Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 12:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Paedagogica Historica: InternationalJournal of the History of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpdh20
What is literacy? Thirty years ofAustralian literacy debates (1975–2005)Debra Edwards & Anthony PottsPublished online: 12 Mar 2008.
To cite this article: Debra Edwards & Anthony Potts (2008) What is literacy? Thirty years ofAustralian literacy debates (1975–2005), Paedagogica Historica: International Journal of the Historyof Education, 44:1-2, 123-135, DOI: 10.1080/00309230701865496
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00309230701865496
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Paedagogica HistoricaVol. 44, Nos. 1–2, February–April 2008, 123–135
ISSN 0030-9230 print/ISSN 1477-674X online© 2008 Stichting Paedagogica HistoricaDOI: 10.1080/00309230701865496http://www.informaworld.com
What is literacy? Thirty years of Australian literacy debates (1975–2005)
Debra Edwards* and Anthony Potts
Taylor and FrancisCPDH_A_286718.sgm10.1080/00309230701865496Paedagogica Historica0030-9230 (print)/1477-674X (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis441/2000000February [email protected] Australia is a federation of six states and two territories. Each state and territory has its ownlegislature, which may not be of the same political persuasion as the Commonwealth (Federal)Government. Under the Australian Constitution primary control of school education is with theState and Territory Governments, with the Australian Commonwealth Government having nospecific constitutional responsibility for school education. However, this is complicated by adual-tiered funding system, whereby the Australian Commonwealth Government hasresponsibility for some funding of government schools and majority funding for non-government schools. Since 1975 there have been moves by the Commonwealth Ministers forEducation to acquire a significant role in identifying national priorities for education andconstructing policies and assessment tools to achieve such goals. Financial provision andnational policy formation have increasingly become the means by which AustralianCommonwealth Ministers for Education have “shaped” educational debates and policies. InNovember 2004 the then Australian Commonwealth Minister for Education, Science andTraining announced the details of the Australian Government National Inquiry into theTeaching of Literacy. The focus of the Inquiry was examination of research into reading,preparation of schoolteachers and literacy teaching practices, especially reading. The Inquirymay be seen as the latest move by the Commonwealth Government to influence the teachingof literacy in Australia. In this paper official notions of literacy, as outlined through the variousAustralian Commonwealth Government’s inquiries into literacy and national policydocuments for the period 1975–2005, are examined using metaphor analysis. Metaphoranalysis provides a means of analysing discourses about literacy in each of the reports andpolicies in order to interpret the underlying ideology. These official constructs of literacy arebriefly considered within the competing and wider notions of literacy in Australia academicdebates and the tensions that exist in defining literacy. Why did the Australian CommonwealthGovernment become involved in the literacy debates during this time? In particular, how hasthe Australian Commonwealth Government defined literacy and why did it take a morecontrolling role in both the definition of literacy and the shaping of education for literacy? Thereasons for the Australian Commonwealth Government becoming involved in the literacydebates remain largely unresolved. In this paper it is proposed that involvement in the literacydebates constituted a way for the Commonwealth Government, in a time of economicrationalisation, to change their role in educational reform from one of financial assistance toone of leadership in curriculum. It is also proposed that a metaphor analysis of the policydocuments and associated reports indicates a move from a wide definition of literacy to anincreasingly narrow and utilitarian definition of literacy, reflecting the predominantlyeconomic focus of the Australian Commonwealth Government.
Keywords: literacy policy; language policy; educational debates; metaphor analysis; discourse analysis
Introduction
Once again Australia has been engaged in national debate about the function of literacy. Suchdebates have been part of Australian educational and political debates during the past threedecades. Since 1975 these debates have increasingly been used as a vehicle by Australian
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
124 D. Edwards and A. Potts
Commonwealth Education Ministers to intervene in educational policies that have traditionallybeen the domain of the individual States and Territories.
The Australian context
Australia is a federation of six States and two Territories. In addition to the Commonwealth orFederal Government each state and territory has its own legislature, independent of, thoughsubject to, the Commonwealth Government. Under the Australian Constitution provision anddirection of school education is primarily the responsibility of the State and Territory Govern-ments, with the Australian Commonwealth Government having no specific constitutional respon-sibility for school education. However, this is complicated by a dual-tiered funding system,whereby the Australian Commonwealth Government provides some funding to governmentschools for specific programmes, and majority funding for non-government schools. Prior to1975, financial assistance had become the means by which Australian Commonwealth Ministersfor Education influenced educational debates and policies to reflect their perception of nationalpriorities for education.1 In the early 1970s there was a period of expansion and reform in educa-tion initiated by the Commonwealth. This growth ceased in 1975 due to budget constraints. TheCommonwealth Education Ministers then focused on curriculum issues, specifically literacy.
