menace." Editorial. New York Times 23 May 1915: n. pag. Query.nytimes.com. New York Times. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Macedo, Donaldo. "Introduction." In Paolo Freire.  Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 2000. 30. Print.

Taylor, Edward W. "Transformative Learning Theory." New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2008.119 (2008): 5-15. Print.

Woods, Ashley. "GOP Senate Candidate Argues She Isn't Waging a War on Women Because She's a Woman." Editorial. Huffington Post, 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

Review: Literacy in American Lives

Caitlin Geoghan

Professor Barbara Gleason

ENGL C0853: Adult Learners of Language and Literacy

May 20, 2014

Review: Literacy in American Lives

Brandt, Deborah.  Literacy in American Lives.  New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print

    

     In Literacy in American Lives, Deborah Brandt explores the process by which 80 Americans, born between 1895 and 1985, acquired and utilized literacy skills over their lifetimes.  Brandt amassed information on the literacy practices of individuals by conducting a series of in-depth interviews, in a geographically and economically diverse area of south central Wisconsin, in the 1990’s.  Literacy in American Lives, published in 2001, presents the stories of individual learners and examines the ways in which larger economic forces, impact their literacy experiences.  Her analysis focuses largely on the relationship between individual literacy and large-scale economic development and the role of sponsors of literacy: social and economic forces that desire and develop particular individual literacies and then exploit those implanted literacies for their own gain.   

             Brandt argues that everyday people often go to great lengths to acquire literacy.  In modern American society, literacy is expected and often taken for granted.  Early in the 20^th C, a high school diploma was an unusual accomplishment; at present, it’s the minimal expected educational achievement.  As levels of individual educational attainment have risen, the system that provides education has, to use Brandt’s term, democratized.  Expanding literacy in the general population has been an “instrument for more democratic access to education, political participation and upward mobility.” (Brandt 2) That is not to say that increasing literacy has been without a downside. Brandt notes,

The ability to read and, more recently, to write often helps to catapult individuals into higher economic brackets and social privilege. Yet the very broadening of these abilities among greater numbers of people has enabled economic and technological changes that now destabilize and devalue once serviceable levels of literate skills. Unending cycles of competition and change keep raising the stakes for literacy achievement. In fact, as literacy has gotten implicated in almost all of the ways that money is now made in America, the reading and writing skills of the population have become grounds for unprecedented encroachment and concern by those who profit from what those skills produce. (2)

With this relationship between individual literacy and profit in mind, Brandt attaches the notion that literacy benefits individuals who have attained it to the idea that the same literacy—in the same person—also benefits a larger economic entity that profits from what that literacy produces. Individual literacy has, in Brandt’s opinion, become an economic resource - akin to land or iron ore – and as valuable, in the Information Age, as material resources were during industrial and agrarian economies in the United States.  As such, there will be attempts to exploit, classify it and control it; as is the case with any valuable commodity in a capitalist economy.

         Despite a strong representation of the economy as a sponsor of literacy, Brandt by no means considers it the only one.  Each learner has multiple sponsors including, but not limited to: parents, institutions, print and other media, the church and the workplace; these sponsors, by interaction with each other, generate a set of circumstances wherein the learner’s level of literacy is either valuable to or devalued by the dominant economic system.  The author uses these themes, sponsors of literacy and the role of the dominant economy, as a lens through which she allows us to understand the experiences of individual learner’s in pursuit of this valuable commodity.

     The first chapter of Literacy in American Lives entitled Literacy, Opportunity and Economic Change, Brandt illustrates the way that literacy can be devalued by the dominant economic system through the side-by-side portrayal of two women’s literacy experiences.  Despite strikingly similar personal histories, Martha Day and Barbara Hunt undergo a vastly different experience when their acquired literacies interact with the dominant economic system.  The key to understanding the disparity of experiences is looking at the state of the economic system during their earliest literacy acquisition. 

     Martha Day’s earliest literacy learning is set “within an emerging infrastructure of electric lights, paved roads, rural mail delivery, rising farm prices, farm journalism and expanding schooling.” (31) In addition, she formed a network of local cultural assets due to the social aspects of 19^th C agrarian tradition. The maintenance of these local cultural assets after a geographic relocation and her ability to apply the skills she learned early to a new line of work meant that Day had a fairly successful work history.

