This section summarizes the many queries, conversations and correspondences with literacy workers, including librarians. It begins with a description and summary of each of the conferences. Secondly, the literacy worker section summarizes the questionnaire and mailing list responses as well as additional conversations. Finally, though much of the librarian participation overlapped with literacy workers in general, their views are placed separately because library sites have experiences distinct from other types of literacy programs..
As was mentioned in the Framework and Process, one goal for attending conferences was to connect with larger numbers of women learners. For the most part, though, these situations provided more contact with literacy workers and librarians so they have been included here. The input from learners has been woven into the thematic summaries of the learner conversation (see p. 185). As with the conversation circles, I have (a) first described the context for each conference, (b) followed it with a brief summary, and (c) concluded with my reflections.
The Biennial Laubach Literacy Action attracts literacy workers, administrators, volunteers, and adult learners from all over the United States. Since Laubach is an international organization, some people do come from around the world. At this conference, I offered a workshop called Feminist Resources and Curriculum for Women Achieving Literacy. About 10-15 women attended this 90-minute workshop. The purpose of this workshop was to present to literacy workers the results of the Spring 2000 research (Miller, 2000). After the formal presentation, a significant part of the time was left open for participants to talk about their experiences with women-centered literacy materials. They were asked to reflect on what materials they perceived were still needed and how they might use or access what was available.
Conversation summary
Generally, the literacy workers who attended this session just needed an opportunity to discuss issues related to women learners and the importance of finding useful resources and reading materials. They concurred that there is a need for women-centered literacy materials and wanted to learn what readings other literacy workers have used and specifically how they used them. For some of the participants, considering the use of women-centered literacy materials was new ground. The Resource List proved to be the most important piece of information, though they recommended it would be even more useful to have the materials indexed by themes or subjects.
This group generated a list of close to 15 titles that have been added to the Resource List. They agreed that many questions on a wide variety of topics often surface in their classrooms. Issues that had recently surfaced included:
My Reflections
From this discussion, I learned two valuable insights. Literacy workers enjoyed having time and space to talk about women-centered literacy materials and resources. They want to know more about what is available and are willing to share their experiences about what they have found useful. Secondly, conferences offer a unique opportunity to reach a cross-section of people who may not otherwise be able to participate in some of these types of conversations.
The 3rd International Women and Literacy Conference (IWLC) was directed towards literacy teachers and tutors, policy makers, educators and adult women learners. Though international in scope, it primarily focused on English-speaking countries, in particular, the U.S., Canada, and the Caribbean. It also made an effort to recognize ESL learners, First Nations peoples, Deaf cultures, and women with disabilities.
At the IWLC, I offered a workshop intended to be a pilot for the conversation circles titled "Let's Talk Women-Centered Reading Materials." The description in the conference program read as follows:
This conversation circle continues the work of promoting women-centered basic reading materials for adult learners. Participants are encouraged to bring their ideas about the types of reading materials they've used and found enriching.
The original proposal indicated a preference for learner participants. That information, though, did not get placed in the conference materials so only one learner attended due to personal contact. This trial session provided an opportunity to generally find out if there was learner interest in the topic, to sense how the conversation circles might progress, to formulate various problem-posing questions that would elicit responses, and generally to understand myself as a facilitator. Ten women and 1 man attended the workshop. Three of the participants (including the man) were African American and 7 were European American. One of the African American women came with the man but she never spoke. One of the workshop participants was a current learner. A second woman (based on her comments) may have been a past learner who is now a teacher in her program. The remainder of the participants was tutors and teachers, including two librarians. One of the librarians was African American and the other European American.
Conversation summary
The literacy workers in this workshop all love to read and possessed a wide-range of reading interests including international women authors, regional fiction, and biographies. One worker talked about how the readings from her learners' book group has affected her own choices&emdash;especially biographies. She noticed that learners have found biographies helpful, especially as they learn how women have struggled with similar issues throughout history. The literacy worker participants in this group focused primarily on changing welfare requirements and the stresses this puts on women learners, especially because of the time limits. They found this reflected in the types of materials that their learners wanted to read. This group perceived a need for materials to help women understand how work is constructed for poor women in the United States. This system creates double standards for women when it come to making decisions between work and raising children. In addition, literacy workers discussed the difficulties they have with standard middle-class curriculums on parenting. For a complete summary of the discussion from this group, see Appendix WLC.
My Reflections
• Male voices: This discussion, based on the interests of literacy workers, focused on recent and pressing issues for changes in welfare/workfare and how this impacts on what can be taught and learned in current program structures. The male participant was especially central in driving this conversation. He arrived late and pushed his own agenda to promote the curriculum of his program. Though interesting, he ended up dominating the conversation, which not only pulled away from the intended topic but also became quite didactic. To some extent, the participants went along with him, though several attempts&emdash;by other participants and me&emdash;to bring the conversation back to the stated concerns were evaded. For me, this confirmed the importance and need for women-only groups when trying to get information about women's literacy materials. This distraction may have been my own inexperience and hesitancy to control the conversation.
•Welfare concerns: However, it did underline the need for flexibility and highlighted the importance of listening in context. I learned off task conversations can still be extremely informative. Though the conversation for much of the time did not focus on my agenda per se (women-centered literacy materials), what the group discussed clearly could be understood as important critical issues for them (welfare/workfare issues and effects on curriculum - see Appendix Welfare) and for the creation of women-centered literacy materials. This experience alerted me to the importance of listening carefully to "ambient" conversation.1
The Partners in Literacy Conference is an annual statewide conference sponsored by the Minnesota Literacy Council (www.themlc.org). The Partners in Literacy Conference brings together learners and practitioners&emdash;tutors, teachers, and program coordinators&emdash;to promote learner leadership and involvement, to learn new skills and to improve the quality of literacy programs throughout the state. The conference strongly advocates for the leadership and involvement of adult learners. To include more learners from around Minnesota in the conversation circles, I offered a workshop called "Women, Let's Talk about Reading Materials: A Conversation Circle for Adult Women Learners." The program book described the session in this way:
Sometimes it is hard to find good books that are easy enough to read. It seems especially hard to find basic information to read about women's concerns or ideas. This conversation is for women who want to talk about reading. How do you feel about reading? What kinds of books and magazines do you like to read to for fun and for learning? Does reading books on women's issues interest you?
Having learned from the 3rd International Women and Literacy Conference, an extra effort was made to be sure the Partners session was indicated for women learners. The workshop was attended by women but only two of the six participants identified as learners. The remaining four included three tutors and one teacher/administrator. The two learners included 1 European American and 1 Mexican immigrant. The literacy workers included 3 European Americans and 1 African American.
One of the learners&emdash;who was also a peer tutor&emdash;was very talkative and provided many insights and reflections. The immigrant ESL learner from Mexico indicated her lack of confidence in her conversational abilities. She completed one of the learner questionnaires because her ability to read and write English was stronger. In this group, all participants seemed interested in the experiences of each other&emdash;the practitioners encouraged input from the learners. Unlike other conferences, I did obtain addresses from the participants and sent them a summary of the conversation. I received one evaluation from a literacy worker who made additional comments.