Source documents
The documents examined in this paper are the key reports from the Australian CommonwealthGovernment’s inquiries into literacy, which begin and end this period, plus the Commonwealthpolicy documents about literacy for the period 1975–2005. These are: 1975 Report of the Houseof Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Disorders; 1987 National Policy onLanguages; 1991 Australia’s Language, The Australian Language and Literacy Policy; 1998Literacy for All: the Challenge for Australian Schools, Commonwealth Literacy Policies forAustralian Schools; 2005 Teaching Reading – Report of the National Inquiry into the Teachingof Literacy. In this paper literacy policy relates to:
… the organized body of statements about formal [literacy] education, together with the administra-tive practices that are intended to give effect to those statements.2
These are not specifically based on research into literacy and literacy education, though suchresearch may have informed the policy discussions. In Australia policy documents relating toformal education tend to be preceded by reports investigating a specific aspect of education andopen to public submission. Whilst relevant research findings are considered, equal importancetends to be given to individual experience. The emphasis is on “independent examination”3 ofresearch with some suspicion about researchers as experts in the field. As is indicated by the thenCommonwealth Minister in an interview about the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy:
What I’ve got here now, is I’ve got ten people, I’ve got quite a few “experts” if you like, but I’ve alsogot some normal people. I’ve got a women [sic] for example, a mother.4
1 Grant Harman and Don Smart, eds., Federal Intervention in Australian Education (Melbourne:Georgian House, 1982).
2 Simon Marginson,. “Education Research and Education Policy,” Review of Australian Research inEducation 2 (1993): 15.
3 Brendan Nelson, National Inquiry into Literacy Teaching. [Media release]. Canberra, 2004. http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Nelson/2004/11/ n1016301104.asp. (accessed August 4, 2006).
4 Id., Transcript, Literacy Inquiry, Alan Jones Programme – Radio 2UE, 2004. http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Nelson/2004/12/tran011204.asp. (accessed August 4, 2006)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Paedagogica Historica 125
Walker5 notes that “the sheer volume of reports, Commonwealth and State, over the past twodecades has tended to create a climate of opinion and even to appear as ‘literature’ alongside or,worse, merging with or replacing research”. The resultant policy documents do draw uponresearch findings; however, they also draw on a wide range of public opinions and beliefs whichthen are then meshed with other ideological agendas of the Government.
Independent research into literacy and literacy education is important. So too is examinationof policy documents. Policy documents have multiple purposes. Education policy documentstend to outline the principles underlying provision of particular aspects of education and thebeliefs and ideology underlying that provision. They also serve a persuasive purpose in terms ofmaking ideas or issues understandable and desirable to the populace,6 as well as providing solu-tions to perceived problems.7 In particular, policy advocating change may be more readilyaccepted by others when the policy is framed as providing a solution to a problem. Examinationof the metaphors of literacy provided in the different Commonwealth literacy policies is impor-tant as they may provide a window onto the underlying ideology driving the policy documents.
Australian Commonwealth Government involvement in literacy policy
Why did literacy become the vehicle for the Commonwealth to drive a national educationagenda? This question remains unresolved. Several possible reasons emerge from an examinationof the literacy policy documents and the surrounding discourses. Literacy was an issue that couldbe used to create an emotional link with the electorate, at a time when the economic recession wascontributing to public disillusionment with education reform. Green, Hodgens and Luke8 notethat whilst public debates concerning the quality and standard of reading, writing and Englishlanguage had occurred within Australia prior to 1970, the terms literacy and illiteracy were rarelyused. Reading, writing and “proper English” were the more common terms. What then hadchanged within the Australian social, political and educational landscapes by this time, forliteracy to become the key term in both public debate and Government inquiry?
Green, Hodgens and Luke9 note a difference here between Australia and other Western coun-tries, where usage of the term literacy, as distinct from reading and writing, occurred much earlier.Green, Hodgens and Luke explain this difference as being due to the relative isolation andhegemony of Australian language society, culture and economy compared with other Westerncountries. The term literacy was not widely used because literacy as a general concept was notwidely considered. Focus was placed on individual aspects of reading, writing or spoken Englishdepending on the debate, rather than literacy. The isolation and hegemony within Australiaenabled the maintenance of debates linking individual aspects of literacy to falling standards andeconomic malaise, even though international discussions were about the general nature of liter-acy. The hegemony of language and culture in Australia had slowly been changing due to post-Second World War European migration, the refugee influx from wars in Asia and Africa, andrecognition of the indigenous peoples of Australia as Australian citizens with their own languagesand culture. This meant a change in the social, cultural and linguistic fabric of Australia from theprevious monolingual and cultural orientation. At the same time, technological innovation meant
5 Jim Walker, “A Focus on Policy,” Review of Australian Research in Education 2 (1993): 9.6 Ibid., 10.7 Ross Harrold, “Recent Higher Education Policy: A Case Study of development and Implementation,”
Review of Australian Research in Education 2 (1993): 74.8 Bill Green, John Hodgens and Allan Luke, “Debating literacy in Australia: History lessons and popular
f(r)ictions,” Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 20, no. 1 (1997): 11.9 Ibid., “Debating literacy in Australia,” 11.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
126 D. Edwards and A. Potts
that geographical distance was no longer an issue in terms of global communication. Thesetrends, combined with shifts in traditional agricultural and mineral resource markets, meant thatAustralia was more open to different global cultural, linguistic and economic influences than ithad been previously.10
The combining of these events meant that Australian educational systems were under pressureto accommodate increased student numbers whose home language was not English, and whoseparents often had minimal or interrupted education. However, they do not fully explain why liter-acy should so significantly appear on the Commonwealth government and public agenda at thistime. Green, Hodgens and Luke propose two other factors. First, that literacy and concern aboutliteracy standards acted “as a ‘codeword’ for other concerns and anxieties in public debate”11 ina way that the narrower terms of reading and writing did not. While many people welcomed thechanges occurring within Australian society, for others they were unsettling. Decline in literacystandards and illiteracy was one way of explaining the social, political and economic disturbancesthat were occurring. Second, Green, Hodgens and Luke propose that concern about literacystandards was a reaction to the growth in global popular culture and language.12 This growth wasperceived by some to be eroding the ability of Australian students to read and write.13 Debatesabout falling literacy standards then became tied to debates about popular culture versustraditional or literary culture. These debates are still current in the Australian media today.14 Suchchanges threatened the individual and collective identity of many Australians. Solve the literacyproblems and social and economic stability would be restored. Such concerns provided a spacefor the then Commonwealth Minister for Education to step into and provide direction in regard tothe construction of the literate citizen.