     Barbara Hunt, on the other hand, had the opposite set of conditions.  The local economy, during her earliest literacy learning, was coming apart.  The town she grew up in had no schools or commercial center so she was unable to form a supportive network. Her rural upbringing had little relevance to the dominant economic system; she was, at the time of the interviews, struggling to add value to her literacy skills by taking classes at a community college. Brandt uses the experiences of these two women to illustrate the way that an individual’s placement in a dominant economic system can determine their level of success in the job market. 

     Literacy and Illiteracy in Documentary America, the second chapter of Literacy in American Lives, portrays the ways in which the absence of literacy in a largely literate society can deprive an individual of their civil rights. She argues that in a society wherein political, economic and social power is increasingly housed in written documents, individuals lacking the appropriate skills are ever more alienated from the pathways to success.  She represents this displacement through the experiences of Dwayne Lowery and Johnny Ames.

     Lowery, an auto worker turned union organizer, struggles in an environment that is rapidly becoming dominated by legal documents and bureaucracy.  Lowery, initially successful in negotiations because he was a good talker and a knowledgeable worker, is quickly outpaced when lawyers replace untrained municipal representatives on the other side of the bargaining table. Lowery’s inability to respond to the proliferation of legal procedure and documents renders him “illiterate” because of the introduction of a new standard of literacy established by a dominant entity.

     Johnny Ames, despite starting from a much more disadvantaged position, experiences movement in the opposite direction: from illiteracy to literacy.  Brandt’s focus in Ames’ story is more on the ways that the acquisition of literacy can lead to personal advocacy than in the effect the dominant economic system has on said acquisition,  however; Ames’ initial literacy opportunities were certainly impacted by prevailing economic conditions. The product of a rural community under “oppressive political and economic conditions” (58), Ames left school after 8^th grade virtually unable to read or write.  The lack of sufficient education severely curtails job opportunities and, like many who are deprived an adequate education, Ames fell into a life of crime; he was convicted of a capital offense and began serving a life sentence at the age of twenty-five. Following his conviction, Ames was able to find sponsors, develop his literacy skills and become a positive force in the lives of other at-risk youth. 

     In chapter 3, Accumulating Literacy, Brandt conducts an intergenerational survey with the intention of revealing the ways in which literacy accumulates and how the older members of the family act as sponsors of literacy to subsequent generations. The survey also allows one family to be viewed through the lens of economic and social change over time, “population movements from farms to urban centers to suburbs; shifts in the economic base from agriculture to manufacturing to information processing; the rise of big business; a rapid escalation in educational expectations; [and] revolutions in communication technology..” (Brandt 74) The longitudinal focus on the May family study allows Brandt to depict, generation by generation, how literacy is acquired, utilized, devalued and discarded, or revamped, in the next generation.  

     Chapter 4, “The Power of It”, is one of the few sections of Literacy in American Lives that doesn’t focus on economic factors. Instead, Brandt asserts that literacy development in the African-American community took place largely without the support of economic sponsors or other institutions that developed literacy in the American population as a whole. Brandt notes, “Where the skills of reading and writing have developed among African Americans, it has rarely been at the vigorous invitation of economic sponsors.” (Brandt 105) Further, African Americans have historically encountered racial bias in school settings.  Johnny Ames educational experience was marked by, “ reading and print [that] were often sources of negative racial messages…prohibitive signs on segregated water  fountains and eateries …his teacher’s reading aloud of the racist story Little Black Sambo…” (Brandt 59) And, in the segregated schools of the South, it was “typical for the white school board to economize in funding by hiring ill-prepared teachers.” (Brandt 114) Despite this unequal distribution of sponsors and alienation from institutions of education, African Americans have attained a high level of basic literacy by turning to one of the original sponsors of mass literacy, the Church.

      Black churches were the only institutions in the United States that were free from the domination of mainstream white society.  In church, African Americans found the means to withstand the hardships of life and the ability to speak freely of the adversity they experienced on a daily basis.  In addition, the church provided a center around which they could coalesce and enact positive social change including the formation of literacy programs for members of the community. The church also gathered the people in numbers necessary to resist individual and institutional oppression.   Acquiring literacy, in the African-American community, was a means of self-advocacy unavailable to African-Americans through other channels.  The church remains a force for both education and advocacy programs in the African-American community. As mainstream society has grown more accepting and schooling mandatory, African-Americans come into contact with sponsors more familiar with American society as a whole.  They still; however, are marked by the inception of literacy acquisition in the church.

