Berry 1

Erica Berry
Dr. Dunbar-Odom
ENG 680
November 30, 2014
A Hole in Literacy: Writing as the Ugly Stepsister
What is Literacy?
Merriam- Webster's dictionary defines literacy very simply with two definitions: 1. the
ability to read and write, and 2. knowledge that relates to a specific subject. So, one can assume
that the base level of literacy in everyone's mind begins with the ability to read and write, but
where is the line with this literacy? Is it just a robotic and base level of knowledge, the sounding
out of words on a page and regurgitating them in a written form? As anyone knows who has had
any sort of formal education, the ability to read and write is much more complicated than that. As
a matter of fact, literacy itself makes it much more complicated.
What really makes literacy complicated is when we wonder, where is the finishing line?
What do we need as a goal for us to call ourselves literate? Is it our Lexile level? The amount of
big words someone can recognize on the page? How critically we can analyze the authors intent,
the subtext, or our ability to read beyond the literal? Consider the cursory public school
education and even beyond with post- secondary, our teachers, professors, educators, coaches,
parents, administrators- any sort of sponsor who pushes individuals to read on a more
advanced level than ever before. To many, not being well- read means you suffer from
ignorance and operate with a rudimentary level of literacy. With such a limiting foundation to
base our literacy on, programs and initiatives are being pushed to encourage reading at an early

Berry 2
level. The thought process is that if we can get them started young, then we can develop a habit,
a love, a desire, and a proficiency in literacy at a much higher level than before. This is where
such memorable programs like D.E.A.R and AR (accelerated reader) contests come into play.
Even community libraries sponsor summer programs designed to encourage and motivate
children to read more, to inspire a desire for reading inside each student. Even just having a
haven of books like libraries operating at the public expense demonstrates the emphasis our
society has placed on books and reading. Reading is extolled as the road in which all paths lay in
order to be successful in life. There is rarely a job out there that does not require some sort of
basic literacy, whether it is a high political office, a doctor, a construction worker, or a farmer;
being literate requires the ability to read in many aspects of daily life. And these are not things I
am disputing, rather I agree wholeheartedly, and would like to continue this idea, I celebrate the
importance placed on reading. However, there is a second part to that definition of literacy: the
ability to write.
Oftentimes, writing is put on a back burner, something that comes as a result of literacy
or as a way to assess or regulate literacy. Deborah Brandt, in her book Literacy in American
Lives, writes poignantly on the subject, emphasizing that, Writing almost always has played
second fiddle to reading in terms of time and resources spent on each (163). Specifically, Brandt
compares writing to reading in terms of status within the context of literacy, and without a doubt
declares reading the victor and writing as profane it does not garner the prestige awarded to
reading. (160) This is not something we should be proud of, and its not something we should
nonchalantly ignore. It is something that we need to rectify.
Improvement in literacy should not revolve only around reading and various ways we
read, rather should also heavily rely on writing fluency. Deborah Brandt speaks volumes about

Berry 3
literacy sponsors and their effect in education, including writing, although limited, as an integral
part of literacy growth in long term academics. As Brandt suggests, there are innumerable
amounts of negative writing sponsors, if there is any memory of them at all. Consequently,
writing-specific literacy requires critical deliberate action; affirmative writing sponsorship needs
to be increased in order to contribute positive aspects to literacy education, especially in the early
years of a persons life, in order to have lasting literacy growth.
Brandts Take
Consider Literacy in American Livess chapter 5, The Sacred and Profane, where
Deborah Brandt addresses sponsorship of actual reading and writing as a child. It is important to
know what Brandt means by sponsor. She clarifies sponsors as agents who support or
discourage literacy and learning development as ulterior motives in their own struggles with
economic or political gain (26). Within this chapter, the reader discovers through not only
Brandts assertions, but by her own bias within her writing. Sponsors influence literacy in so
many ways, but writing sponsorship is presented as mostly negative, and almost non-existent.
Brandt hits on several common ideas about reading, including the positive memories
people remember in their own literacy narrative, and how they impacted each persons own
literacy growth. Even in other authors examinations of literacy narratives, people describe
reading as a safe haven, as an escape. Story after story describes how reading was a savior to
many children, and how this affected them in the long run (Dunbar-Odom 50). Closely
examining this idea, and then questioning, not what was said, but what was left unsaid, is
important. Why is writing never exemplified or hailed as a saving grace? Is the opportunity not
there? The sponsors not making an effort? If we rely on Brandts definition of a sponsor, then we