Increased global communication also meant that Australia became increasingly exposed tothe issues and concerns of other societies, including literacy concerns. As Australian societybecame more pluralistic and diverse, the international literacy debates and concerns became morerelevant and accessible to Australia. This climate of social change, increased language diversity,changing communication technologies and increased globalisation provided receptive ground forraising concerns about literacy and the requirements for a literate individual. Concern about liter-acy and literacy education was thus a way for the Commonwealth government to continueexpanding its influence over education via curriculum reform rather than financial assistance.
10 Green, Hodgens and Luke, “Debating Literacy in Australia,” 12–13.11 Ibid., 13.12 Ibid., 18–19.13 Mr Alan Dennis, senior master in English at Prince Alfred College, said that one of the major obstacles
to the development or even maintenance of good reading habits at the Leaving level was the veryconsiderable load of work imposed by the matriculation examination. “Another of our most seriousdifficulties at this stage is the product of social and environmental conditions over which we have nocontrol.” “Our pupils have grown accustomed to radio and film, and are much less dependent on reading forentertainment and satisfaction of mental needs than were the children of earlier generations.” “‘Whentelevision is added we must expect the situation to be much worse’, Mr Dennis said.” Adelaide Advertiser,April 13, 1959, 3.
14 “The impact of theory – ranging from critical theory, where Shakespeare is on the same footing asAustralian Idol, to postmodernism, feminism, Marxism and constructivism – has also been criticised asideological and misdirected.” Dr Kevin Donnelly The Australian, May 15, 2006. “I find no problem at allin applying the same intelligence to the whole range of texts offered in the HSC, canonical or not. Of courseI hope students learn to value some things more than others, but I would also want them to be able to analyseand judge everything that comes their way as skillfully as possible, including blogs and SMS, not to mentionBig Brother, or even the linguistic subterfuges of our Prime Minister or of the US President.” Ninglun, NewLines from a Floating Life, 10 July 2006. [weblog]. Available from: http://ninglun.wordpress.com/.(accessed August 5, 2006)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Paedagogica Historica 127
Language or literacy
Prior to 1987 Australian Commonwealth Governments did not have a national policy on eitherlanguage or literacy. The recommendation of the 1975 Report of the House of RepresentativesSelect Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties to undertake national assessment of literacyprovided opportunity for discussions about uniform assessment of literacy across Australia and anational direction for literacy education.15 The subsequent Senate Committee Inquiry into theneed for a language policy, which resulted in the National Policy on Languages (1987), wasinitiated due to a range of concerns about literacy achievement, access to language learning andincreased language diversity within Australia, as well as the need to seek new trade markets. Thefocus was on acknowledging, retaining and promoting language diversity (including Indigenouslanguages), whilst ensuring the maintenance and promotion of English as a common language.Alongside this were concerns about adult literacy and the “inadequate command of Englishamong 10 and 14 year olds”.16 Literacy, however, is not specifically defined in either the Senateinquiry or the subsequent National Policy on Languages (1987) and there is infrequent referenceto literacy. The emphasis is on languages, as is indicated by the policy title.
Two significant policy changes are evident in the 1991 Australia’s Language, The AustralianLanguage and Literacy Policy (and the discussion papers which preceded it). The first is the fore-grounding of literacy as distinct from language, first in the policy title and then throughout thepolicy document. The second is the emphasis on English literacy, which is listed as the first goalof the policy, and concern about “literacy difficulties”.17 Whilst there are goals in the policyregarding the importance of learning languages other than English, and of maintaining commu-nity and Indigenous languages, these are not as strongly emphasised as in the earlier NationalPolicy on Languages (1987). Much of the debate that followed the release of Australia’sLanguage, The Australian Language and Literacy Policy (1991), was concerned with the empha-sis on English first. Moore18 and Lo Bianco19 both argue that this policy was a move from apluralist ideology of valuing language diversity to a focus on promotion and assessment ofEnglish literacy. Foreign language competence thus became valued only in regard to the possibil-ity of increased trade opportunities. In contrast Brock20 notes that this was a pragmatic economicmove rather than an ideological move away from a pluralist approach. He agrees that Australia’sLanguage, The Australian Language and Literacy Policy (1991) was explicit in promotingEnglish literacy as the main priority; however, he cites the emphasis in the policy on proficiencyin languages and the prioritising of 14 languages other than English as ensuring a pluralistapproach.