Conversation summary
This group focused primarily on the kinds of materials they have access to and what seemed lacking. They agreed that having interesting materials might encourage women in their learning and in their desire to read. One of the literacy workers admitted that she had never really thought about women-centered literacy materials as an issue and was curious to learn more. This group had several concerns that slightly differed from other groups.
* Unappealing literacy materials in general: One literacy worker was both embarrassed by and disgusted with the types of commercially produced reading materials and even more frustrated by trying to find books with strong women characters.
- General recommendations for women-centered literacy materials:
- Look attractive and appealing and have larger print and pictures
- Focus on women's concerns
- Reflect on the many different real life experiences women have (for example, immigrants)
- Portray strong women
- Use inclusive language rather than always "he"
- Develop interesting story lines
- Include current events
*Unwillingness to be social workers: This group expressed concern about the ways in which sensitive issues emerge in their classrooms. They find it difficult to justify discussion on issues in a class intended to increase vocabulary or teach how to read better. One teacher suggested that fiction with sensitive issues as part of the story-line might assist with this problem.
* Not for women only: This group also underlined that men need women-centered literacy materials as well in order to learn how to treat women better.
* Affecting publishers: One literacy worker wrote in response to the summary -- How do you influence large publishers that there are current needs for low level easy to read books for adults and how would such books be marketed to ABE programs and public? Grants might fund such materials.
For a complete summary of the discussion from this group, see Appendix Partners.
My Reflections
The lack of learner participation at this conference does not necessarily indicate a reluctance to discuss or a disinterest in women-centered literacy materials. Partners is a small conference&emdash;239 attendees of which 58 (24%) were learners. Several other workshops of interest to learners were scheduled for the same time slot. However, general considerations for light participation might include: lack of learner interest in the topic; too few number of learner participants at the conference relative to competing opportunities; unclear or unappealing description in the program book; fear of, disapproval of, aversion to, or distaste for a women-centered space or topic; fear of an unknown new experience; or some combination of all of the above.
Another important conference to attend would have been the annual VALUE conference. VALUE (Voice for Adult Literacy United for Education) developed from a meeting of learners and practitioners held at the Highlander Center in April 1998. VALUE strives to expand the role of adult learners in adult literacy efforts in the United States by helping learners to become effective leaders in their education programs.2 Their conference, while open to anyone, primarily focuses on the issues and concerns and leadership of adult learners. This could have been a good opportunity to listen from the discussions on topics and themes prioritized by learners. I inquired about attending and was offered a work-exchange as a way to learn the organization's priorities and to meet individual learners. Unfortunately, unforeseen family emergencies prevented my participation. Making connection with VALUE in the future seems necessary and important for the on-going work of WE LEARN, especially as WE LEARN strives for learner leadership.3
Until this time, I had no real contact with The Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA)&emdash;one of the major national adult literacy programs in the United States
Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc. (LVA) is a national network of over 350 locally based programs, supported by state and national staff. Our mission is to change lives through literacy. Professionally trained volunteer tutors teach Basic Literacy and English for Speakers of Other Languages to courageous, motivated adults. -- (LVA website, http://www.literacyvolunteers.org/home/index.htm)
As an attendee and not a presenter, this conference would give me an opportunity to understand this organization.4 This particular conference also provided information about the pending merger planned for 2002 between of LVA and Laubach into one (inter)national literacy organization. In ways yet to be realized, this merger will have a significant impact on the accreditation and direction of large numbers of learning programs and direct service literacy providers. LVA and Laubach each have extensive catalogs of literacy materials, especially in curriculum materials such as workbooks and guides. Familiarity with these organizations and their work will prove critical for WE LEARN.
Conference Summary
Attending this conference as a listener created unexpected and important connections. Proving that person-to-person contact (networking) can be vitally important, I was introduced by a literacy worker to a group of learners preparing a curriculum on welfare issues which they will send to WE LEARN when completed. A presentation on plain English advocated for all kinds of materials written simply and directly. The participants made the point that reading better is not always the issue but that writers need to take responsibility to make materials easier-to-read. This created contact with a literacy worker who has prepared a tip sheet for writing materials in plain English who also offered to look at the WE LEARN website for readability.
Several sessions organized by learners -- men and women -- provided additional insights from learners about their perspectives in general and on reading materials specifically.
Reflections on All the Conferences
I learned several things from the mixed participation of learners and educators in these conferences. In groups dominated by educators, the learner voices became even more limited. Though educators support and solicit learner involvement the power imbalances remained real. For example, in the Women and Literacy conference group, a male educator shut down a woman learner who tried to speak several times. She eventually gave up in spite of other women in the group (including me) encouraging her to speak anyway. In another instance, an ESL learner admitted her nervousness about speaking English. Her struggle may have been speaking English but it may also have been due to the presence of teachers. Obviously, I cannot draw firm conclusions or even overreaching generalizations from these few encounters. I would only caution that, while some possibilities for co-learning may exist, groups of mixed educators and learners may not present the best forum to gain learner insights.
Holding such sessions at a conferences present some challenges. Even when making a firm request for "learners only," it is hard to control such things at conferences. It remains inevitable that people will self-select themselves into groups not intended for them.5 It may be best to just understand that conferences are unpredictable and diverse, which calls for flexibility and openness. In either situation, though not a controlled group, some positive learning and conversation can happen. In this alternative setting, literacy workers can hear differently from learners and women learners have an opportunity for their knowledge and experience to have an impact while possibly learning about issues generally inaccessible to them.
Reflections from literacy workers about women-centered literacy materials came primarily from 4 sources: (a) questionnaires, (b) website mailing list form, (c) womenlit-nifl e-list discussion and, (d) one-to-one discussion/interview. For process details, see the Framework and Process.
(See Appendix litq for sample)
• Section A: Site Specifics & Demographics
This second round of questionnaires (2001) produced eight responses. Four responses (50%) came from locations in Minnesota, with the remainder from South Dakota, Indiana, Hawaii and New York City. Three of these sites are located in large urban areas and the remainder from smaller towns or rural areas. Only three sites consider themselves learning centers or free standing literacy programs. Two sites are located in a social service agency, one of which serves as transitional housing for substance abusers. Three sites are connected to public school systems, one of which was a high school program for pregnant teens. One site is sponsored by a public library.
With the exception of the one site serving high school pregnant teens, all of the sites serve both men and women with some sites reporting high and lower numbers of each. The programs serve learners at various levels of learning from pre-basic through high school graduates and college students. The majority of learners, however, have lower than a 12th grade level of schooling. Though one site serves 100% ESL learners, the majority of programs have learners enrolled in various programs&emdash;Adult Basic Education, beginning, pre-GED and GED. Most of the programs, though, seemed to have their fewest numbers of enrollment at the higher levels (GED or college).
All sites serve people in a range of ages from 16 to older than 50. Their students come from a range of economic status with the highest percentages receiving TANF assistance. The other statuses (workfare, homeless, working poor, disability) seemed about even in number with only one report of veteran income.
