We hear you!

As we work our way through the responses to the National Literacy Action Agenda, we are finding that in general there was overwhelming agreement with the principles, priorities and goals. However, in some areas there was a range of views:

1. Why bother with a federal strategy? Many respondents were unclear about the role of the federal government when education and training are under provincial jurisdiction. (Please refer to the Influencing Change article pgs 5-7)

2. Definitions. In a field that values words so highly it was no surprise that a number of people highlighted the need to fully define literacy, stakeholder and other terms. Some of you suggested that we follow the example of European countries who do not use the word literacy at all since it implies a deficit approach. Some comments on the language used in the Discussion Guide and Workbook illustrated the difficulty of describing literacy issues and challenges in a way that is clear to everyone.

3. Creating a system comparable to the K -12 system. While there was overwhelming support for this goal, many respondents mentioned that since there are so many flaws in the current K-12 model, our aim should be equal status for adult/lifelong learning rather than imitating the K-12 system. Also highlighted was the need for flexible, learner centred programming.

4. Providing a range of programs. Although there was strong support for this principle and for respecting culture and language, many people feel that it is not practical to provide literacy programs based on every learner’s first language and culture. Anglophone, Francophone and Aboriginal literacy programs were considered a priority at this time.

5. Developing literacy as a profession. While many of you noted that this was a priority for gaining credibility and advancing the overall cause of literacy, others expressed concerns that setting training and/or certifications standards could create rigidity or exclude competent people including many of the volunteers on whom we depend. The message was that literacy workers must be involved in developing the standards and systems of applying them. This is a field that values flexibility and inclusion. It was also interesting to note how many literacy workers wear many hats and perform more than one role. The categories we offered on the survey didn’t cover all of you!

6. Creating literacy goals and standards. Many people emphasized the need to maintain the flexibility of literacy delivery while developing our accountability and credibility. The concern was how to walk this fine line. People were dubious about standards set by those who don’t understand the realities of literacy delivery, and standards that are not backed by the support and infrastructure needed to meet them. Concerns were expressed about who might set standards, how they would be applied and who might get left out of the process (for example, volunteers, learners, experienced literacy workers with few paper credentials).

7. Supporting literacy research. There were conflicting views on how and how much to support literacy research. Some respondents indicated that enough research and worthwhile models already exist so that the priority should be disseminating information rather than creating new data. Others said that research is needed to gather more solid and coherent data to make a credible case for support. Many see a gulf between researchers and practitioners. Some ranked research as the lowest priority since they fear it could take funding away from actual delivery.

8. Developing partnerships. This was generally seen as an important item with huge potential payoffs but respondents raised concerns that it was too big a job to be undertaken at the level of individual programs. The ‘up-front’ effort was seen as a huge investment of resources that literacy programs often don’t have. More information and examples are needed on how to build our allies and partners at local, provincial and national levels.