Berry 4
must realize that a sponsor needs motivation, and if it was not present for the sponsor, then the
chain of writing negligence continues.
When addressing the writing aspect, Brandt indicates that if people even remembered
writing, their memories of it could be construed as damaging to that literacy growth. She makes
great points, despite the hole in her arguments, about our lack of encouraging writing memories,
and sponsorship, especially in schools where most of us recall the majority of our literacy
growth.
Starting with the idea that writing was more often recalled in the context of humiliation
and anxiety, her pessimistic portrayal of writing literacy presents a compelling argument for a
need for writing sponsorship to increase literary growth (154). In the instances she portrays, I can
see how she came to this conclusion. She definitely gives us plenty of evidence and examples of
how writing is seen as scenes of exile, hiding or at least degraded versions of domesticity
(155). From secret diaries to shameful note-passing, writing could get you in trouble- that is for
sure.
Brandt often describes reading in a positive light or as an escape from a situation or life
not wanted, yet she puts writing in the same light and it becomes a negative situation. She speaks
of a four year old writing in a bed alone and describes her as lonely- yet, if she was reading
alone, the situational connotation changes. When describing a situation with Barbara Hunt or
Jack May, their writing got them in trouble because it was misplaced, but they didnt write
because of their own displeasure they found in it, rather because of the power it gave them- could
this be considered in a positive light? Celebrations of penmanship during forgeries, pictures
taken of writing precociousness, all sound like positive sponsorship; in many overlooked ways,
writing gives power and attention. When someone is writing in a diary, do they feel like it is a

Berry 5
secret, and is to be hidden in a negative way, or do they feel exhilarated and in control because
they are able to create, empower themselves and influence what others will be reading? When
someone writes notes in class, if the negative, shameful aspect was so heavy, why do they
continue to write them? I feel like there is a joyous part of writing that is not being explored by
our schools and the deleterious feelings towards writing is so inherent, that even authors of
literacy assume these writing sponsors are negative.
After relying heavily on the negative aspects of writing in order to contrast it with the
love for reading that was so important throughout, it assists in her valid argument about writing
in literacy, but it is here where the reader realizes just how biased the whole system really is. I
am sure there are countless times where reading was seen as shameful- especially when it came
to the specific literature. Just like she chose specific writing in diaries and hidden notes to make
her point about writing, why did she not bring up the always controversial book bannings? Or the
books parents disapproved of, or even that they thought were a waste of time when other things
could be done or learned. I will definitely agree that more emphasis is placed on reading in our
schools, in our homes, and in our society, and that is something that needs rectifying; writing has
definitely not made its mark in the whole picture.
Despite our assumptions that this could all be placed on the school, it can clearly be
linked back to personal thinking and the home life of every student. In turn, this idea of writing is
passed on through families, school, professionals and academics. Brandt tells us that writing
seemed to have a less coherent status in family life and much earlier writing was remembered as
occurring in long secret or rebellious circumstances (154). If writing created such angry and
anxious feelings then why did they ever start writing and why did they continue? Here is where
Brandts interpretation of peoples writing experience seems to show us the truly inherent

