Literacy workers are not "political" by nature. Not one of the literacy workers I spoke to described "assertiveness" as one of their greatest strengths (see Reflections 1). They spoke rather of being compassionate, knowledgeable and resourceful. Often working in isolation of one another, individual literacy workers do not see themselves as effective spokespeople. They do not feel that they are "politically experienced" in lobbying, expressing their concerns or demanding attention beyond their own communities. Even then many are reluctant.

They fear that if they speak too loudly they might jeopardize their program funding. They are concerned about the economic times and admit that it is difficult to trust bureaucracies that seem distanced from the forefront of literacy work. They hesitate with the fear that doing the wrong thing could be worse than doing nothing at all.

Even though they lack confidence individually I have heard the voices of literacy workers within the network strengthen with each meeting I attend and each newsletter I read. They are beginning to recognize that collectively (and with some organization) their opinions and expertise can affect change. Carol Ulmer encourages people not to be afraid:

"This job has a positive feel to it and yeah, we are digging in. But we aren't addressing the problems of somebody working 60 hours a week and getting paid for 30. That's a perfect burnout situation. And look at all the hours the government is getting for free."

"I wasn't an LCA meeting and suggested that we ask the government to fund the resources of a reading specialist so that we can assess learning disabled students and all I heard was this huge gasp of 'don't rock the boat, don't shake things up'."

"And I wondered, 'What is this thinking?' If we don't say anything then the government automatically assumes that we don't need anything, that everything is fine. If your children don't tell you anything about the problems they're having at school, do you know that they exist?"

"I don't know what people are afraid of. I can't see that the government will revoke our funding if we tell them what we need. What we're asking for is a possible solution to a problem that they have too. They have a vested interest. Surely we can meet each other half-way. There shouldn't be any barriers."

And then there is the reality of time constraints. Women openly admit that they don't spend much time thinking about the bigger political issues, not because they are disinterested but because they simply don't have time. They give so much to their students and to the day-to-day workings of their literacy classrooms and programs there is little time and little energy left over for anything else. Literacy workers often have a greater vision for their students and their programs than they do for themselves. Perhaps it is partly their commendable selflessness which stops them from having a stronger voice or seeing themselves as "political".

I regret that this chapter can only serve as an introduction to women's involvement in literacy and the subtle but substantial impact they have had on the field, but it is a beginning. I still have many questions about the idea of "literacy as a feminist issue" but if it means that the women working in the field deserve more respect and recognition for the work they do then I would agree. And if it means that the dignity and respect of the literacy profession (and the women working within the profession) is dependent upon their willingness to stand up and speak out then I say, "The time has never been better; let's go for it!"