Three sites reported that 100% of their learners were ESL immigrant populations, which represent a wide range of countries and cultures from all major continents. One of these locations, though, serves 80% Southeast Asians. The site in Hawaii serves only Pacific-Islanders. The remaining four sites serve a combination of U.S. born and immigrant populations. Few of the sites offered percentages, but from the demographics in Section A some rather general conclusions can be drawn. The organizations serve a broad spectrum of learners who vary in gender, age, race, country of origin, economic level, and educational level. The sites represent a variety of program types, goals, and curriculum. Most importantly, though, they all work with large numbers of women from diverse backgrounds and educational levels with a variety of literacy goals. Unlike the sampling from the Spring of 2000 questionnaires (Miller, 2000a), this group represents fewer U.S.-born European Americans and African Americans but more ESL immigrant learners from Asian countries. This sampling of responses from literacy workers will broaden the information already gathered (Miller, 2000).
• Section B: Specific Questions on Reading/Resource Materials
Section B of the questionnaire listed specific titles to find out if literacy workers are already using them, how they rate their quality, and how they use them. As mentioned in the framework, this section was about one-third shorter than the Spring 2000 version. Similar to the Spring 2000 responses, a large number of titles still registered as unknown to these literacy workers. At least half (in some cases more) of these literacy workers did not know about 75% of the titles listed. The remainder of the sites responded they did not use the materials (in most cases), even if they knew about them. There is no correlation between the type of site and what titles were unfamiliar to the literacy workers.
One site pointed out that all the materials on the list were too high for their ESL learners. Cost was a major factor for another site.
Our female numbers are very small right now. We cannot afford many of the materials that are 'out here.' Our primary source is the New Readers Press. Because we are LLI [Laubach Literacy International] members we receive a discount & that influences the issue as well. We served over 55 learners last year, but that is very small compared to programs in your area. We respond to the personal needs and goals of our adult learners. They bring those to the match.
The titles from New Readers Press (Laubach) seemed the most familiar and most used. The most popular title is the abridged version of I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings with four reports of usage. The New Readers titles on parenting each received two responses of usage as did Pat King's Family. Twelve miscellaneous titles (32%) from other presses were acknowledged with one report of usage each. Most respondents did not report how they rated the materials or how they were used&emdash;the few responses to that part of the questionnaire are too few and sporadic to be informative.
• Section C: What Additional Feminist Resources Do You Use
Six of the 8 sites responded that they found it important to use or have access to literacy materials raising issues of specific interest to women. Their reasons resonated with Spring 2000&emdash;women are highly motivated to read these materials and learners need examples of people who overcame obstacles. One of the sites serving immigrants thought it important because the experiences of immigrant women are so completely different and women need to know "that the U.S. has myriad more opportunities for women." One of the other sites problematized this further.
While the majority of our students are women, ours is not only a "women's" program. Many of the issues we might call "women's issues" are important for men as well. For example, family demands in a new culture, dealing with children's teachers, keeping kids out of gangs and drug activity, etc. On the other hand, there are sensitive issues like domestic abuse, health concerns, infidelity, etc. that are of specific importance to women. The opportunity to talk about these issues in a women only setting is scarce, and is complicated with various cultures represented in the classroom. These are sensitive issues in a one culture setting, and having a meaningful discussion with people from all over the world with low English skill can be extremely difficult. We have not found published materials to help us with this endeavor. Often, students have individual needs that we address as they come up, or we can contact our on staff bilingual mental health worker.
Interestingly, one of the sites admitted they had not considered the issue of choosing women's materials. Their site stresses workplace literacy, life skills, controlled vocabulary and high-interest/low-level materials. She agreed women's issues are important, and she made a copy of the title list for future reference.
One of the sites answered, "no" to the question of needing women-centered literacy materials because she thought her students were at too low a level. She would probably not use women-centered literacy materials because both women and men attend her classes and it may depend on the availability of tutors to work with women. Her learners have difficulty attending the program because they lack childcare and they have jobs so attendance is irregular.
Section C, also included the following question: "What women-centered or feminist materials DO NOT exist (on a topic or in a genre) that you wish you had available to use with your learners?" These 8 responses echoed the responses from Spring 2000 in their need for genres and topics such as short stories, work-related issues, memoirs, women's rights and health topics. They also added these observations:
From their experiences with women learners, the literacy workers who answered the questionnaire generated a list of topics and issues to develop into literacy / reading materials. Though some of the list was similar to responses in Spring 2000 this new group did add three new observations (see Appendix Section C, Q1). One site working with immigrant learners thought women's issues did not surface because "they're too timid and ashamed to speak up in class." This site also admitted, though, that they have mixed gender classes which may contribute to women's hesitancy. According to another literacy worker, women receive information from health care providers written above their level which usually then generate questions in the learning setting. Finally, one of the sites serving immigrant learners noted additional dimensions to parenting issues, specifically "disrespect to elders" and "parents depending on their children for their English skills."
One of the questions in Section C asked, "If more published literacy materials on specific concerns to women were available, would you use them? Why or why not?" Similar to Spring 2000, all of these sights but one would use such materials depending on a variety of factors, specifically whether the reading level matched to levels of their learners, and content. Again, 3 of the sites were concerned about using such materials in mixed groups. "We don't mean to completely exclude men." "We don't always have a women only atmosphere, so that might affect how/when we bring up such topics." One of the sites added the need to present such materials and a rationale for them to their tutors since they primarily do 1-1 tutoring.
Section C also included a question asking, "Would you use printed materials developed by other literacy programs if you knew about them? What would this depend on?" All respondents agreed they would use materials developed by other programs but again it would depend on a number of factors. The most frequent response viewed the quality of the materials and their relevance would matter most but they also mentioned cost, reading level and availability as well. Some sites have already been sharing materials.
Absolutely! We are constantly sharing and adapting materials from other teachers and programs. It would largely depend on if the issues were of immediacy to refugee/immigrant women and if the reading level were appropriate for our low literacy ESL adults.
Four of the sites said they also create their own materials to meet the needs of their learners. Three of these sites serve primarily or only ESL learners. Some of the materials they use for subsequent classes but most evolve from specific teachers matching the needs of the learners in a particular group. Sometimes a teacher will merge sources of information to condense into a smaller unit, especially for use with tutor in-services. One of the sites sent some sample pages of a parenting curriculum they have devised (see Appendix Laos).
Three new questions were added to the Spring 2001 questionnaire based on responses from Spring 2000. The first asked, "If literacy workers wrote reviews about the effectiveness of specific women-centered literacy materials, would you find this useful? Why or why not? One-half (50%) of the respondents answered yes, this would make a difference while the other half responded maybe. Since so many literacy programs differ in their focus and population, it would depend on if the review pertained to them, especially if it had an ESL focus. The second new question asked, "Would you find the comments or reviews written by women learners on reading materials useful? Why or why not?" This received a much more affirmative response as literacy workers wrote, "their feedback is crucial." One site noted, "Men resist. All we hear is what men think."