The move from a focus on languages to a focus on literacy continued in the 1998 policyLiteracy for All: the Challenge for Australian Schools, Commonwealth Literacy Policies forAustralian Schools, with language removed from the title, rarely mentioned in the contents and
15 Leo Bartlett, John Knight, Bob Lingard and Paige Porter, “Redefining a ‘National Agenda’ inEducation: the states fight back,” Australian Educational Researcher 21, no. 2 (1994): 32–4.
16 Australian Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, Report on a National LanguagePolicy (Canberra, 1984), 25.
17 Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s Language, The Australian Language and Literacy Policy(Canberra, 1991), III.
18 Helen Moore, “Language Policies as virtual realities: two Australian examples,” In Ideology, Politicsand Language Policies: Focus on English, Studies in Language and Society 6, ed. Thomas Ricento(Amsterdam, 2000), 30–3.
19 Joseph Lo Bianco, “From policy to anti-policy: How fear of language rights took policy-making out ofcommunity hands,” in Australian Policy Activism in Language and Literacy, ed. Joseph Lo Bianco andRosie Wickert (Australia: Language Australia, 2001).
20 Paul Brock, “Australia’s language,” in Australian Policy Activism, ed. Lo Bianco and Wickert, 54–5.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
128 D. Edwards and A. Potts
“literacy for all”21 a key principle of the policies. Language is mentioned only in terms of the“diversity of… language learning”22 prior to school entry. Little indication is given within thepolicy as to which language or languages are being referred to, other than the statement in the firstsection: “in Australian society proficiency in English literacy is of major importance”.23 In theabsence of specific reference to language, other than how diversity of language experience andfirst languages other than English may impact on literacy achievement, it would appear that thepolicy is concerned only with English-language literacy. Language diversity is generallyportrayed throughout the policy as problematic, contributing to “lower English literacy levels”24
despite a caution against connecting “difference with deficit”.25 In this policy literacy appears tobe a discrete concept or set of skills, rather than being integrally connected to language.
The 1998 Australia’s Language, The Australian Language and Literacy Policy is still thecurrent Commonwealth literacy policy. Recently, as a result of lobbying and the re-emergence ofdiscussions of a literacy crisis through such media articles as “Phonics at core of new literacywar”26 the current Australian Commonwealth Minister for Education, Science and Trainingcommissioned a National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy in 2005.27 Literacy as a discreteconcept apart from language continues to be prevalent in the report of this inquiry. Language isreferred to only in the context of the “whole-language” approach to teaching reading and in thecontext of teacher knowledge regarding aspects of language.
A distinct movement may be seen within the Commonwealth policy documents from a focuson language diversity to a focus on English literacy. However, specific definitions of literacy arenot clearly evident in all the documents. Thus, in order to consider the official constructs ofliteracy presented in the documents, the language associated with literacy and the metaphors usedneed to be examined.
Metaphor as a tool of analysis
Metaphor is both pervasive in, and integral to, language and literacy. Serving to help with under-standing the surrounding world, metaphor acts as a scaffold to assist the understanding of newideas, concepts and experiences.28 Metaphor has a function within cognitive processes such assolving problems, categorising, the making of judgements and analogical reasoning,29 as well asa linguistic structural function. Thus, metaphor is used to understand unfamiliar intricate mattersby comparing the unfamiliar with the known.
Metaphor serves to direct or structure thinking by foregrounding particular aspects of aphenomenon and placing other aspects in the background. While this focus on specific aspects isan integral part of classifying and conceptualising,30 the danger of this is that metaphor may also
21 Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Literacy for All: the Challengefor Australian Schools, Commonwealth Literacy Policies for Australian Schools (Canberra, 1998), 1.
22 Ibid., 6.23 Ibid., 3.24 Ibid., 14.25 Ibid., 6.26 Dani Cooper, “Phonics at the core of new literacy war,” The Australian, 21 April, 2004, 21.27 Completed in December 2005.28 Geraldine Castleton, “Literacy, Metaphor and Words at Work: Maintaining particular constructions of
literacy,” Literacy and Numeracy Studies 8, no. 2 (1998): 25–6; Joan Gallini, Michael Seaman and SuzanneTerry, “Metaphors and learning new text,” Journal of Reading Behaviour 27, no. 2 (1995): 187; AndrewGoatly, The Language of Metaphors (London: Routledge, 1997), ch. 1; George Lakoff and Mark Johnson,Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), chs 1–11.
