1. Literacy is more complex than current curricula and assessments allow.
2. Curricula and assessments that reduce literacy to a few simple and mechanistic skills fail to do justice to the richness and complexity of actual literacy practices in people’s lives.
3. If we want learners to develop and enhance the richness and complexity of literacy practices evident in society at large, then we need curricula and assessments that are themselves rich and complex and based upon research into actual literacy practices.
4. In order to develop rich and complex curricula and assessments for literacy, we need models of literacy and of pedagogy that capture the richness and complexity of actual literacy practices.
5. In order to build upon the richness and complexity of learners’ prior knowledge, we need to treat “home background” not as a deficit but as affecting deep levels of identity and epistemology, and thereby the stance that learners take with respect to the “new” literacy practices of the educational setting.
Brian Street (2005)
2. Curricula and assessments that reduce literacy to a few simple and mechanistic skills fail to do justice to the richness and complexity of actual literacy practices in people’s lives.
3. If we want learners to develop and enhance the richness and complexity of literacy practices evident in society at large, then we need curricula and assessments that are themselves rich and complex and based upon research into actual literacy practices.
4. In order to develop rich and complex curricula and assessments for literacy, we need models of literacy and of pedagogy that capture the richness and complexity of actual literacy practices.
5. In order to build upon the richness and complexity of learners’ prior knowledge, we need to treat “home background” not as a deficit but as affecting deep levels of identity and epistemology, and thereby the stance that learners take with respect to the “new” literacy practices of the educational setting.
Brian Street (2005)
No Adult Left Behind: A call for a new paradigm?
While I welcome the drive from the government to improve maths and English with the newly reformed GCSEs, I can’t help but focus on the shortcomings in respect to adult provision. The new qualifications are very much focused on the 16-19 learners in further Education with little accommodation of the needs of the rest of the sector. The government seems to see this as the silver bullet that will cure our English and maths skills deficit and therefore propel us to the top of the international league tables of skills. But what about community provision? What about prisoners? The unemployed? Under-represented groups? One size in this case does not fit all… There is still need for progression pathways which meet the needs and interests of these groups of learners if we are to engage, enthuse and motivate them to learn and develop their skills.
It’s worrying that there doesn’t seem to be a clear message about the role of stepping stone qualifications seeing as funding has been pulled from everything except functional skills and therefore how less-formal and informal English and maths provision could be utilised for the lower level learners and those outside of mainstream FE.
The drive for the reformed GCSEs has been bolstered by the recent OECD report and supports the government’s claim that the existing qualifications are inappropriate and have done little to improve the nation’s productivity and global competitiveness… It would be useful at this point to examine the education systems of those nations ahead of us: South Korea, Netherlands, Sweden, for example place an emphasis on education being of social nad cultural benefit of the individual – what can the nation do for its citizens. whereas in the UK we are very much focused on how our citizens can contribute to the economy. This is evident in a comment from a BIS/DfE briefing: “This is a response to the international evidence that shows English students have fallen behind the performance of their key competitors”… Competitors? Really? I believe that until we shift the emphasis on GCSEs being the gold standard and the silver bullet – and re-vision our curriculum for adults where it is less about raising productivity and global competitiveness but instead about empowering the people of UK PLC to read the word and ultimately read the world – to stand up and be heard in a true democracy.
It’s worrying that there doesn’t seem to be a clear message about the role of stepping stone qualifications seeing as funding has been pulled from everything except functional skills and therefore how less-formal and informal English and maths provision could be utilised for the lower level learners and those outside of mainstream FE.
The drive for the reformed GCSEs has been bolstered by the recent OECD report and supports the government’s claim that the existing qualifications are inappropriate and have done little to improve the nation’s productivity and global competitiveness… It would be useful at this point to examine the education systems of those nations ahead of us: South Korea, Netherlands, Sweden, for example place an emphasis on education being of social nad cultural benefit of the individual – what can the nation do for its citizens. whereas in the UK we are very much focused on how our citizens can contribute to the economy. This is evident in a comment from a BIS/DfE briefing: “This is a response to the international evidence that shows English students have fallen behind the performance of their key competitors”… Competitors? Really? I believe that until we shift the emphasis on GCSEs being the gold standard and the silver bullet – and re-vision our curriculum for adults where it is less about raising productivity and global competitiveness but instead about empowering the people of UK PLC to read the word and ultimately read the world – to stand up and be heard in a true democracy.