The final new question asked, "Would you use a resource/networking center dedicated to women-centered literacy materials? Please comment on what would work best (e.g., printed newsletter, website, mailing list) and what it should do or include." All the respondents had something to add here, though each had a slightly different recommendation. One of the sites thought this resource should be directed to learners, "Yes, if it's directed to women learners & distributed to them. A 2-page newsletter would be received well by our women." Some wanted only a newsletter, others wanted only a website and some wanted all the resources they could get. "Descriptions of other problems, contact information, materials available, and projects that we could collaborate on would all be useful for us." Two sites suggested the website should be combined with an email listserv and three sites requested a Resource List of materials. One response implied that such a center could make the materials available directly&emdash;"disseminate materials on women centered literacy materials." For a detailed set of answers for both the Spring 2000 and the Spring 2001 answers to Section C, see Appendix Section C.
Some Conclusions from the Questionnaires
* Age-appropriate, content relevant: One sight, a high school program for pregnant teens, recommended and used the titles from Morning Glory Press.7 This site was looking for additional materials covering situations relevant to teens. This raises an on-going problem. Some teachers recommend using materials for young adults with adults because the reading level is lower. However, the content, while pertinent for teens, may not be interesting to or helpful for older women. Yet, it seems the young adult materials may be of too high a reading level for some teens as well. How to find reading materials with content appropriate to age and experience at reading levels matching the reader can be quite tricky.
* Commercially produced materials: Literacy workers said they would use women-centered literacy materials if there were more available, however, they do not generally use the authentic materials already in print. There seems to be several factors for this:
- Lack of visibility for these materials -- literacy workers simply do not know they exist
- Limited subject material -- what is available does not address the needs being stated
- Reading level either too high or too low
- Price and discount
* Type of site, types of materials: One correlation may be type of site as compared to types of materials used. The Section B list primarily included authentic materials rather than school-based text materials. Lack of knowledge about these materials may reflect the emphasis of their curriculum. One literacy worker commented:
I'm deducing that you assume literacy programs are large, urban and offer classes & open lab time. Our program is rural, has 20 1-1 matches and hires 1 part time coordinator (12.5 hrs/wk). We serve a community of 20000.
This comment opens several issues. Does the size of a program -- in addition to student population -- determine the accessibility to and usability of certain materials? Does the reliance on volunteer tutors affect a site's selection of materials? Are there any materials that reflect or address rural experiences rather than urban/suburban settings? Are there materials more suitable to classrooms, different from those suitable to 1-1 usage? Why and how? What kinds of stresses are put on part-time teachers that limit their ability to seek out materials for use with learners, especially women?
* Mixed-gender setting: Because they serve both men and women, finding opportunity to use such materials in the classroom is rare. Finding ways of broaching women's issues for both genders simultaneously may be helpful. In some settings, especially with immigrants from a variety of cultures, certain topics cannot and will not be addressed in mixed-gender settings. It may mean, then, we need some women-only space on occasion in order to bring women's issues into the educational setting. There needs to be more information and training -- with both teachers and tutors -- about the ways in which women's issues also have importance for men and how women-centered literacy materials can be used.
* ESL needs: ESL sites have very different needs than ABE sites -- the materials need to be at a much lower reading level. The ESL sites tend to make their own materials more frequently than do the ABE sites.
* Reviews and networking: Literacy workers in all programs would benefit from reviews written by their colleagues and by women learners. They need some kind of organization to help with information sharing, networking, and communication through newsletters, website or other mechanisms could become a valuable resource.
* There is just not enough time: A literacy worker who commutes between multiple sites has been counted as the ninth and separate response to the questionnaire because she only answered the questions to Section C. Her words perhaps provide some of the greatest insight while, in a way, summing up the reflections of the other literacy workers who responded to the questionnaires.
When I was teaching several different TESOL classes I didn't have time for much! (Including regularly eating my lunch in the car as I was driving to the next teaching site). I have found it extremely difficult to find non-sexist material for beginners. Pictures are always stereotypical. I have found students really enjoy materials relating to women, especially when the class is all, or nearly all women. [We need] something interesting for students which discusses real issues. I think your organization is great for just that -- giving teachers, who are aware of the negative stereotyping of women and other groups, resources.
(see Appendix M/L form)
Many literacy workers simply would not have the time to complete a questionnaire. In order to solicit a wider range of input, a mailing list form existed on the WE LEARN website included a few short questions. Not everyone who joined the mailing list responded to all the questions but there were 35 responses. Of those responses, 28 identified as some combination of teacher, administrator, tutor, researcher. I also received responses from 5 librarians and 2 learners.8 Because 3 of the librarians indicated they were also teachers, I have included all of the librarian responses from the mailing list only here for convenience sake.
All of the responses reflected what has been raised by literacy workers in the questionnaires, while some of it opens new topics. In response to "Areas of interest and concern for women's literacy," several themes emerged: ESL and immigrants concerns; poverty, welfare and work; empowerment of women; and family literacy and parenting. One teacher/tutor wrote a response that summarizes the above responses.
Many of our learners will be women with issues and concerns that are particular to women, they often need an approach that is different for encouragement especially in the area of writing skills, getting it on paper. Seeing that their problems and concerns are common would be a big incentive.
The second question, "How do you find out about literacy or reading materials that focus on women's issues or experiences?" produced a wide-range of sources. Of those who responded to this question, 50% use the Internet or some form of email/e-list resources to find out about women-centered literacy materials. Of all the resources used, this was by far and away the most used method.9 The next largest resource was "word of mouth" (23%) and professional organizations (19%), including an NGO. Other sources included newsletters and reviews (12%), conferences, catalogs, bookstores, library, personal research, and courses (all 7% each). Only one literacy worker mentioned using the knowledges of her learners.
This year each woman volunteered to facilitate one class session. Because each woman is focusing on a personal area of interest she often has relevant materials already. For example, one woman has an interest in drawing, so she led the class in drawing/painting exercises and had handouts for us that provided some of the drawing and painting basics.
Several respondents (20%) reported frustration in this area, either through hit or miss or very little luck in their searching. "Materials I've used have been horribly sexist. I've searched for better materials but have had little success." And "I am frustrated with this part, and need to learn more SOON."
Two additional questions supplemented this information.10 The first yes/no question asked, "Do you find that book reviews affect your interest in reading materials?" In response, 60% indicated yes, and 37% sometimes. Only one person answered no. Similarly, when asked, "Is the Internet a place where you look for literacy materials or information on women's literacy?" 60% indicated yes, 34% sometimes, and 6% no.
One goal of this mailing list form was to interest people in the future, long-term work of WE LEARN as a networking organization for literacy workers and learners. To seek their input, the final question asked respondents, "What kinds of projects or goals would you like WE LEARN to pursue?" Only one-third of those who filled in the form responded to this question. Of those, 40% felt they didn't know enough about WE LEARN to offer good suggestions ("I need to understand what projects you are currently pursuing before I can answer this question."). Several people, however, did offer specific and useful suggestions which seemed to fall into 2 categories.
