The "basics"

Wow! What are the "basics"? Sounds like the three R's need some modifiying. I found Siegel's article refreshing but also worrisome. Refreshing because she highlights some very innovative ideas (which I agree with)--"language arts education can no longer ignore the way that our social, cultural, and economic worlds now require facility with texts and practices involving the full range of representational modes." Worrisome because of who might NOT be listening! It is obvious that new literacies have made their ways into some classrooms but what about the TEKS? If the TEKS were to be altered to reflect the multimodalities of text, I can only imagine how some teachers would freak out: "What, I have to teach all that too? Now I really don't have time to fit everything in," etc... and of course there's the argument of, "How's that going to help my students pass the TAKS test?" When I say that some people might not be listening, I'm not talking about teachers, however, I am referring to policy makers and organizations like TEA that hold schools accountable. When I was reading this article, I kept thinking about those kids who are like Cliff--in the lowest reading group, struggle with school, some who have never passed any TAKS test--and I wonder how much these kids would benefit from a literacy which includes multiple sign systems. It is obvious that what we're doing with them (and have been doing and will continue doing with them) is not working! These are the kids who keep falling behind more and more. It's interesting to think about how these kids do situate themselves in literacy--whether through IMing, gang related literacy activity, My Space, etc.