Larson, Joanne (2002). Literacy As Snake Oil : Beyond the Quick Fix (New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies, Vol. 1) . Reviewed by Christopher Johnstone, University of Minnesota

Larson, Joanne (2002). Literacy As Snake Oil : Beyond the Quick Fix (New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies, Vol. 1) . New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Pp. xii +148 $29.95   ISBN 0820450219 Reviewed by Christopher Johnstone University of Minnesota August 21, 2005 Literacy as Snake Oil: Beyond the Quick Fix is an edited book of eight chapters that has the overt intention of challenging manufactured literacy programs. The book draws from an eclectic group of authors who are teachers, researchers, professors, and economists. Eclecticism is found in information of each chapter (each written by a different author). Chapters range from highly personal accounts of life in an elementary school classroom to meta-analyses of reading research. The book is short in length (only 148 pages) but contains great variety in its eight chapters. Chapter 1 Chapter 1 set up the book, describing its purpose and the general contents of each of its chapters. In its very first sentence, Editor and chapter author Joanne Larson said that “[t]he purpose of this book is to critically examine the recent trend toward quick-fix literacy programs in which commodified literacy is peddled by entrepreneurs seeking to solve what they are calling the literacy crisis. This strong lead-in sentence placed the book’s focus in plain sight. In this sentence, Larson let readers know that Literacy as Snake Oil was not going to be a book that considers that potential strengths and shortcomings of published reading programs. Rather, Snake Oil is a perspectival collection of essays aimed at taking on the industry of literacy. This decidedly one-sided approach appeared to abandon all attempts at detached scholarship. The editor’s theme (and the theme of critical research in general), however, note that the crisis of marketed reading materials is certainly not one-sided, and that a critical approach is both timely and necessary. Chapter 2 James Paul Gee was the first author to take an in-depth look at why the current boom in commodified reading programs might exist. According to Gee, the plethora of programs emerging today may be related to the “reading crisis” described in the National Research Council’s (NRC) Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). According to Gee, however, the crisis described in the report may not be a crisis at all. The author cites research and quotes from the NRC’s report itself about the “fourth grade slump.” This “slump” is the decrease in test scores for fourth grade students. Although the NRC theorized that the “slump” may exist because of a lack of phonemic skills in students who pass through the educational system, Gee countered that fourth grade reading is far more complex than early reading and that phonemic awareness alone does not help readers from fourth grade on up. In fact, Gee posited that students’ inability to read content was the crisis, if any. His reluctance to declare a crisis was also based on data that fourth grade reading scores have remained relatively unchanged in the U.S. for the past 20 years. Gee also critiqued the NRC report for failing to recognize other factors that contribute to reading success or failure. For example, the NRC report mentioned class and ethnicity when referring to under-performing readers. According to Gee, however, the report did not give full credence to the factors of schooling for students of low socioeconomic status. Furthermore, Gee noted that the NRC report underplayed the importance of technology in literacy of the 21st Century and of early language abilities (these, according to research cited by Gee, are as strong of a predictor of future reading success as phonemic awareness). The point-counterpoint approach worked well for Gee, as he cited specific research that countered or highlighted inconsistencies in the NRC report. Had the chapter ended on page 17, it would have read as a critical research piece that warranted attention. On page 18, however, Gee attempted to demonstrate how reading is a far more complex activity than that cited in the NRC report. Unfortunately, Gee’s descriptions did not cite research and tended to meander as he described the development of literacy across media, communication, and books. What was an otherwise strong chapter was lost in the final few pages which could have been a separate chapter altogether. Chapter 3 In Chapter 3, Gerald Coles left off where Gee began, but this time critiquing the National reading Panel (supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) for its report that also focused heavily on phonemic awareness training as the preferred instructional approach to teaching reading. Coles began the chapter by describing a who’s who of the National Reading Panel. Coles argued that the findings of the NRP (found in the 2000 report Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction) were predictable, because the panel selected either reflected the views of NICHHD (an organization that promotes a phonics-based brand of literacy) or had little educational experience at all. Coles then analyzed some of the studies used by the NRP. Coles demonstrated that some of the findings used to reach conclusions were suspect or misused (e.g., original authors presented findings with cautions or the NRP confused correlation with causation). Coles’ approach seemed appropriate – to carefully examine the research that is being used to make policy decisions. In his chapter, he pointed out that the meta-analysis approach used by the NRP had inherent problems because research findings were synthesized, not critically examined. Coles’ chapter read like a minority report to the NRP – he used specific examples to point out the shortcomings of the NRP approach and suggested that the phonics-based approach recommended by the NRP may not be the only answer. Overall, this chapter was well written and provided important in-depth information on a few of the studies used to construct the NRP report. Chapter 4 Chapter 4 described results from a qualitative study aimed at understanding how teachers believed literacy developed and how teachers used pre-packaged literacy materials. The chapter began with by situating the authors’ belief that reading is a cultural and deeply contextual process. Patricia Irvine and Joanne Larson found that teachers believed that their students’ literacy abilities were hinged on their exposure to language at an early age. Teachers in the inner city studied were outspoken about students’ inability to communicate using standard English which, according to them, led to deficits in reading. When presented with a pre-packaged reading program, teachers did not question the content or implied messages about the reading process, rather they concentrated on the volume of information found in the program. According to the teachers, there was too much material, so most teachers selected the activities they thought would be most beneficial to students (according to field notes, these activities were mostly those aimed at correctly phonological deficits in students – mostly worksheets). It was not surprising that teachers picked and chose from all the activities presented, rather than followed the reading program exactly based on the somewhat individual nature of the teaching profession. What