     In Chapter 5, The Sacred and the Profane, Brandt chronicles the disparity of experiences with regard to the literacy building blocks:  reading and writing.  Many of Brandt’s subjects had positive associations with regard to early reading experiences.  Three quarters of her respondents said that “reading and books were actively endorsed in their households.” (Brandt 130) Reading was an intimate activity, associated with family gatherings and had the characteristics of a social activity.  Books were given as gifts and available for free at public libraries; there was a prestige associated with reading: Olga Nelson’s “finishing-school mother taught Olga and her sisters to distinguish themselves as a little more refined” by virtue of their being “a reading family.” (Brandt 153) Questions regarding early memories of writing produce the opposite effect. It was a far more uncommon skill.  Many were able to read; writing was for the few. Negative associations often started with disparagement concerning the mechanics, “Handwriting was recalled as a heavily monitored activity, and those who struggled with it remember it as a source of humiliation of defeat.”(Brandt 164) That initial censure often had far-reaching effects, as with the case of a “68 year old former Spanish teacher [who] said that poor handwriting in her early education discouraged her from writing.” (Brandt 164) In addition, writing in schools usually to on expository form aimed at proving that you’d read and understood required reading material.  Brandt describes a shift with regard to these skills precipitated by economic forces that now require a new or higher literacy.  Brandt notes,

Basic literacy is no longer adequate – advanced proficiency is required. Another way to understand this transformation in literacy is to see that writing is beginning to overtake reading as the more fundamental literate skill.  Writing is the more productive member of the pair, and with literacy now a key productive force in the information economy, writing not only documents work but also increasingly comprises the work that many people do. (148)

This shift in the requisite literacy reiterates one of Brandt’s major themes: the economy is a major force behind ascending literacy requirements and responsible for devaluing formerly acceptable levels of literacy.

      In Chapter 6, The Means of Production, Brandt explores the reasons for ever increasing stratification in the latter part of the twentieth century. She illustrates the potential cause of the exploitation of literacy by reworking the Marxist definition of the relations of production: the relationship between those who own the means of production (the capitalists) and those who don’t (the workers.)  Capitalism is a mode of production that relies on the private ownership of the means of production (factories, machines and raw materials) wherein capitalists and workers are locked in an antagonistic relationship; what is beneficial for one is detrimental to the other and vice versa.   In order to remain competitive, the owners of the means of production must extract as much labor as possible from the workers for the lowest possible cost. Prior to the Information Age, the relationship between capitalists and workers was straightforward, if not equitable; however, that relationship becomes more complicated when literacy is considered part of the means of production. Brandt states,

The transformation of the American labor force from principally manufacturing in the 1940’s to principally knowledge production and control in the 1980’s gauges the ascending role of literacy as both labor input and product output…Further, however, literacy is also a means of production-that is, a tool, an instrument, a technology… in an information economy, literacy shows up in all aspects of production: as raw material, as labor power, as an instrument of production, and as product. (171)

Brandt’s classification of literacy as central to the current dominant economic system designates the economy as a major sponsor of literacy: an agency or process that promotes—or withholds literacy—in order to profit from it.  In addition, literacy once acquired, will be viewed through the lens of prevailing economic forces and declared valuable or worthless. 

     Brandt connects the strength of economic forces to the role of the schools with regard to inequalities in literacy achievement.  For some, the differences in literacy achievement prove schools’ complicity in maintaining those inequalities. Brandt states,

Educators at all levels deal with curriculum and performance standards that emanate from governments, regents, district offices, or other centralized agencies.  These standards, which usually come in the form of objective aims, goals, requirements, outcome criteria, and so on, usually mask the struggles among competing parties that have gone into their making. They almost always deliver, in unquestioned ways, the prevailing interests of dominant economies. (45)

Brandt, while acknowledging the dominance of the economy in all facets of literacy acquisition, implies that the role of schools is not to churn out workers but to educate; to teach skills that will allow students, at all levels of literacy to, build upon and transfer their skills from one set of economic conditions to the next.