Berry 6
thoughts towards writing, because even in reflection upon it, narrative memories are seen as
negative, and then she translates other peoples memories as lonely and anxious. Could this
interpretation be author-biased in itself?
Brandt emphasizes the positive sponsors found in reading easily through an array of
narrative accounts, and while not mentioning the negatives for reading, she brushes quickly over
any positives for writing and places any and all accounts of writing in a negative light. This
action alone demonstrates an already inherent bias towards reading, which is odd because she is
the one who proclaims the bias against writing as a problem. Seems like Brandts own argument
exemplifies the very root of the problem with the lack of writing sponsorship in schools-- bias
against writing passed down from generation to generation. Eventually, writing takes on the traits
associated with it, even in an analytical and reflective state on writing bias itself, the authors own
bias leads the charge, and becomes the supporting factor for an increase in writing sponsorship
throughout life, home, and school- early and later. In her own words, writing enjoys no such
broad sponsorship [as reading] (Brandt 167). This proves true not only through the narratives
she shares, but also in her own personal bias she uses to analyze and interpret these narratives.
Schools Extend the Problem
On the other hand, Brandt provides an amazing juxtaposition that brings schools in as a
major contributing factor to writing negligence. She brings up the idea that D.E.A.R. (Drop
Everything And Read) was made a big deal- a nationwide initiative- while at the same time, there
was no writing program of the same magnitude or anywhere near it. This can be seen in the
majority of programs across our public school system in a multitude of well-meaning reading
initiatives. By Brandts own definition, there has to be some type of pleasure or positive
sponsorship, even according to her own understanding of literacy sponsorship for it to continue

Berry 7
in a positive direction. She informs us that sponsorsembody the resources management
systems of literacy, particularly avenues to access and rewards. People continue on a path of
literacy, including writing, because there was some type of reward to it. This is where schools
often feel like they are doing their due justice to writing and literacy- but in reality, is where they
are sorely lacking. Analysis of sponsorship exposes the ways that individual acts of literacy
learning partake of social and economic conditions around them (27). Writing, including
writing for pleasure, contains a cause and effect relationship dependent on finding some type of
positive sponsorship for writing. And within the schools, the preference becomes very real when
we see the effect around us.
Many people do not even consider writing as a part of literacy; it gets swept under the rug
like the ugly stepsister at the end of the story- talked about, then ignored and forgotten because it
was deemed unworthy of our attention in the shadows of its beautiful competitor. At least, in our
education system, and even in our society, we place a much larger emphasis on reading as the
end all-be all in our literary education. Why do we not encourage and motivate our young
children to write? Currently, we have schools who will encourage teachers to enact WAC
(writing across the curriculum), whose principals throw a half-hearted, paperwork filled, empty
threated attempt at emphasizing writing, but is that enough? Often, the professional development
for teachers regarding writing involves specific genres or goals in writing, most often teaching to
some type of test or have a purpose in mind.
Doing a simple Google search for writing programs or writing initiatives will give the
typical teacher tips for effective writing strategies, or professional development helping teachers
teach how to write specific type of writing, e.g. Arguments, how-tos, or analytical essays.
However, we are hard pressed to find programs designed to inspire writing in general, or to

Berry 8
encourage free writing on a personal level, and especially not school wide, district wide or state
wide. Why is that? It is considered a pretty common thought process to push children to read on
their own, to pick up books of interest, and all be attributed to helping improve their literacy
levels. Especially when in regards to Brandts idea that there are literacy sponsors in a persons
life, and that through sponsorship, whether good or bad, literacy is inspired and developed in a
human.
The National Commission on Writing reports that, Despite its importance to learning,
formal attention to writing leaves a lot to be desired, in both school and college (14). This tells
us a lot, this is not just a quick fix, this is something that has been deep and studied. School
sponsorship often leans towards the social and economic push revolving around the politics of it,
for their utilization of writing. High stakes testing, state standards and proof of learning are all
just checks on their list of goals for public institutions. As Robert Yegelski points out, We do not
need to define the value of such writing in terms of the Common Core State learning standards or
the development of writing skills that will be assessed on standardized tests (201). As it is, most
of what our public institutions are doing is writing to the test, focusing on what core standards
are and leaving students out of the loop.
Writing does not stand on its own as a necessary and enjoyable part of life like reading
does. The escape described by Brandt, Dunbar-Odom and many others when speaking of
reading, only serves to portray how left out writing truly is. Writing utility, and not enjoy-ability
emphasis, speaks for itself in the apparent writing gap.
When questioned about their memories of writing in school, even current positive adult
sponsors of writing often expressed displeasure and reprimand when it concerned writing.
(Brandt 166). If our authors and writers of today, had such a negative writing narrative, how do