was most troubling about this chapter was the observations that demonstrated that teachers both systematically devalued students diverse language experiences (failing to connect them to the standard English found in most literature) and that students were never seen reading whole books. Overall, this chapter was an excellent description of the realities of reading program adoption. Chapter 5 In Chapter 5, Lynn Asteria Gatto described, in detail, her personal teaching credentials and a teaching unit that she has taught. Gatto’s teaching is an excellent example of ways to engage students in a variety of literary practices. Her thematic approach exposed students to a variety of standards and was interdisciplinary in nature. Gatto’s teaching is a first-rate case example of constructivist literary approaches and a teacher who considers herself a skilled professional, not simply a technician who presents scripted material. My question, when reading this chapter, was how to replicate Gatto’s results. As a former teacher, I met a few teachers who had the zeal, intuitive classroom presence, and ability to incorporate a variety of literature standards into lessons and units. Most teachers do not have the knowledge, confidence, skill, or willingness to teach literacy holistically. How then, might teachers learn to teach reading the way that Gatto did? Gatto’s credentials indicate that she is the exception, not the rule. While Gatto’s example is important to have in published accounts such as this book, the chapter provides no recommendations to how her style might be taught to other teachers or how a holistic approach to literacy teaching could be researched to provide an alternative research base that NRC and NRP-like bodies could use. Chapter 6 In Chapter 6, Patrick Shannon demonstrates the marketing of morals by critiquing the actions of William Bennett, who first served as Director of the National Endowment for the Arts for the Reagan administration, then served under the first Bush (Sr.) administration. Shannon reviews modern history through the lens of the dubious virtues that appear to meet general acceptance in society (the long-standing agreement between the automobile and petroleum industry regarding leaded gasoline, the alleged secret agreements between the Catholic church and Third Reich, and modern pop-culture phenomenon like the television show “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire,” etc. Shannon then launched his attack on Bennett, demonstrating the former Director’s codification of moral virtues and profiteering of those virtues through (government-supported) television shows, books, and audio materials. Shannon rightly admits that moral posturing is everywhere, even in his work as an academic. His critiques of Bennett’s incorporation of virtues, however, are germane to many of the critiques of currently heard about public figures in 2005. Shannon argues that true democracy depends on reflexive agency, which “invites citizens to evaluate the world in terms of their intentions and values, and at the same time to evaluate those intentions and … reflect on those values.” Overall, Chapter 6 did not mesh as well as it could have with the other chapters, but was an interesting critique of the marketization of morals. Chapter 7 Kris Gutierrez’ “Smoke and Mirrors: Language Policy and Educational Reform” was a chapter dedicated to challenging California’s “English only” policy (Proposition 227). Although Gutierrez rightly discussed the social justice-related ramifications of the policy, the strength in this chapter was the use of field notes from qualitative research in schools. Teachers, students, and principals demonstrated, in their daily actions, some of the intended and unintended consequences of Proposition 227. From the relegation of supporting literature to store rooms to teachers fearing lawsuits and other legal sanction for using Spanish in classes to a system of education where classroom paraprofessionals teach Spanish-speaking students and qualified teachers instruct English-speaking students, Gutierrez demonstrates how policies may have a deleterious effect on “robust learning communities.” This chapter was short (barely reaching ten pages of text), and 6 out of the 11 references were from the author herself, but this chapter provided excellent insights into the failure of policy to create conditions for improvement in California’s schools. It is an interesting read for all concerned with language policy and education. Chapter 8 Brian O. Brent’s “Look, The Emperor has no Clothes: An Educator’s Guide to Choosing Cost Effective Literacy Programs” was a simple introduction for educators about how to choose a literacy program that is most cost effective. Brent clarifies early in the chapter that cost effectiveness does not necessarily mean choosing the cheapest program or the program with the most potential (at any cost). Rather, the author lists a series of steps that school leaders should consider in order to invest in a program that will provide the best outcomes at the least cost. This chapter was short, and it was clear that Brent did not want to engage readers too heavily in cost effectiveness economic principles. It was a good introduction, however, and would be useful tool to both school leaders and educational administration faculty. There was a small editing error, that if corrected, would have been informative (Brent used the place holders “X and Y” on page 133 where he apparently meant to later insert real reading programs, but never did). Overall, however, the chapter was a concise, easy to read, and very practical read for approaching the selection of a reading program. Conclusion This book does a fine job of meeting its stated objective: to challenge comodified reading programs. Throughout the chapters, authors pointed out the weaknesses of viewing literacy as a technical activity, and programs that support the improvement of technical approaches to literacy. This book is an excellent primer for those who wish to engage in discussions about the meaning and process of literacy, and is particularly timely given the recent trends in U.S. reading policy. Despite the relevant research that is cited in chapters two through six, however, this book’s weakness is that it does not succinctly provide enough information for policy makers regarding literacy development. Authors of this book criticized reading reports by groups like the National Reading Council and the National Reading Panel but did little (except in chapters 2 and 3) to provide alternative, scientific research to counter the claims like those made by the NRC and NRP. Because of this weakness, the book often seems like it is “preaching to the converted” masses of people who already believe that literacy is a holistic, culturally-bound activity. Despite its shortcomings, this book is a recommended read for all who are interested in reading and literacy. Even though some arguments could have been better crafted, this book still keeps the reader engaged from beginning to end. References Burns, M. Susan, Catherine E. Snow, and Peg Griffin (Editors) (1998). Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council: Washington DC. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. National Institutes of Health: Bethesda, Maryland. Available at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm About the Reviewer Christopher Johnstone, PhD University of Minnesota Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.