Curriculum Resources /
Reading Materials Programming &
Training
This mailing list form will continue to exist on the WE LEARN website for an indefinite period of time so more responses are continually expected.11
Since 1999, the womenlit-nifl e-list has been hosted by NIFL (National Institute for Literacy, http://literacy.nifl.gov). The moderator is Daphne Greenburg who also coordinated the International Women and Literacy Conferences at Georgia State University. The participants on the e-list include many people who have attended those conferences as well as other NIFL website users and people who have an interest women and literacy. There were three goals for this e-list conversation: (a) to include more perspectives from literacy workers who may not have answered a questionnaire, (b) to open the issue of women-centered literacy materials for discussion in general as a consciousness-raising issue, and (c) to get a feel for how this kind of discussion forum might work in the future of WE LEARN.
Conversation summary
The e-list conversation was rich with information and insight, much of which goes beyond the scope of this dissertation project. This section highlights some important aspects, though longer reflections can be found in Appendix Womenlit. Also, for the benefit of womenlit participants (and to my delight and surprise), the e-list conversation was completely summarized according to themes identified by Jill Mainzer, a graduate student who works for Daphne. That summary can be found on the NIFL-LINCS website (http://novel.nifl.gov/lincs/discussions/nifl-womenlit/guest1.html).
Unlike the questionnaires, this e-list conversation gave participants a chance to respond to and build on each other's insights. On occasion, they would disagree with each other and lead the conversation to a deeper level of critical thinking. In this discussion, participants struggled with definitions of "good literature" while also struggling with definitions of literacy and the recognition of literacy practices. They grappled with the tension between the desire to pass along their own love of reading while also respecting various cultures of (non)reading and learner's personal choices about reading.
They acknowledged how choices about what literature or reading materials to present to learners is also relative to teacher "agendas" and political / ideological perspectives. On the other hand, perhaps literacy is given too much power or taken too seriously ("sometimes reading is just reading"). Yet again, there seemed to be an important need for literacy workers as teachers to expand the reading options for learners&emdash;to provide them with views to new horizons. Throughout the conversation, the reverberating theme was the need for learners to have more access to reading materials. There also needs to be more opportunity to talk with each other about the practices and the curriculum materials used by literacy workers
Reflections
* Access: The description from the literacy worker who used the "duffle bag" of books12 paralleled experiences with the Women Leading Through Reading book discussion groups as well as the effectiveness of the suitcase of books used in the conversation circles. Also, the comments on the reflective types of books she needed for responding to learners' needs mirrored some of the books often requested by women in the books groups. Learners are intrigued and interested by books when presented in a hands-on fashion accompanied by dialog.
* The pros and cons of making it simple: One literacy worker opened up an interesting conundrum as well in her description of Beginning to Heal, the simplified version of The Courage to Heal. Does making materials more readable mean that we sacrifice complexity or nuance? Does it mean we make them boring in their simplicity? Would learners be better served by originally written materials by learners or teachers that address certain issues rather than by condensed or simplified versions of available books?
* Broadening participation: The e-list conversation opened possibilities for new voices to participate in the larger discussion of women-centered literacy materials. Literacy workers who did not respond to the questionnaires participated in this conversation and it offered more possibility for in-depth reflection than simply answering questions on a form. As with any e-list conversation, though, there will also always be lurkers&emdash;those who read along (as listeners) and take the opportunity for additional learning but may not choose to add their reflections. This e-list discussion involved fewer than 10 people with 3-4 very active talkers. E-list conversations can be fertile, but they too need a facilitator who can keep the conversation moving through posting questions when conversation stalls or refocusing the group if the thread begins to get lost. This opportunity also provided insight into the possibilities for WE LEARN to sponsor such discussions in the future. Jenny Horsman has created a model for this as well in her conversations sponsored through AlphaPlus (http://alphaplus.ca/mainframe.htm).
Two in-depth conversations with local literacy workers provided important additional information, (a) Pam A. and (b) Kristin K.
Pam A.
I met with Pam A. in early April 2001 just after completing the Expanding Life Choices conversation circle and prior to the remaining circles. Originally, I had asked to facilitate a conversation circle at her site&emdash;a transitional housing facility for women recovering from substance abuse. She considered it for some time before deciding "no." Including reflections on the process of a site that could not participate provided useful information for the process of WE LEARN.
When first approached in August 2000 about the conversation circles, Pam had been working with a couple of women in developing their computer and writing skills. She thought a one-on-one email conversation with them might serve their learning needs while adding their voices in a different conversational mode. I could ask questions via email, they would respond and we could continue to email for as long as the learners were interested. One woman in particular was exited and motivated about working on the computer. Unfortunately, the moment passed. By the time I was ready to proceed in March/April 2001, the women had moved on to other concerns and endeavors.
Pam then reconsidered the on-site conversation circle option but decided a conversation circle would be impossible for that site. Some of it has to do with the process of their recovery&emdash;the women were somewhat "grouped" to the max. They had enough going on with recovery groups, maintaining jobs, caring for children, staying sober, and meeting expectations of their living situation. A conversation circle would be somewhat off-task and perhaps even disruptive. Conversation circles may not be the best option for learners in transitional or post-traumatic situations. More 1-1 options should be explored.
Pam was willing, however, to talk generally about the conversation circles and the educational levels of learners best suited for them. She worked with a brush-up class at Hubbs&emdash;students with GEDs or high-school diplomas who need to brush-up their skills in order to go to college. She recommended generally this level of student for the conversations because they have enough information about their own reading practices. They knew what they wanted and were articulate about it. This group was not necessarily always readers.13
Pam also thought that the 5th-7th grade level (similar to the range of education in the books groups) was also good -- although they have less experience and information about the kinds of materials they want. They were beyond the point of simply decoding text but still needed to find some more accessible materials for the kind of information they wanted -- and this is the level of reader for whom materials need to really constantly be created. For the brush up class, the general materials available such as magazine articles, books, general information pamphlets and so on are generally accessible whereas it would still be too difficult for the lower level readers especially those considered between 4th and 8th grade level.
Pam offered ideas for ways in which to frame the questions in the conversation circles. There are different ways to approach this.
- what do you wish you could understand? what do you want to learn about?
- what is it that you have to read? What would make it easier for you to read?
- what is it that you want to know? and is what you want to know different than what you need to know?
- what are your educational goals?
We discussed how the idea of imagining a resource room and then asking women to fill it up with the kinds of materials they wanted might be overwhelming or too big of an idea for some women to handle. She suggested a smaller scenario as an additional option. The idea would suggest: being at home in the evening, the children were in bed, and women were sitting in their favorite chair with their favorite beverage and snack, and they wanted to read something, and the material that they wanted was right there on the table and they didn't have to go get it, then what would it be? This question was added to the repertoire of questions, some of which worked more easily than others in different settings.
Pam also reflected on her practices as a teacher and the use of women-centered literacy materials. Many times in her classes different topics would come up and she would have to look around for materials useable in the moment. This was sometimes difficult to do and what she found was not always the best choice. Over the years, she has collected files and files of various short readings. The problem, however, is sometimes the topics may not come up again so she is constantly collecting and has many items she may never use again. Also new information comes along so if the topic does come up again, there may be something newer or better. The need for such materials is unanticipated and immediate and the moment often passes quickly. She thought a resource center or clearinghouse such as WE LEARN, would be good because then people would have some options about where to go to find materials if they were not able to find something on their own. It would make the selection greater, be a bit more accessible, and might have higher quality than what one can find with limited time and resources.
