Book Club 1: "Reading Don't Fix No Chevys"

The authors of "No Chevys" claim that there is a problem with boys underperforming in literacy. They provide statistical evidence to support this claim, but the authors state their purpose oddly, in my opinion--that attention has been brought to the troubles girls have been having in math and sciences and now the time has come to address the problem of literacy with boys. Stated this way, it seems to be a response to recent feminist arguments on education, but the authors explicitly state that the "book is not another entry in the gender wars." Fair enough, but it does raise the eyebrows.

Nonetheless, the authors do competently enter a conversation, though it becomes a bit convoluted as they seem to address all possible ways of framing their study. Gender, violence, masculinity, critical theory, history, structuralism: all are used as entry points into the project, which is confusing until reading further reading suggest that they settle on traditional social contexts of boys' education. They then interview various students from different regions to collect data on their literacy.

The authors establish an integrated reading and writing perspective, using Vygotksy as a basis for literacy as a sociocultural model. The idea that students move from novice to expert is an improvement upon the labels "beginner" and "remedial." In any case, the authors discuss the importance of the idea of "flow" as conceived by Csikszentmihalyi. It is in line with parts of Sugie Goen's objectives from "Integrated Reading and Writing," that enjoyment, satisfaction, and confidence are a part of a student's literacy. For me, this raises the question of whether one must enjoy their literacy to be competent. I will come back to this question because I think it is worth discussing in the context of the stakes of literacy.

During their interviewing process, the authors uncover useful insights into boys' literacy. The students understand the importance of reading (and education in general) but mostly as instrumental in preparing for some future success instead of an immediate experience of successful learning. I think that this is the crux of the whole book. Are students interested in inquiry when it doesn't seem to inform their future vocations? The implications are similar to Alfie Kohn's ideas of creating non-readers. As long as reading is perceived as schoolish, there is a disconnect between its immediate value and its usefulness in getting a job. The students interviewed revealed interesting clues as to why this is. Characteristics that seemed important to them were 1)having clear goals 2) feedback and 3) focus on the immediate experience. It seems with reading, if we teachers can engage students as colleagues and read as a social act in conversation with something important in the student's immediate environment, we will have higher success in having them understand the value of reading in their lives.

My inquiry into this book will continue, and I hope to be able to contend with their data for strengths and especially weaknesses and unanswered questions.