     In Literacy in American Lives, Deborah Brandt makes a compelling case that failure to acquire literacy has many meanings and many causes. The role of the economy and unending cycles of competition devalue literacy faster and faster.  The Information Age brings us new technology every day, the economy requires that workers both supply raw materials in the form of literacy and process that material into the finished product: information.  Especially at issue, is the role that education plays in this process.   It is a fresh perspective on a familiar topic and raises quite a few questions: why are the schools failing to adequately educate their student population? Why are community colleges so underfunded? Why are entire departments being removed from the curriculum? Brandt, convincingly opines, that economic forces are so strong educational facilities are teaching only up to the level that the economy makes possible. 

    

High School Graduation Rates

     Here's a good source of information about high school graduation rates and college preparedness in a pretty good interactive map format.

How's your state doing?

Poverty Distribution by County__New York Times Interactive Map

Poverty Distribution by County in the US

Women in the Media

       According to Freire,  a key to keeping the Object feeling like their oppression is natural and inevitable comes from other "successful" members of the Object class.  Media plays a tremendous role in the election process these days.  Women are enormously underrepresented in both media and government.  In addition, the topics women cover when they are in front of the camera  tend toward are lifestyle, issues, personal interest stories and other "soft" news.    

An interesting look at male/female distribution in the media in the United States (2014).

The Status of Women in the U. S. Media 2014

The Status of Women in the U.S. Media 2013

The Status Of Women in the Media 2012

Response to Freire's "Fear of freedom"

     Freire considers many of the "oppressed" to be hindered in the process of self-realization and advancement by a "freedom of fear" that is actually taught them by the "oppressor."  The importance that the Object internalize this concept--upon which the Subject relies to maintain dominance-- is essential to the maintenance of the status quo.  This "fear of freedom" is rarely acknowledged by the infected.  In fact, the possibility that the sufferer is unaware of the fear is very real; they may have simply internalized the Subject's vision  completely. In order for the power balance to remain stable, the oppressor must convince the oppressed that they are worthy of the power they possess and create a definition of "success" for the oppressed to strive toward.
    The definition of success-- as posited by the Subject-- is their own condition.  To be successful is to be a part of, and a participant in,  the world of the oppressor.  The oppressed have internalized this idea to such an extent that their desire is not for the improved condition of their class but for the betterment of their own lives as individuals.  They don't strive for freedom; they want security-- to be accepted  and named by the dominant society as one of their own.
     This separation of the oppressed individual from his people is an extremely effective way to maintain the status quo.  It means, basically, the oppressed support and continue the policies of the dominant class.
     When I ask my students why they want to learn English, the answers vary but most contain a component of ownership.  They want to "own" something: a house, a car, land, a business.  They--who are often unable to survive in their countries of origin because the policies of "owners" have depressed wages and educational opportunities into virtual nonexistence--want to enact those same policies on others.  Of course, they say to themselves, they will be fair; they will treat their workers with respect and support their efforts to become "owners" after their own right.  And, they may well be fair; they may pay better wages and treat their workers better; however, they will have done nothing to facilitate or instigate change in the system which is -- by definition -- unjust. I'm sure there were slave holders that treated their slaves relatively well. They may have fed them well, allowed them to marry, not sold their children and perhaps, after years of service, they may have even granted some of them freedom.  Should we regard these "nice" slave holders as a justification for the defense of slavery?  What is more important?  That they treated the people they "owned" well or that they "owned" people-- an idea and practice beyond grotesque.
     We need not look so far back into history to consider successful instances of the Subject convincing the oppressed to maintain the status quo; to work against their own interests and further the interests of the dominant class. Recent cuts in social services including SNAP (food stamps), a no vote for extension of unemployment benefits, cuts in educational services, resistance to the idea that the minimum wage is wholly inappropriate and the most vociferous objections to any type of health care reform are supported, in large part, by Senators and Representatives from Southern states.  States which are the poorest, that have the highest mortality and unemployment rates and the lowest quality of life ratings.  What's up with that?
     