So...
Stolen from NRDC blog:
ELINET guiding principles for the use of terminology in adult literacy
BY NRDC IN BLOG, PUBLICATIONS · 22ND SEPTEMBER 2015 · NO COMMENTS
TAGS: ADULT LEARNING, ENTRY LEVEL LEARNERS, FAMILY LITERACY, LEARNERS, LITERACY, POLICY
In 2014, the ELINET network distributed a questionnaire about the use of terminology in adult literacy work. The results of this questionnaire were discussed at an ELINET seminar at the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning in Hamburg in January 2015. The Hamburg Seminar provided the opportunity for ELINET partners to air challenges and concerns, and share good practice, in describing and referring to adults who may have literacy needs or goals. ELINET can play an important role in guiding the wider population, including politicians, policy-makers and the media, in their use of such terminology. The seminar participants recognised the vital importance of ensuring that in our advocacy, research and practice around adult literacy we are mindful of the impact our use of language can have in shaping impressions of the needs and capabilities of adult literacy learners. We considered the range of terminology used to talk about adult literacy and adult literacy learners and agreed upon seven guiding principles that should inform our choices of language when writing or speaking about adult literacy.
Guidelines
We will aim for terminology which:
1. provides precision appropriate to communicative purpose
2. communicates transparently and simply, as appropriate to audience, purpose and context
3. is respectful
4. is positive; that is, where possible avoids contributing to a deficit model
5. recognises that “people are not at levels, skills are”
6. recognises that ‘a beginner reader [or writer] is not a beginner thinker’
7. is appropriate to linguistic and cultural context, as well as to audience and purpose
Our uses of terminology will always be within larger texts, interactions or discourses and we aim for these to: recognize the core tension between the desire for precision and the complexity of literacy acknowledge the potential need for different terms to be used for different audiences while working towards convergence – part of a wider role of educating the public and policy-makers take account of the fact that terms created to describe groups will be applied to individuals – the terms we use will be taken out of context and we should attempt to anticipate this http://www.eli-net.eu recognize that individuals and their skills and practices shift and develop over the lifecourse and across different life domains – literacy development is lifelong and lifewide.
ELINET guiding principles for the use of terminology in adult literacy
BY NRDC IN BLOG, PUBLICATIONS · 22ND SEPTEMBER 2015 · NO COMMENTS
TAGS: ADULT LEARNING, ENTRY LEVEL LEARNERS, FAMILY LITERACY, LEARNERS, LITERACY, POLICY
In 2014, the ELINET network distributed a questionnaire about the use of terminology in adult literacy work. The results of this questionnaire were discussed at an ELINET seminar at the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning in Hamburg in January 2015. The Hamburg Seminar provided the opportunity for ELINET partners to air challenges and concerns, and share good practice, in describing and referring to adults who may have literacy needs or goals. ELINET can play an important role in guiding the wider population, including politicians, policy-makers and the media, in their use of such terminology. The seminar participants recognised the vital importance of ensuring that in our advocacy, research and practice around adult literacy we are mindful of the impact our use of language can have in shaping impressions of the needs and capabilities of adult literacy learners. We considered the range of terminology used to talk about adult literacy and adult literacy learners and agreed upon seven guiding principles that should inform our choices of language when writing or speaking about adult literacy.
Guidelines
We will aim for terminology which:
1. provides precision appropriate to communicative purpose
2. communicates transparently and simply, as appropriate to audience, purpose and context
3. is respectful
4. is positive; that is, where possible avoids contributing to a deficit model
5. recognises that “people are not at levels, skills are”
6. recognises that ‘a beginner reader [or writer] is not a beginner thinker’
7. is appropriate to linguistic and cultural context, as well as to audience and purpose
Our uses of terminology will always be within larger texts, interactions or discourses and we aim for these to: recognize the core tension between the desire for precision and the complexity of literacy acknowledge the potential need for different terms to be used for different audiences while working towards convergence – part of a wider role of educating the public and policy-makers take account of the fact that terms created to describe groups will be applied to individuals – the terms we use will be taken out of context and we should attempt to anticipate this http://www.eli-net.eu recognize that individuals and their skills and practices shift and develop over the lifecourse and across different life domains – literacy development is lifelong and lifewide.