Teachers and literacy

Press, 22 July 1986, Page 24

Teachers and literacy

Ann Shearer, a remedial English teacher at Hornby High School, replies to a statement by the spokesman of the Teacher Trainees’ Association, Steve May. Mr May challenged a letter from Mrs Shearer printed in “The Press” on July 12.

Steve May has expressed “concern” and “scepticism” about assessments of literacy levels among trainees. He takes issue with my claim that it is easy to assess written literacy, and again asserts that such assessments are subjective and discredited. In his statement, he alters the grounds of the original debate. Reported remarks by Dr Colin Knight, principal of the Christchurch Teachers’ College, concerned written expression, and there is a vast difference between assessing written and reading literacy. To consider the latter first, it would be rash to base a final judgment on the results of one test, especially one such as L.A.T.O.S.

The names of Bird and Schell, as quoted by Mr May, are unknown td me, and to experts in the field. Can Steve May possibly mean the old Burt and Schonell tests? If so, it is true that for many years it has been acknowledged that these test only one aspect of reading, decoding.

Some subjective judgment does enter into assessing reading, but repeated observation of an individual allows a trained observer to discover what printed material a reader can handle profitably. That these assessments have considerable significance is borne out at the secondary level. If Steve May consulted his doctor about a stomach-ache, he would not seek an instant operation. His lawyer is unlikely to guarantee the outcome of controversial litigation. There are many such areas in which we must submit to another’s expertise; reading is one.

To turn now to the assessment of written literacy, provided that the context and purpose of a piece of prose are known, assessment is easy and can be justified objectively. The writer is not required, as Steve May implies, to justify his own writing by referring to “rules.” It is enough for the assessor to be able to explain any adverse criticism of the passage. To claim that “stylistic variation” affects judgment is misleading. Were this so, such classic originals as Sterne, Joyce, and in the present day, Anthony Burgess, might well have been discounted. As for Shakespeare, the fellow’s spelling was atrocious, even of his own name; and he had to invent words because

he could not think of the proper ones.

We are not discussing such brilliant inventiveness. A person asked to write a letter, a description or a narrative is unlikely to produce such startling stylistic innovations that basic literacy will be obscured. To be specific, if I had to test someone’s written literacy this is exactly what I would do: ask them to write two or three passages for a given purpose, and complete a Cloze (gap-filling) exercise, as this procedure, in use for thirty-odd years, conveniently looks at reading and writing simultaneously. •

I would distinguish between small slips and grossly inappropriate usage, and I would suggest remedies. If they proved unable to achieve the necessary improvements, I would suggest that they came back in a year or two, having attended a class in written expression in the meantime.

Here we come to the crux. Steve May must know that diagnosis and treatment of literacy problems belong at the primary level, not the tertiary. Teachers with literacy problems will produce more pupils with problems. His association does a disservice to future pupils by seeking to discredit assessments. As professionals, they should welcome them.