29 Yeshayahu Shen, “Metaphors and categories,” Poetics Today 13, no. 4 (1992): 771–94.30 Goatly, The Language of Metaphors, ch. 2.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Paedagogica Historica 129
narrow and confine thinking. By directing thinking towards a particular aspect of a phenomenon,other aspects or possibilities may be ignored. Metaphor may be chosen precisely for this reason– to encourage and justify a particular view or interest.31
Over time the use and reuse of metaphors causes them to become integral or absorbed intoeveryday language use.32 Thus a metaphor becomes part of the general understanding or beliefsabout the phenomena it is being used to describe, without any close examination of how thispresents only one aspect of the phenomenon.33 Metaphor may be deliberately chosen in order toshape new ways of thinking, or metaphor may be used without recognition of how this use directsthinking because the metaphor has become generally associated with the phenomena due to useover time.
In the absence of specific definitions of literacy within the government documents, examina-tion of the use of metaphors associated with literacy will assist in identifying the construction ofliteracy within the documents.
Metaphors within the documents
Literacy as skill
The 1975 report of the Inquiry into Specific Learning Disabilities had the predominant metaphorof literacy as skill and focused on literacy as an asset or deficit held by the individual. The solutionwas to remediate the individual to ensure that appropriate basic skills were gained. Whilst theinitial inquiry into Specific Learning Difficulties had originated from concerns about access andequity, the solutions were related to assessment of skills and remediation in order to enable accessrather than changing systems.
Reference to literacy as a skill may be perceived as one of the many industrial metaphors usedin relation to literacy in postindustrial societies. Industrial metaphors equate literacy with func-tional uses and employment,34 framing literacy as a tool for production of consumable goods.Whilst reference to literacy as skill or skills may appear a common-sense approach in terms ofskill being the ability to do something well, such framing of literacy as tools or skills implies thatliteracy is a value-neutral, portable commodity.35 The use of skills in the plural also suggests thatliteracy may be divided into discrete items separate from the individual person and the context inwhich they may be used. Thus these skills may be may be acquired or given, hence the emphasison remediation and identification of skill acquisition. Possession of the tools or skills themselvesbecomes the primary focus, rather than how the individual person uses the tools or skills. Thepossession of skills becomes entangled with judgements about the person, so that lack of skillsbecomes lack of value of the person. As these skills are items supposedly available to all, lack ofskills becomes equated with lack of willingness to acquire the skills.
This identification of literacy as skill and of the literate person as technically skilled resonateswith the international literacy documents of the time.36 Earlier state curriculum documents,
31 Paul Ilsley and Norman Stahl, “Reconceptualizing the language of adult literacy,” Journal of Reading37, no. 1 (1993): 20–1.
32 Goatly. The Language of Metaphors, ch. 1.33 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 3.34 Castleton, “Literacy, Metaphor and Words at Work,” 28; see also James Gee, Glynda Hull and Colin
Lankshear, The New Work Order (Australia: Allen & Unwin, 1996).35 Peter Freebody, Research in Literacy Education: The Changing Face of Research, Policy and
Practice, An Inaugural Professorial Lecture, Griffith University Brisbane, referred to in GeraldineCastleton, “Literacy, Metaphor and Words at Work,” 28.
36 Peter Freebody and Anthony Welch, Knowledge, Culture and Power: International Perspectives onLiteracy as Policy and Practice (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993), 6–8.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
130 D. Edwards and A. Potts
however, had tended to focus on a literature-based image of literacy. Literacy was, then, aboutthe ability to read, write and speak effectively, in order to study the literary canon and to producemoral, upright citizens.37
Literacy as skill continues through subsequent Commonwealth documents with the exceptionof the 1991 policy. The Report of the Senate Committee into the need for a language policy andthe National Policy on Languages (1987) resulting from this both refer to literacy in terms relat-ing to sufficiency and functionality, and “mastery of sophisticated levels and types of languageskills”,38 as does The Hobart Declaration On Schooling 1989. This declaration was significantas this was the first time the State, Territory and Commonwealth Ministers of Education, meetingas the Australian Education Council (AEC), had agreed to common goals. Ten “Common andAgreed National Goals for Schooling in Australia” were agreed to. This provided the beginningof a national definition of literacy within the sixth goal: “to develop in students: the skills ofEnglish literacy, including skills in listening, speaking, reading and writing”.39 In this definitionthe focus was firmly on skills. Whilst this remained a national goal, the policy that followed in1991, Australia’s Language, The Australian Language and Literacy Policy, does not specificallyrefer to literacy as skill. This appears to be an exception in the policy documents. Literacy as skillreturns in the 1998 policy Literacy for All, particularly in relation the development of nationalbenchmarks where literacy is specifically identified as a skill – “a skill such as literacy”.40 Thiscontinues in the most recent Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy in 2005 where literacy isconstantly associated with skills.
Literacy as skill remains pervasive within educational, academic and community discoursesabout literacy.
