This first half of this article vexes me, because although I have to agree with most of what the authors posit, almost all of it seems very idealistic. For example, right from the start, they claim, “Pedagogy is a teaching and learning relationship that creates the potential for building learning conditions leading to full and equitable social participation” (60). So, where are these particular writers teaching, because although this is a wonderful idea, it is in no way a reality for students that are a part of society, today. Of course we can create the potential for equitable social participation, but we as instructors cannot accomplish this by ourselves. The nature of pedagogy is far rooted in the idea that reading and writing alone is the sure-fire way to instruct, so with that said, literacy is in no way equitable for all, because SES makes it very difficult for all students to be placed in the same educational categories as more affluent students. Their lives are very different, so their skills and experiential knowledge is different as well.

On page 61, they talk about two key points they want to address: one regarding the multifaceted approach to literacy and pedagogy with regard to culturally and linguistically diverse societies and that pedagogy accounting for burgeoning varieties of text, including multimedia technologies. The first point is obvious and I don’t think professionals that I know would argue this point. However, the following point, although valid, is one that we probably wouldn’t argue whether it is valid or not, but would definitely argue that it’s almost impossible to accomplish in one lifetime. I hear many theorists argue that we must account for and meet the needs of our students by providing them with the necessary exposure to burgeoning multimodal/multimedia technologies, yet knowing what the state of education is in this country, and knowing and experiencing the budget constraints, particularly within the last few years, how can we posit such a tall order?

How can we make these demands of the field, when we know that the resources needed to complete this task is not only unavailable, but is almost a farce in its existence? Then, I come across the following:

“The prevailing sense of anxiety is fueled in part by the sense that, despite goodwill on the part of educators, despite professional expertise, and despite the large amounts of money expended to develop new approaches, there are still vast disparities in life chances — disparities that today seem to be widening still further” (61). Okay…..DUH!!! This is exactly what I pointed out above. If we know this, then proposing a “programmatic manifesto” is a great resource for us to share amongst one another, especially when designing our curriculum, but our expectations of what this said manifesto can achieve, administratively is somewhat disheartening (73).

However, the article points out some very valuable key terms for me, such as, programmatic manifesto, glass ceiling (already been established via feminist theory, but I like it anyway) civic pluralism, conversationalization, and lifeworlds. I have to admit, lifeworlds encompasses much here in my opinion and I chose to utilize the term in my curriculum analysis, because it is our own lifeworlds that determines how we use literacy and where we internalize it. There is still a copious amount of information to unpack in this article, so I go forth with budding enthusiasm.