We also talked about her experiences with system-ized women learners. In recent years, she had been noticing how alcoholism affects adult women in a certain generation and the growing number of women affected by fetal alcohol syndrome. Additionally, there are many reasons why women in groups could appear very scattered or distanced or disruptive in their classes&emdash;experiences with violence, symptoms of fetal alcohol syndrome, ADD and/or learning disabled, or just generally feeling a lot of pressure and stress.
Kristin K.
I also had a discussion with Kristin K., a literacy teacher and administrator who had been active on the Women Leading Through Reading Steering Committee. Due to our schedules and miscellaneous crises beyond our control, we did not meet with each other until well after I had concluded the conversation circles. In fact, we met within weeks after September 11, 2001, which I think affected the tone and direction of our conversation. We spent most of our time catching up with each other and talking about world politics while commiserating on our own senses of grief, burnout, and desire for action. We spent most of our time not talking about literacy but when we did, Kristin had some strong words&emdash;about the literacy field general. From her place in it all, she perceives the literacy field as changing&emdash;moving from work accomplished by volunteers ("affairs of the heart") to a controlled system more and more dominated by professionalism. Programs have to get in shape and become more compliant with set standards in order to receive their funding. Literacy seems to be moving into areas of specialization which she likened to silos&emdash;workplace literacy, family literacy, and so on. She felt that what was needed&emdash;both in literacy and the U.S. in general&emdash;is some good and meaningful structural class analysis. Otherwise, things will stay just the way they are, namely, with little hope for literacy education to do much by way of helping people to change their current economic realities.
I also talked with Kristin a little bit about some of my experiences with the conversation circles. She believed women's responses would largely depend on their goals. For example, women in a family learning center would be more inclined to want parenting books or children's books while learners in other settings may want specific items pertaining to the directions of their studies.
Initially, I expected to receive librarians primarily through questionnaire responses. However, two librarians attended the 3rd International Women and Literacy Conference. There remarks were quite informative so they are included here in narrative form. This section also includes the questionnaire response and insights from the annotated bibliography.
Librarian #1: I'll read anything as long as it's not romance. I can't stand romance. I do like horror and suspense, the bloodier the better. Stephen King used to be one of my favorites, but I don't like him as much as I used to. I do read John Sanford and I also read anything by African Americans or Caribbean writers or African Diaspora. I read a lot of stuff. My favorite book right now is Harry Potter -- there was so much controversy I had to find out what it was about. I used to get in trouble as a kid because I'd read all the time. I'd wash dishes and read at the same time.Librarian #2: I'll read anything and (nods to previous woman) I might read the cereal box too if there's nothing around. I prefer to read the newspaper. I grew up in a family that was surrounded by books. Reading was sort of the family vice -- I'd get in more trouble for reading when I was supposed to be doing something else! And I'll read anything. I read a lot of mysteries. I'll read rather than watch a lot of TV.
Librarian #2: There's a lot of good stuff [women-centered literacy materials] that has gone out of print. The Sundown Series was a good one, lot's of feminine things in that. I can't remember the name of it but there was one particularly good one about a woman who can't read and she gets a love letter that she can't read. And the learners really enjoyed it.14 And there was another one that as published by Harper that was in the LVA catalog for a long time and now it seems to have disappeared -- "The Words on the Page the World in Her Hands." It was a collection of things literacy tutors had gotten, selections from famous authors and a whole range of literature stuff that was not written specifically for low levels readers but something they can read.15
Librarian #1: My library is considered a life long learning center. We have 9 locations in adult literacy. We do women's leadership and empowerment work. I'm a librarian and I'm in a library so we just draw from a variety whatever. We have some curriculum's we've picked up from a variety of centers. We use The Change Agent16 and books about Rosa Parks and civic participation. We showed the video about her. We talk about the Jim Crow laws and have done some research on the Jim Crow laws. We did some roles plays where they get to act out what Rosa Parks did. They also had to write about that - that's all we do is look at the materials that are out there and at a hand.
Librarian #1: Women watch soap operas so we pulled romance books. The one thing we found out that works with adult learners is large print books. Large print books work well so we pulled out the large print romance novels and they read and sat down in groups of 4 and they wrote their own romance stories and they were "HOT!" It was like, "you should be writing for TV!" That gave them the power to know that someone was reading their words and someone was appreciating what they were doing. I'm at an unfair advantage because I do work in a library and I have access to a lot of materials. And there are lots of things we DON'T use, like we don't use traditional literacy materials. We don't use workbooks. We don't do traditional literacy education. But we talk about women and community, and leadership, and power and literacy is brought in through the back door through writing
Librarian #1: When women come in they don't say they want to get their GED or improve their literacy skills. They come in and say they want to improve their leadership skills, their empowerment. I just think bookstores are fine but I'm a librarian. If you want a wealth of resources, that's the place to go and the outcome of conversation one-to-one. I was talking with someone this morning who says the librarian will have nothing to do with their program. Well, I'm not a traditional librarian. I don't understand why librarians can't get the connection between libraries and literacy.
Librarian #2: That's always been the way. Librarians have a responsibility. When I went to library school in the 1950s they said that…. but I was in a project with Lila Wallace, 2 years ago looking at libraries and literacy. We went to the 1st meeting -- and 5 of us that came from G(name of city) -- we're sitting in this meeting and they kept talking about "them librarians." We were like, "whadya mean there? Aren't y'all librarians too?" We were librarians doing literacy work and they were literacy people working at a library. They kept talking about "dem librarians." And I go to conferences and I talk to my fellow librarians and I'm like, "…don't you get the connection? There's a definite connection between literacy and libraries! Don't you get it that if you help people to read you're creating customers for a long, long time? If you don't get in there and push the literacy piece, if you don't have people reading the books, then you're going to be out of a job." I just don't get why they can't see the connection between those two. Some librarians' attitudes are -- if you can't read then you don't belong in the library!
Librarian #1: I work with all African American women. We had one woman from India and 2 from Sudan who did not speak English, but it was amazing what they got out of class and what we were teaching. We were part of welfare-to-work program. [Colleagues name] and I came in 2 days to do the women's leadership and empowerment, and there were ladies in this group that said this was the 1st program they stayed in beyond 3 weeks because we were talking to them about issues that pertained to them that were interesting. We weren't teaching them how to read or do math or any of that kind of stuff. We were doing issues about them, about their families, and their children, and their place in the community and we were talking about power and who has the power in the community and that kind of stuff and no one had ever sat down and talked with them about these things. That was how we were able to bring to them these rich materials to look at -- the big issues they thought were important. Race was a big issue for them. No matter how we try to avoid race, we're African American first and then a woman. When you walk in the door they see your black first and then they see woman.
Librarian #1: There are generational issues about welfare. We have some women that they're the first in their family to be on welfare so there's all kind of stigma issues around that. They see you're on welfare and they figure your mother was on welfare. So we have to look at all those issues too it's not just a thing about women but it's also about race and it's about class and there's so much writings back in the 30s and 40s. You talk about writings -- there's so much writing by African Americans back in the day. I do a lot of reading, and you go back and read those writings from the 30s, 40s, 50s, and much hasn't changed since then. We go back and show them what happened then and now and we show them we have survived. We let them know how we've survived.
