Debates and Issues in Developing Literacy

Debates and Issues in Developing Literacy

The Great Debate of the 1960’s stemmed from public and political concern that literacy standards were falling.  It outlines methods of teaching reading as being the cause of this decline.  It is linked with current concern regarding literacy standards.  Turner, 1990, argues that falling standards are linked to the use of the real book approach in teaching, which is linked to the earlier Great Debate. (Soler, 2002)

The Rose Report, 2006, p.3, reviewed attempts to raise standards.  It found that despite phonics teaching being made a statutory requirement, little progress had been made between the 1980’s and 1998.

Much public and political debate started in the 1990’s regarding the declining standards in the delivery of literacy education.  The election of the Labour government, 1997, led to the introduction of the Literacy Task Force (LTF), in an attempt to raise standards and to ensure that all children left primary school with a reading age of eleven years. (Rafferty, 1996a).

What classifies as functional literacy may depend on what is viewed as literacy.  Some would define functional literacy as the acquisition of basic literacy skills, i.e. reading and writing.  Others may define it as having literacy skills that correspond with chronological age.  Rassool, 1999, argues that the notion of functional literacy has evolved to focus on the external requirements of producing a literate and productive workforce.   Rassool also identifies the problem of functional illiteracy being embodied within the individual.  Therefore, it could be argued that if the problem lies within the individual, then overcoming the problem should be focused upon the individuals needs and a programme should be devised accordingly.

Much debate has taken place about whether the teaching of reading should be taught as a whole class activity or should be taught to individuals focusing on their individual abilities.  In the 1990’s, the adoption of ability setting and whole-class teaching, affected policies relating to literacy.  The LTF recommended the whole-class teaching of reading with some provision for the individual needs of those students who experience difficulties in literacy.  The LTF appear to be ambiguous in relation to which approach to take, offering both support and rejection for using methods such as Reading Recovery.  In terms of children with special education needs, it suggests Reading Recovery as a model for meeting these needs. (LTF, 1997, paras 57-60).  Reading Recovery refers more to the teaching of literacy in primary schools.  The Framework for Teaching has also been criticised for its lack of acknowledgement of the individualised needs of those with special educational needs in literacy.  (Byers, 1999).