Response to Donald Mecedo's take on Freire's critics

          Macedo feels, and appropriately documents, that Freire's work is often overlooked or ignored by mainstream academics.  In particular, he notes that several "highly literate" colleagues (Gregory Jay and Gerald Graff) find fault with Freire's lack of "language clarity" and criticize a writing style that " speaks of but never to those who oppose its premises." (20) Further, he documents a conversation wherein an unnamed colleague, who he considered to be "politically aggressive and to have a keen understanding of Freire's work," to object to his use of "Marxist jargon."(20) Macedo argues successfully that Freire uses language appropriate to his goal.  By naming the "Subject" and "Object" oppressor and oppressed respectively, he is using the clearest possible language, if not the most palatable to those who seek to initiate social change through persuasion rather than by a show of force.  Persuasion as a means to bring about social change is entirely insufficient- a type of bet hedging- an assertion that we think things should be different but are unwilling to embody the level of force required to bring about change.  
     Force is necessary but not necessarily violent.  Gandhi was forceful. Martin Luther King Jr. communicated his vision to the people without advocating the use of violence.  Both men knew, as Freire did, that radical social change is not about overthrow but about the awakening of people to the reality of their condition. An acknowledgement by the Objects that they have internalized the "fear of freedom" and that they are willing to push through it to facilitate the conditions necessary for improvement of all oppressed people--not just an individual person being oppressed.
     I find very powerful Macedo's criticism of "highly literate" mainstream academics who cite a lack of "language clarity" as a reason that Freire's work isn't presented in some very lofty academic programs.  I concur with his conclusion that the language that's being called for -- accepted by the mainstream as simple and clear -- is actually language that obfuscates reality.  Macedo's examples, "disenfranchised", "ethnic cleansing", and "theater of operation", can be joined with a host of others that can be found in modern American political discourse.  How about using "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture? How about calling Palestinians "internally displaced people"? How about classifying the peaceful protesters from Greenpeace and Pussy Riot as hooligans and incarcerating them? How about saying a state or company supports the "right to work" instead of calling them what they are--absolutely opposed to labor unions and collective bargaining?  This type of language--used to preserve the status quo and even further act upon the Object--is deliberate and has no place in Freire's work which -- start to finish -- seeks to upend the status quo and warn the people against their own desolation.
      

Response to selected passages from Adult Learners in Focus (2008)

Selected passages from Adult Learners in Focus 2008

"Over 26 million adults in the U.S. currently have no high school diploma, more than 3 million have not attended college and are earning less than a living wage, and over 8 million have not attended college and speak little or no English." (7)

This statistic makes clear the growing need for educational services and support in a variety of incarnations both formal and informal. Clearly, intervention is needed in primary and secondary schools.  The increased reliance on standardized testing to measure a students "success" at all levels has put even greater stress on the student population that are already most likely to "fail" to benefit from formal education options offered. However, the percentage of people who need to have postsecondary education in order that our economy and work force be competitive in a global market (according to the article 55 percent,) cannot be reached only by shoring up deficiencies in primary and secondary schools. Programs designed to reach adult students are desperately needed and, judging from personal experience, in great demand. Unfortunately, lack of funding and short-sighted policy decisions seem to be making adult education programs harder rather than easier to access.  The state and federal funding that the English Language Institute (SUNY) needs to provide free ESL programs for adults has been cut three times over the past two years.  The cuts occur in areas where teachers cannot successfully prove that their students are on a straight track to enter college and get a degree.  It's very difficult to "prove" that your students will enter college in a finite amount of time when you're dealing with significant language and literacy deficiencies.


"The good news is that adults are making up an ever larger share of the total enrollment in postsecondary institutions. By 2004, adults made up approximately 43 percent of total enrollment at community colleges (includes full-time and part-time)." (7)

"Nontraditional students-- for example, those who have delayed enrollment in postsecondary education, work full-time while enrolled, or have dependents other than a spouse-- were more likely than traditional students both to participate in distance education and to be in programs available entirely through distance education" (8)

"States vary significantly in their success in moving students through this traditional educational pipeline...But reliance on and attention to the traditional educational pipeline will not be enough." (22)

"The issue of declining numbers of high school graduates, projected in a recent study by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (208), is yet another reason why a focus on the education of younger populations will not be sufficient." (23)
AND
"...13.3 percent of the adult population (26,455,554 individuals)...never completed high school. Many of these adults may face basic literacy challenges as well. One way to help this population is to address skills shortfalls through Adult Basic Education (ABE), gain a high school credential by completing a GED, then enter postsecondary study." (24)