Berry 9
we expect those who are not so inclined to grow in their writing literacy? Reading treated as a
resource, [and]writingas a responsibility fraught with consequences (166). Writing often
takes on the life and form of assessment, filled with rules, regulations and strict translation of
what others before us have written. When compared, there is no doubt which resource is
preferred.
Writing in school was more associated with emotional conflict, surveillance, and
punishment (Brandt 166). Public school education often used writing as a tool to punish or
manipulate students behaviorally, academically and psychologically. Writing can be used to
direct behavior modification, often assigned because it makes students be quiet while enforcing
they are actively doing something. The enactment of multiple choice questions being preferred
tells us that writing is seen as a chore, to both teachers and students. Bad experiences with
handwriting or negative feedback concerning writing turned students away from school and
writing in particular (Brandt 165). The teacher who did not make you write, gave students a
helping hand in their education (or so it seems). The negative connotations are implied when
writing is not enthusiastically embraced, modeled and encouraged by teachers, and by the time
students get to upper levels of education, the destructive thought process regarding writing is
ingrained.
Louise Rosenblatt, in her book Literature as Exploration, suggests that academic
practices complicate the act and interfere by enforcing habitual attitudes and academic
practices and not allowing the writer/reader to make a connection with his or her prior
experiences to the new ones being learned. Rosenblatt also reiterates, although she focuses on the
influence of literature, not writing itself, that far from helping the student in this direction
(becoming literate), much literature teaching has the effect of turning him away from it (52).

Berry 10
Although Rosenblatt speaks on using literature to teach, her words and ideas translate these same
ideas in teaching to writing. Schools often use literature, rules, strategies and methods of reading
and writing in order to increase literacy, but what it is really doing is limiting the personal
experience, and making literacy something only considered as part of the academic world. When
the disconnection between the personal and the academic world widens, reading and writing
becomes a job, a chore, and something that people dread doing (Rosenblatt 59). Although
Rosenblatt focuses her words on literature, and the dread that accompanies it, her thoughts ring
very true in the world of writing for our students. She talks about, enjoy[ing] literature
tends to be overshadowed by preoccupation with whatever can be systematically taught and
tested (62). Like literature, when writing is natural and not forced, students are given a voice, a
platform to express oneself, but limiting it and curtailing the writing to conform to standards and
specific expectations often stifles that voice, creating a disconnect and oppressing growth in
literacy.
Rosenblatt uses the example of a student who read Great Expectations with glee, and
then was inhibited when it came to writing. The student was not allowed to explore her
experience, rather, she had to write a very specific book report, underscoring the greater depth to
which she read the book. When given a prescribed set of writing procedures, without allowing
room for critical writing, students do not associate writing with their experience, their abilities,
or their voice. Their contribution becomes stagnant, unimaginative and undesired- essentially,
suppressing writing will lead to generations of students unprepared to think autonomously.
Schools often focus on linking and basing any writing on reading materials or duplicating other
greater writing. This emphasis removes much of the engagement, pleasure and critical thought
that writing can naturally invoke. Essentially, it takes away its inherent power from the writer.

