The New Basics
Throughout the reading and class discussions, there are two key ideas that I continue to resonant with me. The first is the whole notion of critical literacy as the new basic and the second is the importance and value we as educators place on pre-package literacy programs.

As a special education teacher, there is no shortage of advice from colleagues about what my students really need. The advice is in evidently focused around teaching them the basics, which in many cases involves decoding and answering comprehension questions in a grammatically correct format. In Allen Luck’s video, he repeatedly stated that, although phonic may be necessary in our instructional practices, it is not sufficient if critical literacy is to be our main objective. Because of these ideas, I am in the process of transforming both my pedagogy and my instructional practises. I don’t believe that students with different needs/abilities are incapables of thinking critically. Yes, there is indeed no reason for my students to think critically if all they are doing in class is completing endless pages of sequenced skills activity pages. Instead, they, like all other students who have their own unique learning styles, should be given the same opportunities to question texts and to voice their ideas and perspectives. They need to be exposed to literacy events which are relevant, meaningful and practical to their lives. Just because students with different learning need may not accurately decode every single word on a page doesn’t mean that they are less able to think about and/or connect to the content. As educators we start where the kids are and facilitate their learning in an authentic manner. Special needs students are living in the same world/community as their peers, so why don’t they deserve to have the same learning opportunities as everyone else?

The second idea revolves around the pre-packaged literacy programs. I guess with the overwhelming curriculum expectations and our ultimate goal to create and foster critically literate students, teachers are searching for a program that encompasses all these objectives. Publishers, who are ultimately in it for the money, jump on this frustration and create programs that seem to address and satisfy all of our concerns. I think as educators, we need to really question the purpose of these programs and how the publishers can truly justify their claim that by purchasing the program, we are meeting every child’s need. As a school in a low socio-economic community, a few years ago the ministry granted us a lump sum of money to spend on our literacy initiatives to improve student achievement. We decided that purchasing a literacy program was a good start. I recall submitting and discussing this with a ministry representative who said that purchasing the materials would be fine as long as we didn’t give the teachers the teaching manuals. I have to admit that I was a little taken aback by that comment and really didn’t comprehend her position or motives. Now, looking back, I realize precisely why she was adamant about her position on the manuals. If our ultimate goal is to facilitate critical thinking, by starting at the point our kids are at, how can a manual be our guiding principle practice? We need to take our lead from the students we have, students who, as we know, are not all at the same place as every other children with different discourse and social practices. We want our students to be critical thinkers, but how each one gets there is dependent on the various paths we take them on. I think the question that we’ve been asked throughout the course, “How would you make this text a critical literacy piece?” is a fantastic way to initiate our programming. Allan Luke suggests that we need a repertoire of teaching practices and assessment. A balanced approach will enable us as educators to provide the necessary literacy events for our students to become confident and critical thinkers. No group of people (writers, publishers) sitting in a conference room can know what the students in our classrooms need better than us. We need to trust ourselves and our students that, given a nurturing learning environment and authentic learning opportunities, our students will rise to their critical literacy potentials.

Teaching to Learn

After having reflected upon the articles, the ideas that seem to resonate with me and linger in my mind relate to the questions, “What does learning really look like?” and “What is our role as educators?”
It is undeniable and even regrettable, that most, if not all, of a teacher’s program and board initiatives, are driven primarily by provincial test scores, cognitive ability tests and mandated ministry curriculum. The vast number of curriculum expectations forces teachers, as well as students, to get caught up in what seems to be a tidal wave where both experience an overwhelming sense of drowning, of being swept away by the tide. In this state of frustration and urgency to cover the curriculum and to improve test scores, some teachers may feel compelled to resort to the “teaching by telling” instructional method. They feel that this model may be the only and most efficient way in which the expectations can be covered in the least amount of time thus enabling them to plough through the curriculum in a timely manner. There is no time to allow students to figure things out, to explore various possibilities or to engage in meaningful dialogue. We teach, students listen, information is stored and then given back on demand. Neither teachers nor students can be content in this type of situation where learning is rather questionable. Consequently, teachers are often in search of the “holy grail”, a magical all encompassing one size fits all program that can address all curriculum expectations, as well as all students’ needs, in a convenient “fix-it” package. I recall the times in my own elementary school years when my older brother would help me with my homework. I recall getting frustrated and even angry when he showed me how to do something differently than my teacher. For me, as I’m sure for many others, it was more important to do it the teacher’s way and not understand than to explore a different possibility and potentially understand. The teacher’s way was always better. What a sense of power we felt the teachers had over us. In Lindor’s article, he states, “But he believed wrongly that his learning was the business of carrying out the teacher’s sequence. He believed that he was doing his thing (reading) badly because he was not doing her thing (phonics) well.” (Lindor, 604)
If we as educators believe our primary goal is to foster and promote critical thinking students, people who are encouraged to actively participate, question, challenge, influence and appreciate different perspectives in society, then, we must begin to transform our ideas about what we teach, how we teach and how we measure it. We need to re-evaluate what learning looks like in our classrooms and how we as educators go about creating an environment that facilitates critical thinking skills. Lindor reiterates this when he says, “We must begin to distinguish between the time honoured instructional activities of teachers and the timeless sense-making process of children.” (Lindor, 605)
Therefore, what in essence, should learning look like and when and where does learning count? We need to trust that students are always learning even when they may not be demonstrating it to us in our desired and familiar ways. Learning is about questioning old answers and coming up with new personally relevant ideas. Wenger states, “Learning is something we can assume-whether we see it or not, whether we like the way it goes or not, whether what we are learning is to repeat the past or to shake it off. Even failing to learn what is expected in a given situation usually involves learning something else instead.” (Wenger, 8)
What, then, is our role as educators? Traditionally and even to today, “We wish to cause learning, to take charge of it, direct it, accelerate it, demand it or even simply stop getting in the way of it.” (Wenger, 9) As teachers we need to think about relinquishing some of our control, power and authority over the curriculum and our classroom over to the students. We should begin with the child, not necessarily the ministry documents. We need to acknowledge, accept, appreciate, validate and empathize with the social practices and discourses our students come to us with. By providing meaningful and authentic learning experiences and encouraging students to make those personal connections, we are enhancing their learning. By providing a safe and nurturing environment, students are enable and empowered to question, challenge and reflect on their ideas and perspectives as well as those of others. We need to become facilitators, where students realize that we too are learning alongside them. This allows them to understand that teachers don’t have all the answers and that the students have the capabilities to transform their teacher’s perspectives and ideas. It’s essential that students see us figuring things out, at times successfully and at others unsuccessfully, as we move along our own learning journey. Fundamentally, we should support our students and ensure that what they are learning in the classroom is relevant and connected to their world outside the confines of our classrooms.
Transforming our ideas about what learning looks likes and what role we as educators play in that learning is undoubtedly a challenging task that requires our persistence, determination and dedication. However, it is and endeavour that has the possibility to lead to tremendous opportunities, for us and for our students.