|
The practical question (that must be addressed at both program and
policy levels) is how both to avoid restricting entry into literacy
work, imposing formalistic demands, or cutting off program autonomy
in teacher selection, while opening up training opportunities that make
it possible for practitioners, particularly literacy workers organic
to their communities, to become stronger in their work. In one scheme
under discussion, no certification would be required of people entering
the field, but literacy practitioners would receive some form of "credit"
for a variety of forms of training (formal courses, workshops, self-directed
study) undertaken as they work.171
As a practical matter, defending program autonomy and community specificity
means working to define a great variety of documentary procedures and
controls in ways that enhance rather than restrict programs' capacity
to respond to their communities. The definition of these procedures
and controls will be a recurrent issue in the 1990s.
A range of programming
It is commonly said in the declarations of both advocacy organizations
and governments that there should be a range of programming available,
to meet a range of learner needs. This defines another set of broad
considerations about the forms that literacy programming may take in
the next decade and more.
The "range" of programming should be thought of in
two ways. It may be understood as extending over a range of student
commitment. A range of program opportunities would extend from part-time
one-to-one tutoring, to full-time study in situations which can lead
to academic or vocational credentials. In many communities, there are
tutoring programs but no opportunity for group work, full time study,
or movement to higher levels of upgrading. Sometimes there are institutional
classes, but nothing more informal or close to the familiar life routines
of learners. Creating a range of programming implies overall adequate
funding, and an overall co-ordinated strategy for literacy at the community
and provincial or territorial levels.
The "range" may also be understood in a second way
— to consist of the conventional division of program types into
community, workplace and institutional programs (or, stated differently,
programs which focus on "literacy work" understood
as expressing a very general right to the use of spoken and written
language, on on "upgrading" understood as the gaining
of academic credentials and certificates, and on "basic skills"
understood in economic contexts).172 A strategy for literacy would include
some definition of the proper balance among "literacy work,"
upgrading, and basic skills programs. This section will discuss the
issues concerning this sense of the range of programming, emphasizing
issues in community and workplace activity.
|