Literacy as employment
Literacy as employment is tied to literacy as skill, by way of being the reason for acquiringliteracy skills. This may be seen in all the Commonwealth documents from the 1975 Inquiryinto Specific Learning Difficulties through to the most recent Inquiry into the Teaching ofLiteracy 2005. Whilst the 1975 Inquiry into Specific Learning Difficulties initially focused onliteracy skills and national testing in order to ensure access and equity, by 1979 the focus hadchanged to employment, in response to employer concerns about an increasingly competitiveglobal and technological market. When referring to languages, the National Policy onLanguages (1987) has a fairly equal focus on “skilled use of language”41 as a means forcultural, social and intellectual enrichment, as well as for employment, trade and internationalrelationships with other countries. However, despite mention of cultural and intellectualenrichment as a reason for language competence, reference to literacy is predominantly associ-ated with employment and vocational training. Literacy is equated with employment in termsof assessable levels or competences required for employment in a technologically changingworld.
In the 1990s increased usage of the term literacy was combined with increased focus on theimportance of literacy to the economic well-being of a country. Internationally the OECD waslinking economic success to literacy, which the then Commonwealth Education Minister (Senator
37 Green, Hodgens and Luke, “Debating literacy in Australia,” 19–20.38 Joseph Lo Bianco, National Policy on Languages (Canberra: Commonwealth Department of
Education, 1987), 81.39 Australian Education Council, The Hobart Declaration on School (Canberra, 1989), 2.40 Department of Employment, Education, Literacy for All, 11.41 Lo Bianco, National Policy on Languages, 44.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Paedagogica Historica 131
Dawkins) absorbed via his interest in trade policy.42 Literacy for “further education and training,life in the community and the world of work”43 rather than for any cultural or intellectual enrich-ment becomes a dominant metaphor within the 1991 Australia’s Language, The AustralianLanguage and Literacy Policy. “Life in the community” might be seen as referring to cultural andintellectual life; however, this phrase is generally linked within the policy with employment orvocation. In the introduction to the policy more space is also given to discussion of literacy andemployment than to any other aspect of literacy. Children’s literacy has also become tightly tiedto employment both in the introduction and in the section “Children’s Literacy”. “Effective liter-acy is a key to children’s personal and vocational development… preparing them for the worldof work”.44
Literacy as employment remains the dominant metaphor in the National Literacy Plan 1997which then became part of the 1998 Commonwealth literacy policy, Literacy for All: the Chal-lenge for Australian Schools, Commonwealth Literacy Policies for Australian Schools. Fullparticipation in the Australia community is linked to “strong literacy skills … essential forproductive engagement in schooling, in post secondary education and in the workforce”45 andpreparation for work is identified as a key principle46 underpinning the Commonwealth literacypolicies. Whilst there is mention of the value of literacy for “personal social and culturaldevelopment” at the beginning of the document, thereafter literacy is linked with school andemployment, to the point where the conclusion begins and ends with statements about literacyskills for employment.47 If literacy skills are required for “productive engagement … in the work-force”48 then literacy is employment. The assumption within the policy is that without “strongliteracy skills” there will be no employment. Within this statement there is little or no space forperceptions of literacy as a continuum of practices or of different types of literacy.
Literacy remains tied to employment in terms of “the nation’s social and economic prosper-ity” in the most recent Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy in 2005.49 The importance ofliteracy is referred to in economic terms “requiring responses from an increasingly skilled work-force” whilst “literacy competence is foundational… for occupational success… and economicactivity”.50
Literacy as levels or competences
Literacy as levels, or levels of literacy, first appears in the reports preceding the National Policyon Languages (1987) in terms of literacy assessment. Levels invoke both images of measurementand uniformity. Levels are measurement of units, as opposed to a continuum, and imply smooth-ness and evenness. Concerns about national assessment of literacy were evident in the NationalPolicy on Languages (1987), and Australia’s Language (1991), yet did not dominate the policies.In contrast the discourse surrounding Literacy for All (1998) was focused on literacy levels,particular the alleged low literacy level of Australian students.
42 Lo Bianco, “From policy to anti-policy,” 16–17.43 Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s Language, 5.44 Ibid., 5.45 Department of Employment, Education, Literacy for All, 9.46 Ibid., 2–3.47 Ibid., 3–4.48 Ibid., 19–20.49 Department of Employment Science and Training, Teaching Reading: Literature Review (Canberra,
2005), 4.50 Ibid., 25.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
132 D. Edwards and A. Potts
The new policy direction tied literacy to accountability through “improved assessment” ofliteracy levels.51 Every section of Literacy for All 1998 regularly refers to assessment or measure-ment of literacy. Assessment is the first element and central to each of the elements of theNational Literacy and Numeracy Plan embedded within the policy and is central to each of thesix elements in the plan. Literacy assessment remains a constant metaphor in the TeachingReading – Report of the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (2005), in order to inter-vene in and remedy literacy failure. However, rather than assessing literacy levels the assessmentis “of children” and “of learning”.52 By omitting the word literacy in these sentences and referringto assessment of the child and of learning, the child’s complete identity and learning becomesassociated with one aspect of education, that of literacy assessment.