Berry 11
Robert Yegelski agrees with this idea in his article, Writing as Praxis, where he cannot
underscore how little meaning school-sponsored writing has had for these students (195). He
emphasizes over and over that the transformative power of writing lies in its capacity to shape
our sense of ourselves as being in the world, to foster a deeper awareness of ourselves (193).
To him, writing is a manifestation of deeper critical thinking and he do not allow them to
experience it themselves if we are regulating everything they read and write. He reiterates that if
we ask students to write meaningless texts, and writing will be meaningless for them (195).
The problem becomes apparent- we must not only equate writing to standardized works, we must
inspire the love for it, and allow students to express themselves through it to get the true writing
abilities to shine through. Yegelski admits the problems facing teachers when they realize this:
It can be difficult for teachers to reconcile this sense of the purpose of writing as praxis with the
daunting pressures to teach students the technical writing skills they need to perform well on
increasingly ubiquitous high-stakes standardized tests and to help them develop the rhetorical
skills needed to negotiate the variety of writing tasks they are likely to encounter in school and
beyond (199). It will be hard based on all the requirements, but that is where it starts. Teachers
must be the change, and must take the charge.
Take, for example, the standard essays taught in schools. Essays are written not to express
a writers thought, to communicate original critical thinking skills, rather they are a means to
measure a students base knowledge of grammar, mechanics or evidence-producing skills. If it
was not required, writing would be a thing of the past in schools. There is not time for written
reflections, so how and when are students reflecting, or critically thinking at all? The National
Commission of on Writing wrote in The Neglected R, The NAEP data indicates that when
asked to think on paper, most students produce rudimentary and fairly run of the mill prose

Berry 12
(17). Writing becomes who can regurgitate the best, and is an assessment of banking at its
finest. With the popularity of multiple choice questions and participation grades, we are
executing a swift and merciless death on writing literacy. Easiness, everyone-deserves-a-trophy
mentality and a need for vast knowledge in every subject has pushed an ability to rationalize to
a back burner along with its partner, writing. Yegelski directs our attentions to Paulo Friere
himself, telling us, In Freires formulation, language and literacy are integral to-indeed,
essential tothat process of action and reflection (190). Thinking and writing go hand in hand
because they employ action, reaction and motivation; whereas, reading can become a passive
moment of learning (or maybe not learning).
Similarly, Donna Dunbar-Odom, in her book Defying the Odds, bemoans the way writing
is presented in schools today, filled with rules and procedures and only a means to an end. She
states, If we think of each of these ritual performances as a hurdle to jump before we are
allowed to move to real writing, I am amazed that any of us ever choose to commit another
word to a page (105). She goes on to give us an example of writing contests turning writing into
a chore in an attempt to win prestige, describing the standards and tricks used to win the
competition, but still finds the most impressive performances from students who were not given
these advantages, rather who were successful writer based on their intense desire to write
(106). Again we see the idea that when writing is regulated, standardized and graded, it becomes
inhibited and stifled. Growth and desire for writing itself sustains truly valuable writing. Robert
Yegelski writes, I hear constant complaints that students are reluctant to writebut who
wouldnt be reluctant to write the tedious, meaningless drivel that we so often ask students to
produce in school? (195).

Berry 13
Although we know Brandts key definition, she provides many different outlooks to the
idea of literacy sponsors, and one elaboration she uses later that really applies to the downfall of
the writing aspect of literacy, is that sponsors deliver the material and ideological possibilities
of literacy learning, often as a by-product of the struggles for economic or political ascendance in
which they are involved (70). It is this sponsorship in schools, motivated by outside influences
that so long ago began a trajectory away from writing literacy. To create any change, the
rationale must be provided by our economy and our political enthusiasm.
Brandt asserts that all these bad feelings and negative sponsors regarding writing in the
early stages of life are relate to writing and literacy in general. If early urges to write were
frequently associated with ambiguous and complex motives and feelings adult relationships to
youngsters early writing efforts could also be ambiguous and unpredictable (155). Following
this premise, if positive writing sponsors were introduced and normalized in early childhood,
then it could create a positive writing experience, ultimately translating to a greater literacy in an
individual in the long run. She refers to memories of writing as vague, yet writing still perseveres
in its small, clandestine way. What wonderful writing would result if writing was purposeful and
enjoyable?
How does literacy rely on writing skills?
Throughout many of the texts about literacy we see that reading is seen as magical and
revealing, Dunbar-Odoms book is full of examples like this as well as many others, to the point
we do not question why reading became so integral to literacy and to just living our lives. Where
are the writing narratives? Is it because there arent any or because many do not view writing as
important? Either way, this needs to change. The benefits are inherent especially in our economic

