Christie Johnson's thesis on literate awareness is one of the most interesting pieces of writing I have read in awhile. She explores so many different types of literacy in the attempt to answer the question, what does it mean to be literate? She does this by examining a student named Tina that she tutors at a local high school. Something I found very interesting that she did after reading a paper by Tina was finding the places of understanding, or literate awareness. She also had her write reflections and notes down about an interview she had with a carptentar.
What I found to be by far the most compelling element of this paper was how different our definition of literacy is compared to people who come from a different socio-economic background. Johnson read a paper written by Tina before meeting her that had ample grammatical errors, poor word choice and a heap of other problems. She was then surprised to see that the paper received a "B". She then thought to herself that a "B" was not the correct grade for the paper and seemed confused. However, she began to realize that the standard for students in her high school was probably significantly lower than that of her own high school. Johnson grew up in an affluent neighborhood and received constant support through out her education. Not only that, but she always knew that the end goal was to attend college. It was never a question whether or not she would receive a higher education: it was understood. This naturally made me think of my own experience of high school.
I also grew up in an affluent family and received a far above par private education throughout my entire life. Even though I grew up in London, I still was presented with the same end goals: to graduate high school with a good GPA and attend an established university. For a second, I imagined what it would be like to not have those goals. What if going to high school was the end goal? What if actually graduating, despite the level of grades, was considered to be the best accomplishment?
The point of all of this reflection is this: literacy is defined as being able to read and write, but the reality is that it has a much deeper meaning for those of different backgrounds. Literacy, like Johnson says, is defined by those people who read TIME and The New Yorker and spend their days having intellectual conversations. The standards of what it means to be "educated" are in fact defined by those who are educated. Although I do agree with the importance of having our country's (and my other country's) citizens be well educated, the experiences we have in our lifetime are much more important. There is something to be said about those whose biggest dilemmas are what they will choose to wear in the morning and those whose issues are more serious. People who grow up in a rough neighborhood or with less money have a level of experience that most white-collar families cannot even come close to (and no, doing 'service' trips does not count).
What I mean by all of this (I am aware I went on a rant for a bit) is that to be literate is not just about reading and writing. In order to be literate, you have to be able to communicate those ideas not only by writing, but by speaking. Tina could talk about the issues behind teen pregnancy, drugs, alcohol, and many other things because they are issues she sees first hand. She is not hesitant to put her opinion out there and make what she thinks known. We at Richmond spend most of our time writing essays, research papers, lab reports, and tend to avoid these somewhat controversial issues. Keeping all of that in mind, who is more literate?
No comments:
Post a Comment