Women. Literacy and Poverty

Tomorrow evening I'm doing my presentation to the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba, a body that presents resolutions to government at the civic, provincial, national and international levels. I've written a provincial one about adult literacy that goes forward in February, but I'm doing a presentation on the content first. Stepping out on a limb, voicing opinions about what I've seen in program planning for the disadvantaged. In this case, what's driving me is what I've seen in the housing development literacy program. It's a prime example of how a particular social mindset and value system shapes programming in subtle but absolutely critical ways.

In short, I've traced the history of literacy programming in Canada through various shifts from the more socially-minded to now, where literacy has become - in my mind - co-opted by big business. OK, that's a gross oversimplification, but the idea is accurate. National literacy levels have now been understood to affect our society (through various international studies and reports), but it's the economic perspective that's becoming the driver. Ie. better literacy = better employees.

So where do the women in the housing development fit into that mandate? They don't, and hence funding for programs (and people?) that are perceived as "lost causes" (ie. they don't have a fabulous return-on-investment in the economy), are seen as charity work. Funding goes to literacy programs that can demonstrate their connecting to Essential Skills, a work-related brand of literacy. What used to be "Literacy as Freedom" (the slogan for the UN's Decade of Literacy 2003-2012) is now Literacy for Work.

Which is great, unless you're a low literacy, low income, single parent trying to go back to school to improve your literacy levels so you can get a better job and improve the life of your kids.

Here's the problem: the vast majority of "single parents" are actually single mothers, and women at low levels of literacy earn about half what men at low levels of literacy earn, because they're working in different kinds of jobs that require different kinds of skills. They actually need to progress twice as far with their literacy skills before they get into jobs that earn the same as men with lower literacy levels!

That means that, if we want to improve our national literacy rates and prevent continuing low literacy rates in the next generation, and maybe reduce poverty along the way, we might want to develop literacy programs for low income mothers, usually with several children, because they need different scheduling, childcare and transportation help, counseling, onsite programming, and content relevant to their lives. Why teach them to read a book about an astronaut, when they need to be able to read about getting restraining orders?! In order for it to be "fair" and accessible to single moms (parents) living in poverty, literacy programming actually needs to be far better funded and better designed. While the kids are young, we can support the moms far better in getting to upgrading programs. Otherwise we're asking for these already discouraged learners to jump over much higher hurdles than we ask anyone else.

Indeed, it's an interesting example of how the larger social context, which values work over parenting, economy over society, and "men's work" over "women's work", is affecting literacy programming for those who are raising the next generation.

Social Networking Tools

I'm currently working on a project that requires me to document and evaluate a literacy program being offered in a low-income housing development. I'm also designing a 100-hour online ESL teacher training program, while teaching/developing a blended Program Planning in Adult Education course. Each of these projects are being hugely influenced by the Emerging Technologies course I'm taking, because my ideas about curriculum development and educational practice are being tossed around like a paddle-less canoe in a thunderstorm. (I love it!).

The first project, in which I'm working with strong, interesting and learning-hungry women who have been battered around by life and society, is in some ways restricted by an outdated view of "literacy". This outdated definition of literacy is focused on "autonomous" (disconnected) skill development. There are lists of things that represent "being literate", lists that are used to determine "progress" in reading and writing. Nice things with tick-boxes beside them if accomplished and demonstrated to an 'educated' person from another socio-economic world. Things that result in another document if properly achieved, one that is said to open new doors for them.

But the documents associated with these lists seem to me to be loaded with subtle messages that keep literacy learners in a subservient and marginalized position. The definition of literacy reflected in them is, in effect, a white, middle-class list of what "should" be known. It does not reflect critical aspects of "situated literacy" that could show how much these women DO know. It is more likely, inadvertently perhaps, to measure what they DON'T know. In addition, even if they could do all the things on the list perfectly, the acquired literacy would not give them access to all that we promise them if they achieve those things .... nor have we even asked them what THEY want to be able to do with their newly-developed literacy skills. It may be understanding parole paperwork or medical info about ADHD for their kids, or writing letters to complain about bed bug infestations, or understanding why their tax rebate isn't as high as they expected. Shouldn't we be asking them what they want?

How is this related to connectivism? When we see things in isolation instead of in their dynamic and ever-changing context, we lose the life of the thing. We need to see these women and their skills in the context of their community ... capable, connected, vibrant, growing. We need to allow that they know things that we don't. We need to support every effort they make to reach out and connect beyond whatever curriculum or skills we expose them to in the classroom. We need to support them in their independent thinking and acting. EVERYTHING about our teaching needs to be about reaching out and beyond, especially when we're talking about people who haven't had equal access to the privileges of middle-class life. This means giving up control, not trying to create lists and ticky-boxes that presume to encapsulate what "should" be. It means listening, being aware of personal biases and presumptions, allowing learning to emerge, describing instead of prescribing. This is situated literacy, literacy as social practice not just technical skill development.

But what to do when a course needs to be certified by someone (like the ESL one) or needs to fit into an expected curriculum (like the Program Planning one)? Then we may not be able to allow for emergent curriculum the same way, but we still need to find ways of engaging students' minds fully and creatively. The difference between a "learning management system", (even a more enlightened or open one) and something like the software "Twine" or "Diigo", which sorts but doesn't pre-chew, is remarkable. One is linear, teacher-led, didactic; the other is open, chaotic, exploratory. This open, chaotic, exploratory approach engages the mind and is propelled forward by "joy" or "rapture". Each time I go online and discover a new software (as an embodiment of a way of thinking about ideas and information and connections), I want to re-write the modules I've completed. I know I need to meet certain standards and expectations, but - like the literacy checklist - these standards are so painfully dry! They too are "autonomous", disconnected from engaged learning. I know that we (I) can do better.

I found a great article on "New Literacy Studies", which talks about literacy as social practice. I'm going to pull out of it the implications for curriculum development. I'm sure they will reflect the values of the Web 2 world and connectivism (learning is located in the community, in the way it is lived out). I'm hopeful that it'll let me more accurately show all the kinds of learning, skill development and social impacts going on in the housing development as a result of the literacy program. I'm also hoping that I can get closer to a list of "best practices" for the courses I'm developing/teaching.