Librarian #2: Do any of you use student writings? There are a lot of student writings that are published like new writers voices. And the LVA program in Texas - "Broader Horizons" which is writings my ESL students like.
Librarian #1: Recipes are good too. They cook but they can't tell you what they do, how much to put in it. So [we] just try to figure that out. So if they can just write down the ingredients and tell me what I'm supposed to do that helps out a lot too.
Librarian #2: You can use a lot of kids books for things but the one thing that doesn't translate real well are the children's cookbooks because a lot of the recipes are for like candy and sweet stuff that are not recipes.
Librarian #1: Well they have come out recently with more sophisticated kids recipe books and there's some African American children's cookbooks out there that have a lot of recipes. We've leaned that that's sort of a universal language cause the students like to collect family recipes.
Librarian #1: The problem in my community is that people are coming off welfare and they want to put them in those temporary jobs, no benefits, 9-5, no child care. She's draggin' on her last leg but she has to go to work. My concern is that it's not about we in the literacy field but the policy makers. Those people who are making those laws and legislation -- they have no idea what was going to happen when they took all these people off welfare. They didn't care. They put a cap on it and in North Carolina you have 2 years maximum lifetime. They tell people, "you have no skills, no idea how to work in the world." Anybody can GET a job but keeping the job and understanding it… there was one woman, every day at 1:00 she'd go for lunch and never come back to work. This went on for 3 weeks. Finally the supervisor went to case worker who asked the woman and she said some had to meet the school bus for my kids to get off the bus. She never worked. She was always there when her kids came home from work. No one helped her to understand that when you have a job you have to make arrangements for somebody else to pick up your kids. When they took her from welfare to work no one helped her to understand the work environment.
Librarian #1: We developed a program with a trucking company and they didn't want those "touchy feely" issues as part of the curriculum. We argued that you needed to have that as part of the program because these are the issues that women have to deal with everyday -- like how am I going to feed my child; my child needs to go to school and how do I deal with the teacher; and how do I advocate for myself in my community and with my landlord; and my significant other person. That's what we were teaching and we had to kind of back out of the program because the funders were saying that if you keep that piece in there, we're not going to fund you. And the thing that was making it all so bad was that they were not paying us anything to do this!
As mentioned in the framework, only one completed librarian questionnaire was received. The questionnaire came from a large public library in a major city. They sponsor their own literacy classes and work in cooperation with two other branches located in the city. The training for their volunteers is offered by an outside state agency. This library has a distinct selection of literacy materials with librarians assigned to the collection development of those literacy-related materials. It also has a large selection of ESL audio materials and their selections are based on recommended made by local ESL teachers.
Of the 41 titles in Section B of the questionnaire, this library had half of them on their shelves or the shelves of the cooperating branches. The librarian who completed the questionnaire only handles the collection development for literature and history. She does not make selections for health, psychology, finance, parenting, etc. Therefore, to the question about published materials addressing specific women's issues, she advised making contact with the sociology department of the library. Other selectors decide for other departments and some of the branches make their own selections as well. They do not carry materials developed by other literacy programs and they do not develop their own. They shelve only books from major commercial publishers such as Laubach, NTC, Contemporary, etc. 17 Therefore, they rely on publishers' catalogs when making their collection decisions. They don't buy pamphlets and try to avoid workbooks. This can be seen in the titles listed on the questionnaire they do not carry. With some exceptions, the basic commonality among them was staple bound format. They avoid materials that cost greater than $30.00. Patrons prefer books with cassettes. Materials with computer software programs are becoming more crucial. They tend to separate teachers' guides from corresponding student books.
The librarian has not found it important to use or access literacy materials focused on issues of importance to women. "Gender issues aren't usually apparent when I assist ABE/ESL patrons. Occasionally a woman or young girl wants to read fiction that features a woman or girl as the main character." Concerns or issues do not seem to surface because "women learners often are looking for materials that were recommended by their ESL instructors." When issues or concerns are raised, "we try to locate desired materials at the central library or at community libraries. We usually refer patrons to programs when they express an interest in training." They do not maintain a separate list of literacy materials but they do attach an "ESL" sticker to the books and materials themselves.
This librarian indicated that women-centered literacy materials "probably would comprise only a fraction of what we purchase." Rather than relying on reviews of materials written by literacy workers generally, she would still rely on the recommendations of local ESL instructors. They would probably not rely on a networking center such as WE LEARN because "we want our materials to be useful to as many patrons as possible."
My Reflections
I do not know why the questionnaire response from librarians was so light. It actually surprised me because in my years of working with librarians, I have experienced them as generally responsive and willing to share their expertise. I could make some speculations (length of questionnaire, lack of interest, no extra time), but I think this would do a disservice to all of us. However, libraries tend to have complicated structures with many divisions across work areas and subject matters. The questionnaire may have been too general and did not lend itself for response across departments. Though it would be imprudent to make generalizations based on one response, the responses to this one questionnaire were fascinating and some observations are worth noting with additional questions.
* Format: Would the library shelve materials produced by independent literacy programs if a commercial publisher distributed them? If so, would it be important then for the materials to have enough bulk to go beyond pamphlet size and more into regular book format? Does this format restrict, then, the types of writings and formats developed by learners with limited access to printing mechanisms? Are alternative materials&emdash;those not commercially produced&emdash;destined to fall outside the possibilities of library circulation? Do we18 need to work more closely with commercial publishers? Or do we need to make alternatives to commercial publishers more viable? Should libraries reconsider their policies on pamphlets, especially in relation to adult literacy materials?
* Reviews: Through my years of experience in another setting promoting women's presses to libraries, the main currency has been book reviews. Librarians claimed that many of their collection decisions were dependent on reviews of books in major professional publications and journals. In terms of literacy materials, though, it seems from this one questionnaire that local needs carry the influence. What are the intricacies of the relationships between teachers, librarians, and review media and between teachers, librarians, and learners? Both librarians and learners rely on the expertise and knowledge of the literacy workers. However, so many literacy workers have discussed lack of knowledge about women-centered literacy materials and their difficulty in finding or locating them. Some even implied they look to librarians! So, who is helping whom? One solution will be to get more information about women-centered literacy materials&emdash;through catalogs, reviews, networking&emdash;to literacy workers who would ultimately help both learners and librarians.
* Learner access: What about learner access to materials in the library? Since so many learners have expressed being overwhelmed by libraries, does not having a separate card catalog or section of books decrease their willingness to look further? What bridges can be made for learners? Will training learners how to use the library be sufficient? Or will they still be left searching the shelves for the stickers on the books? 19
* Limitations: Do women-centered literacy materials hold less value in general because their primary audience might be women? The reflections from this librarian -- as well as other literacy workers -- imply that being women-specific or women-centered means fewer patrons are being served. Are women fewer than 50% of library patrons? Do men not read books with women characters or written by women authors? Do women's issues not pertain to men? Does this response hold some fear of feminism? Do materials hold more value to all patrons if they are gender-less, race-less, and class-less? Or do we allow the materials reinforcing racism, sexism, classism and other damaging stereotypes continue to go unnoticed and to remain unchallenged?