Berry 14
survival skills. We see the discourse on reading and how important literacy is in general, but
from what I noticed, the definition included an equal amount of both reading and writing.
Being able to write employs critical thinking, using ones own thoughts and logic as an
authority; this allows students to become confident in their writing and their thinking skills, but
Dunbar-Odom uses Brodkey ideas to point out this problem, schools work to prevent it with
rules that forbid the use of first personand as a result can be eradication of the writers
authority. Writing becomes rules rather than ideas (111). Children and adults lose their voice
and their ability to think independently, so rather than becoming literate, meaningful explorers of
text, schools without positive sponsors, like already in place with reading sponsors, exhibit and
curbs written thought. If writing has to be found, like Dunbar-Odom, Brodkey and many others
suggest, and its successful on the small amount done now, with all the negative sponsors
introduced concerning writing, think how writing can become if given positive sponsorships in
schools.
So, instead of giving up more of negative aspects of writing and more rules and
assessment, we should focus on success stories revolving around writing. Essentially, writing
becomes a crux of action in literacy acquisition, so why not encourage more?
Long Term Growth in Literacy
Even in the Elements (and Pleasures) of Difficultys, chapter 6, Writing and Reading the
Personal Essay, the author presents the personal narrative as an evolution, a type of scaffolding
using Montaigne as an example, for progressing and growing writing literacy into the academic
writing required in college and beyond without losing the desire and attitude. Consequently, the
personal impact writing should have on the individual enables us to capture more precisely than
before the interdependence of reading and writing (97). This allows you to incorporate your

Berry 15
own purposes and inclinations, finding relevance and growth to academic writing, not providing
such hard lines between reading and writing for pleasure versus reading and writing for learning.
In On Reading, Ken Goodman writes a vignette about Sarah, about how she was
encouraged to write for fun, without rules and wrong or right. She first developed a love and
desire for writing that was not hindered or given negative feedback. As her general literacy
developed, so did her writing naturally. Her writing began to follow rules because she started
copying others and applying her natural literacy education to her writing. There was no one who
stomped on her fun, rather they merely encouraged her and eventually this writing scaffolded her
writing, so that it could develop positively and grow more academically with a base love for
writing. Not only did her love of writing contribute to her strong writing skills, but also the
methods surrounding her positive writing experiences were able to contribute to her growth.
These methods included positive encouragement of what she already knew versus ignoring or
downgrading it, and also allowing her to blend her writing environment with the academic one
(bringing her own tools and resources). Positive sponsors allowed her to approach new levels of
writing in positive and malleable ways (Goodman 130, 133).
With valuable lessons, and focused research, we can easily see how positive writing
sponsors not only improve literacy as a child, but how they can continue to build critical thinking
and communication as an adult. Scaffolding a love and malleable understanding for writing goes
deeper than the current writing assignment or the next grade level. It inspires a more profound
and multi-faceted usefulness in later life. Whether found in a career, or as a student taking postsecondary classes, fully developed and meaningful writing is the key to long-term success.
The Need for Writing Programs/ Initiatives