Literacy as morbidity
Within Teaching Reading – Report of the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (2005)there is the emergence of another metaphor not found in the previous documents. Throughout thereport literacy remains tied to employment in terms of the nation’s economy, as in previous docu-ments. However, in this report references to the national economy are linked with metaphors ofhealth and well-being. Thus whilst literacy achievement is referred to primarily in economicterms, literacy underachievement is also linked to “poor behavioural health and wellbeing”.53
Thus literacy has become “a major health issue”54 with “failure to acquire functional literacyskills… the ‘new morbidity’ in education and child/adolescent health”.55
The medical metaphor is not uncommon in literacy discourse; however, this metaphor isnot clearly evident in previous Commonwealth documents. Use of medical metaphors fore-grounds the “scientific precision” of medical diagnosis and treatment. Such medical metaphorsprovide a sense of safety, whereby clear outcomes, accountability of teachers and well-keptrecords will eradicate the problem of literacy difficulty/illiteracy. Reference to literacy diffi-culty/illiteracy as the new morbidity promotes a sense of urgency for treatment as the diseasemay infect others.56
The medical metaphor also tends to foreground the concept of provision of a common diag-nosis and treatment for the disease. Thus all individuals who have the same diagnosis may betreated in the same way.57 This serves to hide the complex factors involved in literacy difficultyand the need for multi-dimensional diagnosis that takes into account how different factors mayinterconnect to compound literacy difficulties.
From literacy as reading and writing to literacy as reading
Whilst literacy is referred to in each of the Commonwealth documents, it is not until 1991 inAustralia’s Language: the Australian Language and Literacy Policy that there is any indicationof what exactly the term literacy is referring to. Even in this policy there is no clear definition ofliteracy, though there is of effective literacy, despite development and maintenance of Englishliteracy being the first goal of the policy. In the elaboration of this goal the word literacy isexchanged with the phrase “a level of spoken and written English which is appropriate for a range
51 Department of Employment, Education, Literacy for All, 2. Ibid., 2–3.52 Ibid., 45–6.53 Ibid., 13.54 Ibid., 7.55 Department of Employment Science and Training. Teaching Reading, 8.56 Ilsley and Stahl. “Reconceptualizing the language of adult literacy,” 23–4.57 Loc. cit.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Paedagogica Historica 133
of contexts”,58 thus indicating that the official construct of literacy within the policy is for literacyto encompass speaking, as well as reading and writing. “Appropriate to a range of contexts”59
also indicates that literacy may have an aspect of fluidity, changing according to the context. Thisconstruction of literacy is supported by statements defining effective literacy as “intrinsicallypurposeful, flexible and dynamic and involves the integration of speaking, listening and criticalthinking with reading and writing”.60 This is a broader definition of literacy than the traditionalview of literacy as reading and writing, thus reflecting the conceptualisations of literacy occurringin language and literacy research and filtering into discourses about literacy education inAustralia. The discussion paper prior to the 1991 policy Australia’s Language: the AustralianLanguage and Literacy Policy also provided a definition of literacy supporting this interpretationof the policy. The companion document to the policy also includes a section examining thecontemporary definitions of literacy, thus further broadening the conceptualisation of literacyinherent in the policy document.
Effective English literacy is the key theme throughout the 1991 policy, as distinct fromliteracy or “basic literacy”. Basic literacy is linked with the “literacy standards of the past”61
whilst effective literacy is linked to changing literacy requirements of the present and future.Brock62 notes that the intent of using this phrase was to move beyond a basic skill view offunctional literacy.
Initially, in the following 1998 policy Literacy for All, there is reference to the broad defini-tion of effective literacy used in Australia’s Language, the Australian Language and LiteracyPolicy (1991).63 Yet by the last paragraph of section l, reading and writing are being referred toas literacy. The national numeracy and literacy goal, which was the objective of these policies,was “that every child leaving primary school should be numerate, and be able to read, write andspell at an appropriate level”.64 Here being literate is equated with ability to read, write and spell.Ability to read, write and spell becomes the dominant definition of literacy throughout the policy,even though in the section on development of literacy benchmarks this definition is broadened toinclude “all aspects of literacy – reading and viewing, speaking and listening, and writing”.65 Thebroader definition of literacy reappears in section 5, where the different aspects of literacy areoutlined. In this section reference is made to Australian research where literacy is considered asan evolving rather than “static or discrete concept; it is a social practice”,66 although the remain-der of section 5 then continues to focus specifically on literacy skill. The concluding sentence ofLiteracy for All (1998) is a reminder that the literacy objective of the National Literacy andNumeracy Plan is for all children to be “able to read, write and spell”.67
Literacy for All (1998) thus presents two definitions of literacy. There is a broad view of liter-acy reflecting the view of literacy held by many researchers and educators. There is also anarrower view of literacy as reading, writing and spelling, bounded by a focus on the early yearsof school, assessment and accountability.
