I like Andrew's use of quotes around public, because it isn't truly the public who is making these decisions. It is specialized interest groups and policy makers driven by either ideology and/or special interest groups (see Walker, Wisconsin). In this light, I think we need to ask what needs does it serve for those who are in decision making positions. Given that many of them make their decisions for financial gain, I would argue that these definitions of literacy probably serve their financial gain – Pearson loved the unrolling of the new CCLS it wiped clean and re-opened for profiteering an entire textbook market (print and online) that had previously been saturated. I think they would be strong advocates for this change in the definition of minimum literacy.

At the same, and possibly contradictory, time, given the polarization, fragmentation and siloing of discourse because of online communication modes, we legitimately need new definitions of literacy. Definitions that address the unique needs of these new modes, as well as the universal needs of human communication and societal needs for functional cohesion. I think that the CCLS push towards argument tries to address some of these needs. In new modes of communication where the loudest, most media savvy voices gain followings and power, critical judgment of argument and evidentiary reasoning are desperately needed.

How do we reconcile these ideas? Why does the public seem to support these definitions of literacy? See Myers last chapter about parental resistance to literacy practices. (298-9)

"There appear to be social class differences..."

What do we make of the fact that we have now entered a social class discrepancy greater than any other time in the history of the U.S.?

A similar push towards a more regressive model happened at the turn of the 20th century when "Cubberly won out," and Haley, the "first national organizer of the newly established American Federation of Teachers, warned that creating schools structured like factories could shift expertise in teaching away from teachers, where it was anchored during recitation literacy, to the new administrators and the nonteaching bureaucrats of Cubberly's model of schooling" (85). This has amazing parallels to what we have seen over the last 15 years. The question I have is why did Cubberly win out?

I think that David Bartholomae's argument may have relevance in some of our current experiences – the publishing industry benefits from the analytic/decoding model's notions of "objectivity." It is much easier for the publishing industry to produce texts and assessments that cleave to the appearance of 'objectivity' without having to deal with social-political questions. It is easier to sell books and tests when you aren't dealing with topics and questions of "the riots in African American communities in the 1960s" (92) or in 2015.

We also see Hirsch's ideas about composition at play in this. Testing companies prefer definitions of literacy that allow for easily assessable writing. "Our results to date suggest that an assessor can accurately score relative readability after a few days of practice" (94). If students are taught to write in ways that rely on implied meaning, silences, and spaces of ambiguity, College Board is going to have a hell of a time scoring their essays. They, and other testing companies (I'm looking at you Pearson), aren't going to let these complications get in the way of their profits without a fight (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-08-18/not-for-profit-college-board-getting-rich-as-fees-hit-students). My apologies to my friends at College Board and Pearson.

, or the complexities of meaning and interpretation that are part of the critical/transformational model. Anything that strongly benefits the publishing industry is going to automatically become educationally beneficial in the eyes of the people making educational policy decisions.

Yet here we are on a discussion forum.