NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
LITC-GE 2016 – 001
POLICIES AND POLITICS OF LITERACY DEVELOPMENT
SPRING 2015
Instructor: Susan B. Neuman
Office hours: By appt.
E-mail: [email protected]
Office: 612 East Building
Office phone: 212-992-6731
An examination of reading and writing education from historical, theoretical, critical, and
pedagogical perspectives. Course questions include the role of literacy in a global society
and the influences of policies and political practices. Research studies that have shaped
literacy instruction in the last century are considered.
Course Objectives
1. Analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of alternative theoretical frameworks for
conceptualizing literacy and literacy acquisition.
2. Focus on current and previous national, state and local policies
3. Examination of selected issues related to literacy instruction.
4. Sensitivity to evolving functions and impacts of literacy and the policy implications of
these trends.
5. Appreciation of challenges to literacy development faced by selected special populations,
and of strategies for meeting those challenges.
6. Development of a conceptually sound and empirically grounded view of literacy, its
acquisition, and its role in personal fulfillment.
Course Format
The course will be a combination of mini-lectures and discussion. Lectures will highlight
issues cutting across the readings and/or introducing issues/research findings that
supplement the readings. Discussions will focus on analysis of selected readings from
theoretical, methodological, and/or practical viewpoints. Emphasis will be placed on the
development of a critical appraisal of current assumptions and knowledge regarding literacy
acquisition and their implications for instructional approaches.
Readings
Readings for the course are provided in dated folders under Resources on the NYU
CLASSES site for Policies and Politics of Literacy Development.
Course Requirements
1. Class participation. Active class participation is a core component of the course.
Participation includes the following:
a. On-going critical analysis of assigned readings prior to associated course
meeting and active participation in class discussions. Policy regarding missed
classes: Attendance and active participation in class discussions is assumed and
is a significant portion of the course grade. However, students do occasionally
have legitimate reasons for missing a class. Whenever possible, students should
2-Neuman, ED 500, Fall 2011
inform me in advance of any anticipated absence. In order to assure that students
have read and reflected on the readings for a missed class, I require that you
submit to me via email no later than 3 days following a missed class a set of brief
informal reflections on the required readings. More than 2 class absences will
lower your grade incrementally.
b. For each assigned reading, students will write 2-4 “take away” ideas (using
references to the text) and bring them to class. During class discussion of the
readings, students may make notes on their “take away” ideas before handing
them in at the end of class. I will quickly review how students are processing the
readings and discussions; however, they will not be graded. Failure to submit
“take away” assignment will adversely affect the participation grade.
2. Take Home Question #1. You will be given a question that asks you to interestingly
summarize a position that relates to your readings. This paper will act as a mid-term
examination. You will be given 1 week to complete the exam.
3. Position Statement on Literacy Policy. A brief (approx. 2 single-spaced pages)
presenting your position on government and literacy policies and interventions. What
empirical research provides validation for your views?
4. Take Home Question #2. Same format as Question #1.
5. Position Statement on Literacy. An essay (approx. 3-5 double-spaced pages)
presenting your personal philosophy of literacy instruction. What do you see as the
most productive approach to fostering literacy in school settings? What theoretical
framework informs your perspective? What empirical research provides validation for
your views?
Course Accommodations
NYU abides by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which mandates reasonable
accommodations to qualified students with disabilities. If you have a disability and may
require some type of accommodation for instructional delivery or course requirements,
please contact me early in the semester so that I can provide or facilitate in providing
accommodations you may need. If you have not already done so, you will need to register
with the Office of Services for Students with Disabilities. I look forward to talking with you
soon to learn how I may be helpful in enhancing your academic success in this course.
Grading
All assignments will be graded equally. Incompletes are not acceptable. Due dates
are firm.
SCHEDULE FOR TOPICS AND REQUIRED READINGS
UNIT I: POLICIES AND (POLITICS) OF LITERACY DEVELOPMENT
In this unit, we will explore the national, state and local policies that shape literacy
development. You will explore how different audiences position the world of literacy, and
how certain interest groups influence policy.
Week 1 (1/28): Course Overview; Introductions
3-Neuman, ED 500, Fall 2011
In this first class meeting, we will learn about each others’ backgrounds, explore
participants’ goals for the course, and discuss the course structure and requirements.
In addition, we will examine the differences between national, state and local
policies.
Read Shonkoff, 2000. Be prepared to consider each of these three voices in a
discussion.
Week 2 (2/4): How Educational Policy Works: National, State and Local
Constituencies
Read Federal educational policy and the states;
Read NCLB.