Berry 16
Donna Dunbar-Odom expands on Brandts idea about literary sponsors, and how without
them, students tend to struggle even in college settings. Literacy growth needs support and that
includes students of all ages who need mentoring and support because writing in literacy is not
only an escape for students, but also contributes to our senses of who we are (35). Brandts
idea of sponsorship becomes critical when we realize how true it is, and how writing lacks
sponsorship in schools. Drawing on Mike Roses experience, Dunbar-Odom states that we see
that a working class students rise happens with the help of a lot of sponsorship (37).
Sponsorship, when given the opportunity, can make things happen; literacy at its best needs a
sponsor.
Understandably, schools should be able to see how well positive writing sponsors could
impact literacy and writing within students literacy growth, so it seems only natural that classes
with journal keeping and creative writing become viable steps towards more complete literacy
in schools, especially when given by supportive, constructive, and encouraging teachers. As
Brandt continues to point out in her example with Vi Yang, writing needs encouragement and
acknowledgement to grow. (158) Even though Brandt cannot seem to find examples of writers
being encouraged at an early age on a regular basis, or viewing writing as a feasible goal- it is
precisely this reason that there needs to be a wider acceptance and reinforcement for writing- we
have to overcome the generations of partiality towards reading already ingrained in our society.
Having writing not valued as a norm in our society seems to be suppressing imagination,
creativity, and especially, deeper literacy.
Although there is not one specific way that writing literacy needs to be established in
institutions across the world, the possibilities for encouragement and constructive sponsorship
are seemingly endless. The need to inspire children early in life, to grow a love for writing can

Berry 17
stem from using real writing, utilizing a childs own experiences and culture. Seeking out
writing as a fun activity, with friendly, not highly competitive and regulated, contests or rewards
can open up possibilities. Summer reading programs provide an interesting base to start writing
programs with. Just the idea of having a public writing center like we have public libraries can
change intrinsic thought processes in children. Seeing reading and writing emphasized side by
side, as equals, could go a long way. One integral idea that will, of course, have much resistance
from teachers who are already strapped for time and resources, is the doing away with multiple
choice questions. Why do we encourage the laziness and lack of critical thinking? Students who
think without being given answers, and answer without regulated, short, robotic, objective
answers are more likely to grow used to the idea of writing as a necessary, innate part of life.
There are infinite amounts of ways that writing can be stimulated, just as there are ways to kill
the desire to write. Teachers, parents, professionals, and society alike should all be cognizant of
the importance and consequence of an intrinsic, naturally-grown writing ability.
Conclusion
As I combed through the works on literacy and recalled how they extoll the importance
of it and give reams of specific examples regarding reading, I find that the importance of writing
is still there, beneath the subtext. Each time the literary discourse is continued, brought in and
discussed, criticized or even praised, the author cites someone else usually by starting with He
writes or She writes Where would the relevance be or even discussion of literacy be
without the writing, the sharing, the communicating? It is still there, the heart of it all.
Consequently, writing becomes the silent partner, the burdened back of Atlas that we sustain a
need for literacy with. It is the less sensationalized, uglier, not talked about stepsister.

Berry 18
What would happen if we brought her out of the shadows? What would happen if we
placed her on the pedestal next to Reading and allowed her to gain prominence, to spotlight the
good she can create and allow her to flourish under the pencil of the child down the street. Are
the negative thoughts, ideas, sponsors all associated with writing because of writing or are they
lumped there because thats where we are comfortable with the beast that writing can become? Is
this our own inherent bias- accepting the status quo of writing literacy? Reading echoes with
passivity in learning and escape from reality, but writing indicates growth, movement and
boldness. Are we ready for the boundaries to be broken? Can we make the glass slipper happen
for the ugly stepsister?

Berry 19

Works Cited
Brandt, Deborah. Literacy in American Lives. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. Print.
Dunbar-Odom, Donna. Defying the Odds: Class and the Pursuit of Higher Literacy. Albany:
State U of New York, 2007. Print.
Goodman, Kenneth S. On Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1996. Print.
"Literacy." Def. 1. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. Dec. 2014.
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literacy>.
Rosenblatt, Louise M. Literature as Exploration. New York: Modern Language Association of
America, 1995. Print.
Salvatori, Mariolina Rizzi., and Patricia Donahue. The Elements (and Pleasures) of Difficulty.
New York: Pearson Longman, 2005. Print.
United States. National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. The
Neglected "R": The Need for a Writing Revolution. N.p.: The CollegeBoard. April 2003.
Web. 30 Nov. 2014.
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf
Yagelski, Robert P. "Writing as Praxis." English Education 44.2 (2012): 188-204. ProQuest.
Web. 1 Dec. 2014.