Rather than dwell on the lack of questionnaire responses from librarians, I decided to look to other librarian sources addressing similar themes to the questions. How do other librarians identify and collect adult literacy materials and what, if anything, do they have to say about women-centered literacy materials? Librarians have written several books outlining criteria for selection and listing bibliographies of materials. Consistent with the questionnaire response, these librarian authors, for the most part, discuss professionally published books rather than materials created by literacy programs or individual learning centers. Rarely, if ever, do these resources discuss an awareness of or talk directly about the needs of special populations&emdash;women, people of color, glbt, persons with disabilities and so on. In some ways, this may explain the lack of response to my librarian questionnaire&emdash;librarians in literacy sections may not specifically focus on individual populations while librarians in women's studies areas may not pay attention to adult literacy issues. Many libraries, according to Shelley Quezada (1996), integrate adult literacy materials into their general collections, though some designate specific areas. In either case, libraries may place colored dots on the spine to indicate literacy materials. Sometimes these materials are located in browsing areas so learners can find them more easily. These areas may also include local community information available in pamphlets.
The librarian writings do generally concur on some of the criteria for selecting adult literacy materials.
In looking at the bibliography of librarian writings on collecting adult materials, some additional interesting factors should be noted. Two of the titles contain detailed lists of adult literacy materials that, for the most part, are very similar to each other (Collins, 1990; Pursell, 1991). Both books are now 10 years old and extremely out-of-date. I have not been able to locate a more recent edition of either book nor have I found anything else more recent to replace them. With these detailed lists, I wondered what the percentage of titles might be considered women's interest.
Looking at Pursell (1991), I chose the first 2 sections&emdash;fiction and mystery/horror&emdash;and started to count based on the descriptions of each title. I coded as "women's" those titles with strong women characters or stereotypically women's interests (e.g. romance). I coded as "men's" those titles with strong male characters which also generally coincide to male interest (war, baseball, westerns). I coded as "neutral" those books not clearly describing people's gender, or including male and female couples, or describing families or historical events (e.g., migration of Vietnamese families to the U.S.). Out of 185 fiction titles 28% were women's interest, 49% men's interest and 22% neutral. Out of 117 titles of mystery and horror, 21% were women's interest, 49% men's interest and 30% neutral. I did not bother to count further. Even this small sampling indicates the on-going politics of commercial literacy publishers who neglect to produce in any significant way reading materials of interest to women or portraying strong or positive women characters.20 More detailed information about librarian bibliographies can be found in Appendix Library Annotated.
1 This issue surfaced several times throughout the conversation circles. See Knowledges in View: Women Learners
2 See VALUE website (http://literacynet.org/value/about/mission.html) for more details on their plans for realizing this mission.
3 As far as I can tell, this is the only national adult literacy organization in which learners are leaders and guide the direction and focus of the group. It seems to still be experiencing the growing pains of a new organization (getting enough funding, leadership, setting goals and direction, establishing itself, etc.) but holds promise for affecting literacy discourse in the future.
4 In Minnesota, most sites are connected through Laubach and most of my contacts to date had been with people and programs connected to Laubach Literacy Action.
5 I have no empirical evidence of this but in my vast experience of attending large conferences appealing to multiple communities, it often happens that people of the privileged or dominant group will often try to make their way into the sessions planned or intended for marginalized groups -- an assertion of their privilege and power. Conversely, disempowered people generally do not "crash" groups clearly indicated or intended for the powerful, educated, decision-makers, privileged.
6 In August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed into law The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193), a welfare reform plan that requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance. A new system of block grants to states for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) was created, changing the nature and provision of welfare benefits in the U.S. TANF replaces AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children).
7 Morning Glory Press specializes in lower reading level fiction and non-fiction for pregnant teens and teen fathers on the range of sex, health and childcare issues relevant for young parents. http://www.morningglorypress.com/
8 Some of the teachers also identified as adult learners. I think this indicates that we are all learning as adults. There are also teachers who have been or currently are also adult learners. Because I do not have enough information to go on, I decided to count as learners only those people who checked ONLY that one box.
9 Since this form was only on the internet, perhaps this should not be so surprising, but to me it was.
10 Interestingly, because these 2 questions used a yes/no/sometimes check boxes, these were the only questions that all the respondents answered! This may encourage me to use more of this (rather than open boxes) on future Internet surveys.
11 Indeed, during the course of writing this section, several responses have come in. The responses included in the summary were all received prior to January, 2002.
12 see Appendix Womenlit, p. 2, paragraph 2
13 As it happened, this was the level of learners I worked with at Hubbs. Several were in this brush-up category while others were in the process of attaining their GEDs.
14 I found this one described in Books for Adult New Readers (Pursell, 1991). It is called Love Letters, by H. Coret. Pursell's comment on this book is, "Literacy students will relate to this dilemma!" (p. 33).
15 Words on the Page, The World in Your Hands, Catherine Lipkin and Virginia Solotaroff, Harper & Row, 1990. There were three books in this series and they are all now out of print. See Resource List for complete cite.
16 A newspaper available from World Education. See Resource List for complete cite.
17 This response would explain the reasons for some of the other titles in Section B that are not shelved by the library.
18 We = WE LEARN, learners, literacy workers, administrators, policy makers, me and so on
19 I wonder how my own experience is analogous here. I know I am frustrated by bookstores or music stores that carry both used and new materials. Usually, due to my income, I'm looking for used materials. But often these businesses shelve everything together. So I'm forced to look through all the new stuff in order to find some used gems. Often I get too overwhelmed and frustrated to the point where I will end up making no selection at all. If learners are forced to do this with their own reading levels in places as big as libraries, does shelving everything together with no separate process for catalog search help them or hinder them?
20 See Something in My Mind for more information on this issue.
Collins, V.L. (revised and annotated by) (1990). Reader development bibliography: Books recommended for adult new readers, Fourth edition. Philadelphia, PA: The Free Library of Philadelphia.
Miller, M. (2000a). Feminist resources and curriculum for women achieving literacy. Minneapolis, MN.: Research was made possible with a grant from The LuAnn Dummer Center for Women Graduate Student Research Award, 1999-2000. Univ. of St. Thomas. , (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 445 250).
Pursell, F.J. (Revised and annotated by) (1991). Books for adult new readers: A bibliography developed by Project: LEARN, 5th revised edition. Cleveland, OH: Project: LEARN.
Quezada, S. (1996). Developing literacy programs in small and medium-sized libraries: Small Libraries Publications, No. 22. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Women's Literacy Power:
Collaborative Approaches to Developing and Distributing Women's
Literacy Resources
Mev Miller
Ed.D., Critical Pedagogy, University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN USA
Copyright © Mev Miller, 2002
WE LEARN
Women Expanding • Literacy Education Action Resource
Network
www.litwomen.org/welearn.html
welearn@litwomen.org