The recent Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy in 2005, whilst purported to be an inquiryinto the teaching of literacy, had a focus firmly fixed on “reading research, teacher training and
58 Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s Language, 4.59 Ibid., 4.60 Ibid., 5.61 Loc. cit.62 Brock, “Australia’s language,” 61–2.63 Department of Employment, Education, Literacy for All, 3–4.64 Ibid., 4.65 Ibid., 11.66 Ibid., 17.67 Ibid., 9.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
134 D. Edwards and A. Potts
classroom practices for the teaching of reading. There will also be an examination of the wayreading skills are tested”.68 There is an expansion of literacy into “reading, writing, speaking andlistening, and viewing”69 when the importance of literacy to schooling is discussed and also inthe glossary of terms. In the glossary both narrow and broad definitions of literacy are provided,thus reflecting the diversity of views presented in the submissions to the inquiry, plus a definitionof reading literacy, as distinct from literacy. Whilst the objectives of the inquiry focus on literacy,the aims of the inquiry focus on reading.70 The subsequent Teaching Reading – Report of theNational Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (2005) uses the terms literacy and reading inter-changeably. Literacy has become reading.
Conclusion
The formulation of a Commonwealth literacy policy is a relatively recent phenomenon within theAustralian context and may be seen as part of a gradual move by the Commonwealth Governmentto provide direction to the state and territory governments with regard to literacy education.Movement towards a national literacy policy may be traced initially to recommendations from the1975 Report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficultiesfor a national assessment of literacy and a national direction for literacy education. By 1984concerns with access to language learning and language diversity within Australia, as well asconcern with literacy achievement, led to the formulation of what may be considered the firstCommonwealth literacy policy, the National Policy on Languages in 1987. Examination of thisand subsequent policies indicates a narrowing in the focus of the policies over time. The NationalPolicy on Languages (1987) advocated a pluralist ideology of valuing language diversity, whilstpromoting English as the common language of Australia. Each subsequent policy reduced theemphasis on language diversity and increased the emphasis on English literacy. This may be seenin the policy titles where Languages in 1987 becomes Language and Literacy in 1991, thenLiteracy in 1998, as well as in the contents of each policy.
Examination of the metaphors associated with literacy within the Commonwealth documentsprovides a means of analysing the official constructs of literacy in each of the reports and policiesas well as any change over time. The consistent metaphors in each of the documents are those ofliteracy as skills and employment, indicating an increasing focus on the utilitarian and economicaspects of literacy rather than the cultural, moral or intellectual. Literacy is perceived as being ofvalue primarily in terms of how it will contribute to trade and the economic well-being of thenation. Lack of literacy is increasingly framed within poor teaching and lack of remediation,rather than an examination of access, systems or socioeconomic analysis. Whilst literacy isframed as leading to employment and economic resources and well-being there is little referenceto or discussion about how unequal economic resources contribute to uneven literacy achieve-ment across Australia. Instead the focus is on how “educational ‘fences’ can be built”.71
Literacy as levels or competences is also a consistent theme, though varying in emphasis.Whilst concern about literacy achievement and assessment was part of the initial impetus in theformulation of the National Policy on Languages (1987) it was not the dominant concern of thepolicy. With each subsequent policy the focus on assessment of levels or competences becamemore of a priority. In the most recent Teaching Reading – Report of the National Inquiry into theTeaching of Literacy (2005), literacy as morbidity appears. Prior to this, literacy had not been
68 Nelson, National Inquiry into Literacy Teaching (2004).69 Department of Employment Science and Training, Teaching Reading, 4.70 Ibid., 41–2.71 Ibid., 9.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Paedagogica Historica 135
identified in Australian Commonwealth documents as a health issue despite this being a commonmetaphor within international discourses of literacy.
The construct of literacy within the key Commonwealth documents over the last 30 years hasbroadened and then narrowed despite the increasingly varied literacy practices required in dailylife. The traditional view of literacy as reading and writing was widened to encompass newconceptualisations of literacy as multiple practices in Australia’s Language, the AustralianLanguage and Literacy Policy (1991). The subsequent policy Literacy for All (1998) indicates areturn to a more conservative view of literacy as reading, writing and spelling, whilst recognisingthat contemporary and future literacy practices may require a wider construct of literacy. Incontrast, in the most recent Teaching Reading – Report of the National Inquiry into the Teachingof Literacy (2005), literacy has been reduced to reading. The recommendations from this inquiryare the strongest yet in terms of providing a national framework and direction as to what consti-tutes literacy education and how it is to be provided. Whether the State and Territory EducationMinisters agree to this direction, and what this will mean for education, remains to be seen.
Notes on contributors
Debra Edwards is lecturer in Literacy at La Trobe University (Australia). Her previous research has beenwith student comprehension of factual text, while her current research focuses on the Australian Common-wealth Literacy Policy and students who are experiencing difficulty with literacy. She is a co-author ofSuccess with Reading and Writing (Eleanor Curtain; Melbourne), intervention for Middle Years studentsexperiencing difficulty with literacy. Address: School of Education, La Trobe University, PO Box 199,Bendigo, 3550, Australia.
Anthony Potts is Professor of Policy Studies in Education at Liverpool Hope University, UK. Prior to thathe was at the School of Education, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia. His recent research is in thearea of student and academic life. He is the author of Civic Leaders and the University: State and MunicipalPoliticians’ Perspectives on Higher Education in Australia (Bern). Address: School of Education, La TrobeUniversity, PO Box 199, Bendigo, 3550, Australia.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tuf
ts U
nive
rsity
] at
12:
23 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