Read Structure of the NY State School System
Week 3: (2/11): NO CLASS. TAKE A STAND. There are pros and cons for an active
government voice in educational policy making. Using your readings, take a
stand on whether you believe in big government or small government, and
provide a brief rationale (using bullet points) on where you stand. (2-pager)
Week 4 (2/18): The Current Political Scene: Teacher Development/NCLB et al.,
POSITION BRIEF DUE
Guest Speaker: Steve Heuer, Government Relations, NYU, Washington DC.
Week 5 (2/25): Case Study: The Reading First Controversy
Read: The Reading First Controversy
DEBATE: #1
UNIT II: FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES IN CONCEPTUALIZING LITERACY: WHY IS
LITERACY SO POLITICAL?
In this unit, we will explore definitions of literacy and major paradigms that have been used
in conceptualizing and studying literacy development, with an emphasis on metaphors used
in talking about literacy, key mechanisms used to explain literacy functions, and major
milestones in literacy acquisition.
Week 6: (3/4) Frameworks for the Study of Literacy, Part I: The Cognitive
Tradition
This week, we begin a three-week ‘tour’ of the three major theoretical perspectives within
which scholars conceptualize literacy processes and practices: the so-called cognitive,
sociocultural, and critical perspectives. The focus this week is on the cognitive perspective.
Gough & Tunmer, 1986
Hoover & Gough
4-Neuman, ED 500, Fall 2011
Rumelhart, D. E. (2004). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. B. Ruddell,
& N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5th ed. (pp.
1149-1179). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Lipson, M.Y. (1983). The influence of religious affiliation on children’s memory for
text information. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 448-457.
Rosenshine, B. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational
Leadership, 43, 60-64.
Week 7 (3/11): Frameworks, Part 2: The Sociocultural Tradition
We continue our ‘tour’ of the three major perspectives for conceptualizing literacy
processes and practices. Use the assigned readings to glean key implicit and explicit
assumptions made by representatives of the sociocultural perspective.
Au, K. (1997). A sociocultural model of reading instruction: The Kamehameha
Elementary Education Program. In S. Stahl & D. Hayes, Instructional models in
reading (pp.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280Heath, S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means. Language in Society, 11, 49-76.
Palinscar & Brown, 1984
Week 8 (3/18): SPRING BREAK. NO CLASS
Week 9 (3/25): Frameworks, Part 3: The Critical Tradition
Gutiérrez, Kris D. (2011). Developing a Socio-critical Literacy in the Third
Space, Reading Research Quarterly.
Moll, L. & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social
contexts for instruction. In Vygotsky in the classroom.
Moje, chapter
UNIT III: CURRENT ISSUES IN LITERACY PRACTICE AND POLICY
In this unit, we compare selected approaches to literacy instruction, including major
principles regarding instructional activities flowing from alternative theoretical frameworks,
and comprehensive literacy programs. We also consider questions of policy related to
instructional reform and challenges to literacy acquisition posed by selected child
populations.
Week 10 (4/1): CASE STUDY: The Reading Wars (Redux)
5-Neuman, ED 500, Fall 2011
http://nymag.com/news/features/16775/index1.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/97nov/read.htm
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fari-upside-down-philosophy-article1.1575824#commentpostform
Kim, “Research and the Reading Wars”
Discussion: http://readingandwritingproject.com/about/overview.html
Week 11: (4/8) CASE STUDY: THE WORD GAP
Hart & Risley (2003). The early catastrophe. American Educator.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in Reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
Cunningham, A. & Stanovich, What reading does for the mind.
Neuman, S.B. (2006). The knowledge gap: Implications for early education. In D.
Dickinson & S.B. Neuman, Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. II), (pp. 2940). NY: Guilford.
Teale & Sulzby, “Emergent Literacy”
Stanovich, K. & West, R. (1994). Reply to Taylor. Reading Research Quarterly, 29,
290-291.
Taylor, D. (1994). Commentary: The trivial pursuit of reading psychology in the
“Real World” A response to West, Stanovich and Mitchell, Reading Research
Quarterly, 29, 276-288.
West, R., Stanovich, K. & Mitchell, H. (1993). Reading in the real world and its
correlates. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 34-50.
Week 12: (4/15) DEBATE #2
Week 13 (4/22): NO CLASS. QUESTION #2 (AERA Week)
Week 14: (4/29) CASE STUDY: What’s the Fuss? The Common Core Standards in ELA
Question 2 Due
The Common Core State Standards in English/Language Arts are the newest reforms in the
reading reform movement. They will certainly not be the last. Let’s explore what they are/why
they are, and what our predictions might be for reading improvement.
Brooks & Dietz, The dangers and opportunities of the common core.
Hirsch, Why content?
Loveless, ‘The Common Core Initiative
6-Neuman, ED 500, Fall 2011
Shanahan, The Common Core ate my baby
Week 15: (5/6): What’s Next? Trends in Literacy Practices and Policies
Your Literacy Philosophy is Due.